CHUNDURU CHENCHURAMAIAH SETT Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ANDHRA PRADESH KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is on behalf of the unsuccessful plaintiff, whose suit under Section 62 of the Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments Act for declaration that item 1 of the schedule was the absolute property of the members of the Chunduru family and the performance of the charities mentioned in the document dated 18-12-1887 was only a charge on the income thereof and that item 2 of the schedule was the absolute property of his family and not part of the specific endowment, has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Nellore on 27/02/1961.

(2.) The allegation of the plaintiff-appellant was that item 1 of the plaint schedule bearing old S. No. 405 was a tope jointly belonging to the members of Chunduru family, of Nawabpet that the family then consisted of five branches, that on 18-12-1887 the members of Chunduru family executed among themselves a registered agreement to the effect that from the income of the tone, ubhayams or the performance of Mukkoti Ekadasi and Dwadasi in Sri Ranganadhaswami temple Nellore should perpetually be performed and that the existing trees in the tope might be cut and sold away if they become old and useless and new trees be planted, and the tope improved and that vacant sites might be let pit for ground-rent or be sold for house-building purposes, that necessary repairs to the tope might be carried out from the income, that after meeting the expenses of the ubhayams in Sri Ranganadhaswamy temple, and the maintenance and repairs of the tope, the balance, if any, should be utilised for the performance of some charities in the temple of Sri Kesavaswami in Nawabpet, Nellore. The then sharers of the tope constituted themselves as the managers. Later on different members of Chunduru family were in management of the same. On 27-2-46, the plaintiff was entrusted with the management and before him one Chunduru Rajamannar was the manager. Since the fruit-bearing trees in the tope died, about three acres thereof had been converted into wet and the remaining area cultivated as garden land. The plaintiff had been leasing it out and collecting rents from the tenants and attending to the performance of the Ubhayam in the temple of Sri Ranganadhaswami and had been also paying the land taxes. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that item 2 of the plaint schedule was a distinct and separate plot of land measuring Ac. 2-52 and was independent of the tope described as item 1 of the schedule and was part of old S. Nos. 403 and 404 having been acquired by Chunduru Govindu Chetti his paternal uncle that ever since the purchase item 2 had been in separate and exclusive enjoyment of Govindu Chetti and subsequently in the possession of the plaintiffs family as successor-in-interest, that recently it came to his knowledge that in the survey, items 1 and 2 were clubbed together and surveyed as C. A. S. No. 164 showing the extent as Acres 6-79 cents. He denies that it is part of the tope, it was further averred that though the ubhayams were performed by him to the satisfaction of the temple authorities and the public from out of the income of item 1, the third defendant began creating obstacles. According to him, in 1955, the third defendant managed to obtain Srimukham from the temple authorities jointly in his name and the plaintiff and when he protested, the third defendant started taking hostile attitude and instigated the tenants to evade payment of the makthas. Consequent to that, the plaintiff filed suits against the tenants making the third defendant as a party. Thereafter, the third defendant filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments under Section 57 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act alleging both the items of the plaint schedule formed the specific endowment. In spite of the contest of the plaintiff the Deputy Commissioner declared that both the items constituted the specific endowment for the performance of the ubhayams and an appeal preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed.

(3.) The plaintiff denies that items 1 and 2 both constituted specific endowment and states that item 2 is not part of the endowment. He also denies that item 1 was also dedicated and states that there was no dedication of the land, as such there was only a charge for the performance of charities from the income of item 1. The plaintiff therefore seeks a declaration that item 2 is the absolute property of the plaintiff and not part of the dedication and also that there was no dedication of the land of item 1 but only a charge for the performance of charities on the income from item 1.