KAKUMANI AUDIKESAVULU CHETTYS CHARITIES Vs. RANGANATHASWAMY TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Second Appeal was brought by the unsuccessful plaintiffs -Sri Kakumani Audikesavulu Chetty's Charities, represented by its trustees against (i)Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple, rep.by its Executive Officer, 48, Mulla Sahib Street, Chennai -600 079, the first defendant; and (ii)Sakunthala Devi, Proprietrix of Fomra Sales Corporation, the second defendant, tenant, against the judgment and decree dated 24.1.2005 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.184/2004 confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2003 of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.320/1994.

(2.) (i) The plaintiffs/appellants herein have filed the suit (i) for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to be in Management and administration of the house and ground bearing Old Door No.57, New No.4, Narayana Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Madras 79 which is described as Vasantha Mandapam by way of specific endowment attached to the 1st defendant temple;(ii)for a direction to the defendants 1 and 2 and its Officers to deliver the vacant possession of the property set out in the schedule in the plaint; (iii)for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 and their agents from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property; and (iv)for payment of costs of the suit.

(3.) (i) The prayer of the plaintiffs/appellants was objected by the defendants/respondents contending that the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants is not maintainable for the reason that the suit property is not a specific endowment nor the same was managed by the trustees of the plaintiff. As per the gift deed dated 14.3.1885 made by Sri Kakumani Raghavalu Chetty, the suit property was absolutely donated to the first defendant temple including the right to maintain the Vasantha Mandapam and the subsequent will dated 20.7.1913 executed by Sri Kakumani Audikesavulu Chetty, the founder of the trust on 14.7.1991 mentioned therein that the expenses for the utsavams alone have to be paid by them separately. Further, it was also the case of the defendants that the suit property did not find place in the alleged will dated 20.7.1913 left by Sri Kakumani Audikesavulu Chetty under which the plaintiff trust was said to have been created. Though the suit property was in exclusive possession of the Devasthanam in the year 1913 and the descendants of Raghavalu Chetty were allowed to decorate the Mandapam and expenses for Mandapapadi was collected from them, the plaintiffs are nothing to do with the suit property.