RAMAYANAM CHITTI ABBOYI, MANAGING TRUSTEE OF SRI KANCHI KAMAKSHIAMMAVARI TEMPLE Vs. SRI KAPAKAYALA SURANNA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, West Godavari, recommending that the order of the First Additional District Munsiff-Magistrate, Kowur, dated nth May, 1960, in Criminal M.P. No. 194 of 1959 be set aside and that an order under section 87 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act be issued by this Court in favour of the Managing Trustee of a temple.

(2.) In the village of Kanya Kumudavalli, there is a temple called Sri Kanchi Kamakshiammavari temple. Ramayanam Chitti Abboyi, as managing trustee of the temple, filed a petition under section 87 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XIX of 1951), hereinafter referred to as "˜the Act' praying for delivery of properties, consisting of four items of land. Along with the petition, the petitioner filed a certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, which was to the effect that the lands in dispute belonged to the temple. Respondents 1 to 3 remained ex-parte. Respondents 4 to 7 raised various contentions. The learned Munsif-Magistrate framed four points for decision as follows :

(3.) On Point No. 1 the learned Magistrate answered it in the affirmative. He pointed out that even the fourth respondent, as R.W. 3, admitted in cross-examination that the lands belonged to the deity and that Exhibit P-6, the certified extract of the Inam Fair Register, clearly showed that Items 2 to 4 of the lands belonged to the temple. On Point No. 2 he held that the landlords of Respondents 4 to 7 were necessary parties as they had already been made parties to proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Masulipatam. On Point No. 3 he held that though the lands belonged to the temple, those lands were granted as service inams to Respondents 1, 2 and the landlords of Respondents 4 to 7 and that the petitioner failed to prove that the landlords of Respondents 4 to 7, who had to perform services, were performing their services regularly and that, therefore, Respondents 1, 2, and 4 to 7 were entitled to be in possession of the petition schedule lands. On Point No. 4 he held that section 87 of the Act applied to the present case.