CHIRAMANA PITCHAIAH Vs. KODANDARAMA SWAMI VARI DEVASTHANAM BUCHIREDDIPALEM KOVVUR TALUK NELLORE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These seven second appeals arise out of judgment and decrees of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kavali in A. S.Nos. 1 to 7/73 dismissing the said appeals and confirming the judgment and decrees of the learned District Munsif, Kovvur in the suit O.S.Nos.94 to 100/68 decreeing the suits of the plaintiff. These appeals were referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother Madhava Rao, J on the ground that the appeal involve important points.

(2.) In the village of Buchireddi- palem in Nellore district there exists a famous and ancient temple of Kodanda- ramaswamy. Lands have been endowed for performance of various services in the temple. One Nagulapati Raya Venkateswara Poundarika Yajula Varu executed a 'Danapatrika' (gift deed) in and by which certain extents of land in Kavetipalem were granted to Addanki Venkatacharyulu and other persons for performing various services in the temple of Sri Kodandaramaswamy Varu situated in Buehireddipalem alias Kodandaiamapuram Agraharam. On the same day, he executed another Danapatrika in and by which certain lands were directly granted to the deity Sri Kodandaramaswamy Varu. Ex B5 is the gift deed executed in 1907 in favour of Addanki Venkatacharyulu and others in respect of Kavetipalem lands. It is recited in Ex.BS that the grantees should cultivate the lands, enjoy the yield and the income therefrom from generation to generation after payment of the bariz fixed therein to the Government and perform various services to the deity. The grantees who have to perform the services were described as Acharaya Purushulu, Adhyapakulu, Veda Parayana, Swayam- pakulu and Paricharikulu. etc Thus, the recitals in the gift deed Ex.B5 make it clear that the grant was made to the persons mentioned therein for their livelihood or maintenance to be enjoyed by them absolutely from generation to generation after paying the bariz payable to the Government, but subject to the condition of performing the services in the temple. Ex.A 1 is a certified copy of the Inam Fair Register of Kavetipalem Shrotriem hearing T.D.No. 1888. The total extent of Kavetipalem Shrottiem is 446 acres out of which 25 acres ;vere taken away as minor inarh lands. Columns 16 to 18 of Ex.A1 specify the names of the inamdars, their respective shares in the inam granted to them and the services to be rendered by them. Entries 45 to 52 are the relevant entries in Ex.A1 relating to the defendants-appellants, together they have 2| shares in the lands and the same have been divided into 8 shares for rendering melam 'piper) services. Column 2 describes the Inam as Deva- dayam, meaning inam granted for religious purposes. Column 8 recites that inam was granted for reading Vedas, performance of dances, singing, beating torn torn, sweeping and other services in the temple. Column 10 reads that the inam was hereditary so long as the .service was performed. Columns 16 to 20 mention the names of the several serviceholders who were then in possession and enjoyment of the endowed lands. They also indicate the names of the proxies who were attending to the duties when the serviceholders were unable to perform the services. The entries in Columns 21 and 22 show that the Shrotriem was confirmed permanently so long as the service was performed and that they were personal grants to be enjoyed by the grantees hereditarily. The inam was thus confirmed by the Inam Commissioner to the several grantees subject to the payment of usual Jodi.

(3.) Ex. B-1 is the inam statement relating to Kavetipalem which also shows that the village was granted for the maintenance of persons rendering service in the temple. Thus; the oiig- inal grant Ex. B-5 as well as the entries in the Inam Fair Register Ex. A-1 and the inam statement Ex. B-1 go to show that the grants were made personally to the grantees to be enjoyed by them hereditarily subject to their rendering services in the temple. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Unna- maheswaram and N. D. Krishna Rao, JJ held in Balarami Reddy Vs. Jaya Singh AIR 1957 A. P. 477 in respect of very same grant covered by Ex. B-5 that the grant was made hereditarily to the grantees subject to their performing respective services in the temple. In Kodandaramaswami Temple v. Chakr- avarthula Lakshmamma Judgment in S A No. 828/68 dated 25-6-1973: AV. Krishna Rao, J, also held in respect of the same grant covered by Ex. B-5 that the grant was a personal grant burdened with the obligation of performing service. Both the lower Courts referred to the said documents and also several other documents Exs. A-48 to A-53 and came to the conclusion that the suit lands were personally granted to the grantee subject to their rendering respective services in the temple.