[1] There is nothing here to suggest that the inam was granted by the temple authorities. Ex. D is the title-deed given by the Government to the person doing service in the temple, and makes the title conditional on the fulfilment of the terms of the grant. There is no ground on which the temple trustees can intervene to prevent the alienation of the inam. No doubt the Government might resume and regrant it if moved to do so, and it may be that if the present servant who is responsible for the alienation were removed from office, her successor in the office could recover the inam on the principle enunciated in Pakkiam Pillay v. Seetharama Vadhyar (1908) 14 M.L.J. 134. But the trustees cannot recover possession of the land in the present suit and we must reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismiss the suit. Parties pay their own costs throughout.
Matte Sarayya v. Vepparathi Vydynatham
Matte Sarayya v. Vepparathi Vydynatham
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Second Appeal No. 2215 Of 1912 | 21-04-1914
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MILLER
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SADASIVA AYYAR
Eq Citations
- (1914) 27 MLJ 57
- 27 IND. CAS. 163
- AIR 1915 MAD 226
- LQ/MadHC/1914/190
Head Note
Hindu and Muslim Religious and Charitable Endowment — Inam — Nature of inam — Inam granted by Government to person doing service in temple — Title-deed conditional on fulfilment of terms of grant — Held, there is no ground on which temple trustees can intervene to prevent alienation of inam — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 92
