G SUBRAMANYAM Vs. G LEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This plaintiff's Letters Patent Appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17.04.1995 dismissing the cross-objections in A.S.No.2582 of 1989. Be it noted that, during the pendency of this appeal, the sole appellant died, and his legal representatives have been brought on record as appellants 2 and 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed in the original suit being O.S.No.211 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupati.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of his right to perform Tharigonda Vengamamba Mirasi Service in the temple of Lord Venkateswara at Tirumala, for permanent injunction, and for recovery of items 1, 2 and 3 of Plaint Schedule properties. THEse properties were originally owned by Tharigonda Vengamamba, a great devotee of Lord Venkateswara. She was rendering midnight Harathi known as 'Mutyala Harathi Service', and was celebrating Narasimha Jayanthi for ten days annually. THE service came to be recognized as mirasi service. All the successors of Tharigonda Vengamamba acquired the right to perform the said service. In 1930 or so Garmitta Gammanna performed the mirasi service. Chidambarappa was his brother. Gammanna executed a Will on 02.04.1931 bequeathing/authorizing the right to perform the mirasi service to Gandepalli Suryanarayana with a condition that the right and property would revert back to the heirs of Chidambarappa. After Suryanarayana, his son Kuppaiah Sarma performed the service. He was succeeded by his son G.V.L.N.Murthy, the husband of the first defendant. Murthy died issueless on 27.12.1981. THE plaintiff, being the son of Chidambarappa, staked his claim for the mirasi right, as well as the properties, based on Ex.B.1 Will. He issued legal notice on 16.09.1961 claiming right as successor-in-interest of Vengamamba family being the nephew of Gammanna, and then filed the suit.

(3.) The defendants 1 to 3 filed appeal. THE plaintiff filed cross-objections claiming the relief of recovery of possession of item Nos.1 and 3, which are said to have been acquired by the fourth defendant. THE learned single judge construing Ex.B.1, executed by Gammanna, as well as other evidence came to the conclusion that what was bequeathed thereunder was the right to mirasi service as a proxy on behalf of Gammanna and his successors; that, in lieu of rendering such service, the right to enjoy properties was given as consideration; and that, if the legatee under the Will failed to have male issues, the properties would revert back to the family of the plaintiff. THE learned single Judge also held that the subsequent adoption created by the first defendant would not affect the rights of the plaintiff under Ex.B.1. THE judgment of the trial Court granting the declaration was thus confirmed. But, after noticing the fact that portions of item Nos.1 and 3 of plaint 'A' schedule were acquired by the fourth defendant in respect of which compensation was already paid to the first defendant, the learned single Judge did not find fault with the trial Court Judgment in denying the relief of recovery of possession for these two items to the plaintiff. THE cross-objections were accordingly dismissed.