1954 (7) TMI 24 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the surrender of the suit lands by the widow.
2. Nature of the original grant (melwaram or both melwaram and kudiwaram).
3. Bar under Section 44-B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act to the maintainability of the suit.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Surrender of the Suit Lands by the Widow:
The Defendants argued that the surrender of the suit lands by Purnachandramma, the widow of Sadasivalingamurthi, was invalid because the Plaintiffs were not the next reversioners to the estate of her husband. They contended that for unenfranchised inams, the rule of succession is different from ordinary property, and neither the widow nor the divided brothers of Sadasivalingamurthi were heirs to his estate. The court rejected this contention, noting that this case was not set up in the pleadings and that the title deed (Exhibit A-1) did not prescribe any new mode of devolution different from Hindu law. The court concluded that the general law of succession must apply, and the widow was entitled to surrender her estate to the next heir, the divided brothers of her husband.

2. Nature of the Original Grant (Melwaram or Both Melwaram and Kudiwaram):
The Defendants claimed that the original grant was only the melwaram interest in the suit lands. The court examined the evidence, including the Inam title deed (Exhibit A-1), the Inam Register, and the Inam Statement (Exhibit B-1). The court found that the title deed acknowledged the title of the grantees to 7 acres 70 cents of dry land without specifying that only the melwaram interest was confirmed. The court also noted that the Inam Register and the Inam Statement did not indicate that the grant was of the melwaram alone. The court concluded that the grant was of both the warams (melwaram and kudiwaram).

3. Bar under Section 44-B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act to the Maintainability of the Suit:
The Defendants argued that Section 44-B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act barred the maintainability of the suit. The court examined the relevant portion of Section 44-B, which deals with the resumption of inams alienated in violation of the Act. The court concluded that Section 44-B does not bar a suit by a service holder to recover properties illegally alienated by his predecessors. The court also held that Section 44-B applies only to religious endowments and not to grants made to individuals burdened with service. The court cited previous judgments supporting this interpretation and concluded that Section 44-B does not apply to the present case.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the decree in favor of the Plaintiffs, allowing them to recover the suit lands and profits. The court held that the surrender by the widow was valid, the original grant included both melwaram and kudiwaram, and Section 44-B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act did not bar the maintainability of the suit.