SARVESWARASWAMY VARI TEMPLE AT KAKARAMILLI Vs. RUDRAPAKA VEERABHADRAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the Judgment of the Subordinate judge, Narasapur, in O.S. No. 84 of 1953. The plaintiffs who are appellants before us were appointed as trustees of Sree Sarveswaraswami Vari Temple at Kakaramilli by the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Eluru, by his order dated 2nd September, 1951. They instituted the present suit for a declaration that the properties set out in Schedule A, B and Cattached to the plaint belong to the temple, for delivery of possession of the suit properties, for mesne profits, accounts and other ancillary reliefs.

(2.) Defendants 1 and 2 claim to be the hereditary archakas of the temple. Defendants 3 to 5 are stated in the plaint to be the lessees of defendants 1 and 2. The 3rd defendant, however, filed a written statement claiming that about three years ago he paid Rs. 4,850 to the defendants 1 and 2 for the sale of items 5 and 6 of A schedule and had been since then in possession of those items as purchaser. Defendants 4 and 5 are the lessees of certain other items of A schedule. The 6th defendant, claims to be the mortgagee of half of items 3 to 6 of A schedule under an instrument of mortgage executed by the first defendant. Defendants I and 2 filed a written statement alleging that items 3 to 6 of the plaint A schedule and item 1 of the plaint B schedule did not belong to the temple, but that they were the personal properties of the archakas. As regards items I and 2 of the A schedule,defendants I and 2 allege that they were granted to their ancestors burdened with service, that they had been in possession thereof in their own right from time immemorial, that the kudivaram rights in those properties were vested in them, and that in any event they cannot be evicted without making a proper and fair provision for them to cover the expenses of the daily worship and naivedyam in the temple and for the remuneration of their services. Defendants 4, to 6 were set ex parte at the trial.

(3.) On the pleadings, the learned Subordinate Judge settled as many as 20 issues but for the purpose of this appeal only issues 3 and 4 are relevant. They are in these terms : "3. Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit ? 4. Whether the jurisdiction is barred by sections 87 and 93 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act ?" The above two issues were taken up for trial and consideration by the learned Suborlnate Judge as preliminary issues. He held that his Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as it was barred under section 93 read with section 88 of Madras Act XIX of 1951. On his findings on the two preliminary issues, he dismissed the suit with costs. Hence the present appeal.