VEMAREDDI RAMARAGHAVA REDDY Vs. KONDURU SESHU REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by certificate on behalf of the defendants against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, dated August 7, 1962 in Appeal Suit No. 312 of 1957.

(2.) In the village of Varagali, in the district of Nellore, there is a temple in which is enshrined the idol of Sri Kodandaramaswami. The temple was built in the middle of the last century by one Burla Rangareddi who managed the affairs of the temple and its properties during his lifetime. After is death, his son, Venkata Subbareddy was in management. By a deed dated August 19, 1898 Venkata Subbareddi relinquished his interest in the properties in favour of one Vemareddi Rangareddi whose family members are defendants 1 to 5. The plaintiff filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner for Hindu Religious Endowments, Nellore, alleging mismanagement of the temple and its properties by the first defendant. Notice was issued to the 1st defendant to show cause why the temple properties should not be leased out in public auction and the first defendant contested the application alleging that the properties were not the properties of the temple but they belonged to his family. After enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner submitted a report to the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, recommending that a scheme of management may be framed for the administration of the temple and its properties. The Board thereafter commenced proceedings for settling a scheme and issued notice to the 1st defendant to state his objections. The 1st defendant reiterated his plea that the temple was not public temple. The Board held an enquiry and by its order, dated October 5, 1949 held that the temple was a public one. On January 8, 1950 the 1st defendant filed O. P. No. 3 of 1950 on the file of the District Judge. Nellore, (1) for setting aside the order of the Board, dated October 5, 1949 declaring the temple of Sri Kodandaramaswamivari as a temple defined in Section 6, Clause 17 of the Act, (2) for a declaration that the temple was a private temple and (3) for a declaration that the properties .set out in the schedule annexed to the petition were the personal properties of his family and they did not constitute the temple properties. Originally, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowment Board, Madras, was impleaded as the sole respondent in the petition. The present plaintiff later on got himself impleaded as the 2nd respondent therein. Both the respondents contested the petition on the ground that the temple was a public temple and that the properties mentioned in the schedule were the properties of the temple and not the personal properties of the 1st defendant. For reasons which are not apparent on the record the petition was not disposed of for a number of years. In the meantime Madras Act II of 1927 was repealed and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951 was enacted. Then came the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh. By reason of these changes the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments in the State of Andhra Pradesh was impleaded as the 1st respondent to the petition. Thereafter there was a compromise between the petitioners 1 to 5 on the one hand and the Commissioner, the 1st respondent on the other. The District Judge, Nellore, recorded the compromise and passed a decree in terms thereof by his order, dated October 28, 1954.

(3.) The material clauses of the compromise decree, Ex. B-11 are as follows: