ANJANEYA SWAMI TEMPLE NANDIKOTKUR Vs. BADDULA LAKSHMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment of our learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J. dated 1-9-1977 in Appeal No. 29/75 confirming the decree of the Additional subordinate judge, Kurnool, in O.S. No. 98/68 dismissing the suit with costs.

(2.) The subject-matter of the suit is Ac. 29-65 cents of agricultural land comprised in S. Nos. 625 and 594 of Nandikotkur in Kurnool District. The plaintiff Sri Anjaneyaswami Temple, represented by its Executive Officer, claimed title to the property on the basis that the title of the temple has been recognised by the Inam Commissioner who granted title deed No. 2793; that the 4th defendant and his father Pullaiah were allowed to enjoy the income of the land in lieu of the services rendered by them; neither the 4th defendant nor his father Pullaiah was the hereditary Archakas; after the enforcement of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams Abolition Act, 1956, the Inam Tahsildar, after due enquiry, granted a patta in favour of the temple; the predecessors -in-interest of the 4th defendant sold the suit land in favour of defendants 1 and 2 which led to disputes regarding the possession between the the temple on the one hand and the defendants on the other hand; in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. the 3rd defendant was held to be in possession of the property at the material date. The suit was, therefore, filed for a declaration of the plaintiffs title and for recovering possession thereof together with profits.

(3.) Defendants 2 and 4 remainded exparte. During the pendency of the suit, the 4 the defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 5 and 6. Defendants 1 and 3 contested the suit claiming that the land was granted as a personal inam to the predecessors -in-interest of the 4th defendant who were the hereditary Archakas of the temple and the plaintiff-temple is not the owner of the property; defendants 1 and 2 have purchased the land and the 3rd defendant is in possession as a lessee; the order of the Inam Tahsildar dated 30-4-1959 is without jurisdiction and not binding on the 4th defendant.