ANJANEYASWAMIVARI TEMPLE Vs. SATYAVATHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reversing Judgment. The plaintiff is the appellant. It is the institution of Sri Anjaneyaswamy temple. It filed the suit for declaration of title of the plaint Schedule property after setting aside the alienation under the deed Ex-B-8 dated November 2, 1962 and for possession and meine profits. The trial court decreed the suit, but on appeal it was reversed. Against this reversing Judgment, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) The essential facts for the present appeal are that the 2nd defendant is the Chairman of the Managing Trust Board of the tample & a resolution has been passed under Ex-A-1 dated September 27, 1969, in which the 2nd defendant is stated to have admitted that the temple is the owner of the land of his predecessors in title has constructed a house. This admission was sought to be made use of against the 2nd defendant purchaser under Ex.A-8, contending that the 2nd defendant having admitted title of the temple is now estopped to resile therefrom and in view of the admission made by him the trial court rightly granted a decree and the appellate court has committed error of law in reversing this decree.

(3.) I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard, It is true that the 2nd defendant is Chairman at the relevant time and both the Courts below have found that the resolution has been passed under Ex.A-1, whereunder there is an admission that the said house belongs to the temple and Ragavacharyulu, the predecessor in title of the 2nd defendants constructed the house which was purchaseed by the 2nd defendant under Ex.B-8. Both the courts have concurrently found that he is a paity to the resolution. But the question is, whether the 2nd defendant is bound thereby? Unfortunately, there is no pleading and there is no issue in this regard.