PUJARI VENKATASUBBAIAH Vs. MADDULETI NARASIMHA SWAMI TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 27th November, 1991 in O.S. No.15 of 1979 on the file of the II Additional Judge, Kurnool. The suit was originally filed and numbered as O.S.No.9 of 1976 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Kurnool. The plaintiff- temple represented by the Executive Officer filed a suit for recovery of possession of the temple lands shown in the schedule situated in Rangapuram, Gutupalle and Katikavanipalle villages from the defendants who claim to be the Poojaris of the temple. It is the claim of the temple mat the temple is the absolute owner of the property and that it is a grant given to the temple. The defendants claim that it is a grant given to the Archakas burdened with service. They claim that as they have been performing services regularly and efficiently, they are entitled to be in possession of the properties. They also claim that no separate emoluments were fixed for their Archakatvam services and the income from the lands constitute their emoluments. Hence they cannot be evicted. The trial Court framed seven issues as indicated in the judgment and one additional issue. After an elaborate consideration, the trial Court recorded the following findings.

(2.) On Issue No.1, the trial Court held that, on consideration of the entries in the Inam Fair Register and the Inam B-Register and other material on the record, the temple has got title to the suit lands. On Issue No.2 which relates to the question whether the decision of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar and the appellate authority and the High Court judgment conferring the ryotwari in favour of the plaintiff-temple is final and conclusive, the Court held in favour of the defendants. Mainly relying upon the decision reported in Pedda Govindaiah vs. Subba Rao, the Court held that the scope of the enquiry under the Inams Abolition Act is not conclusive, it does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. On Issue No.3, it held that the original grant of the suit lands was not made for the benefit of the defendants' predecessors, namely, the Poojaris. On Issue No.4, the Court held that the plaintiff is not estopped to contend that it is the owner of the plaint schedule lands. On Issue No.5, the Court rejected the claim of the defendants making improvements to the plaint schedule lands and held that they are not entitled to recover Rs.20,000/- which they claim to recover. On the additional issue framed on 27-1-1981, the Court held that the claim for recovery of the possession of the suit lands is not barred by res judicata. On the other hand, the decision of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board determining that the suit lands belong to plaintiff-temple operates as res judicata in the present suit and the defendants cannot contend that the suit lands are not temple lands and that the plaintiff cannot take possession of the suit lands. Accordingly, the Court held on Issue No.6 that the plaintiff would be entitled to evict the defendants from the suit lands. The suit was decreed directing defendants 1 to 10 and 12 to 28 to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule lands to the plaintiff.

(3.) In this appeal Sri R. Prasad, appearing for the appellants, contends that the entire matter hinges upon the entries in the Inam Fair Register and the effect of the earlier litigation. He contends that this is a case of grant being given to the Poojaris burdened with service and it is not a case of grant to the deity. He relies upon the entries in the Inam fair Register to substantiate his claim and points out that the names of the Poojaris existing at that time being entered in the clumns is a clear indication of this. He also contends that the decision of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar which has been confirmed in appeal and which has been affirmed in W.P. No.4568 of 1972 is not conclusive and the Civil Court is certainly entitled to decide the same question once again. He also contends that the scheme suit and the scheme framed under Section 57 of the H.R. & C.A. Act (old Act) is no bar for the defendants contending that the property is the property of the Poojaris and it is a grant burdened with service. He places reliance upon a few decisions in support of his arguments.