N VENKAIAH Vs. SANGAMESWARA SWARRIY TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of an order dated 25-11-1992 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tenali in C.M. A.No. 18 of 1992, setting aside theorder dated 18-5-1992 of the Principal District Munsif, Tenali in I.A. 374 / 92 in O.S.40 / 1992 granting temporary injunction. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. First defendant is the temple. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as the plaintiffs and the defendants.

(2.) It is useful to state a few facts which have given rise to prefer this revision. The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective plots in the plaint schedule land. The case of the plaintiffs (petitioner herein) is that they are the cultivating tenants and the first defendant (respondent No.l herein) is the landlord of the suit schedule lands; they have been cultivating tenants since more than 15 years and their lease was renewed in the year 1987 by the Commissioner of Endowments by his order dated 9-1-1987. According to the plaintiffs they are in Possession of the plaint A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, schedule plots and the maktha fixed varies from one tenant to the other. The Paripalanakartha of the temple was maintaining the accounts of the temple andhe was collecting the Maktha from the plaintiffs. Subsequently disputes arose between the Paripalanakartha and the present Chairman of the temple with regard to the appointment of the members of the Trust Board. The first defendant issued a notice dated 22-10-1991 through his advocate to the plaintiffs to pay Maktha for the years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91, and for that, except the 7th plaintiff, others sent a reply notice informing the first defendant that the Paripalanakartha was collecting the Makte from them. According to the plaintiffs all of a sudden, the Chairman of the first defendant-temple announced on 11-3-1992 that he was going to auction the lease hold rights of the plaint schedule lands on 12-3-92; and some of the defendants participated in the said auction; the first defendant without following the procedure prescribed under law, for conducting the auction, leased out the lands of the temple in the auction. On 15-3-92, the defendants went to the plaint schedule lands and stated to the plaintiffs that the auction was knocked down in their favour, and tried to take possession of the plaint schedule lands, and on the resistance of the plaintiffs, the defendants went away. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants have no right to take possession of the suit schedule lands. Hence the plaintiffs filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their followers from interfering with their peaceful possessionand-enjoyment of their respective plots in the schedule land. In the said suit the plaintiffs filed I.A.374 / 92 for the issuance of the temporary injunction against the defendants. In the petition, they reiterated theaverments of the plaintand stated that the first defendantdid not take possession of the land from them and all of them raised garden crops by investing huge amounts and if they are dispossessed, they will suffer irreparable loss.

(3.) The first defendant filed a counter stating that the plaintiffs are not the cultivating tenants in respect of the suit schedule lands and that the lease approved by the Commissioner of endowments on 9-1-87 was not given effect to as the petitioner failed to execute lease agreements and as they sub-leased the lands to others. According to the first defendant, the plaintiffs neither cultivated the lands nor paid any rent to the first defendant-temple and no tenancy exists in favour of the plaintiffs. It is also stated that the plaintiffs did not pay Maktha for the year 1991-92 and the first defendant denied the renewal of the lease by the Commissioner of Endowments on 15-3-1992 in favour of the plaintiffs. The ryots voluntarily surrendered possession of the lands to the first defendant in February, 92 and wanted to take fresh leases by enhancing the Maktha and by the date of filing of the suit by the plaintiffs, defendants 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, to 18 and 22 and some others were in possession of the temple-lands and the balance of convenience is in favour of the defendants and most of them ploughed the lands and commenced agricultural operations. Defendants 6 and 8 are members of the Trust Board of the temple and defendants 3, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 29, 21 and 23 are strangers and they are in no way concerned with the temple lands. According to the first defendant, the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the conditions of the lease and they were never in possession of the schedule lands, and they are not entitled for any interim injunction. It is further stated in the counter that the Paripalanakartha was removed and the Trust Board has taken possession of the lands and the Paripalanakartha filed O.S. 125 / 91 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tenali and sought an injunction in I.A. 1310/91 restraining the Chairman and the members of the Trust Board from performing their duties and that petition was dismissed after due enquiry on 14-10-91. The first defendant also further stated that the plaintiffs filed this petition at the instigation of one Kotha Satyanarayana, the power of attorney holder of the Paripalanakartha, who has misappropriated the temple funds to a tune of Rs.7,50,000/- as evidenced by the audit report. He further stated that a single and common suit is not maintainable, that the defendants obtained lease for three years upto 31-3-1995 from the competent authority and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the relief claimed in the suit is prohibited under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act and requested the Court to dismiss the petition.