KANDURI VEERA RAGHAVA CHARYULU Vs. NALLURI JAGANNADHA CHARYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is preferred by the 1st defendant in O.S.No.442 of 1986, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Guntur.

(2.) The suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein (since died and represented by his legal representatives i.e. respondents 5 and 6) for a declaration that the appellant herein is not the hereditary trustee of Sri Sitaramaswamy Vari Temple, Muttupalli, and for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant and the Temple authorities, from holding any enquiry against the 1st respondent. Relief of injunction was also sought against the authorities of the Endowments Department, respondents 3 and 4 herein, from allowing the appellant from functioning as hereditary trustee, orto initiate disciplinary proceedings, against the 1st respondent, in respect of his 'Archakatvam' services. Through its judgment dated 16-4-1993, the trial court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.91 of 1993, on the file of the III. Additional District Judge, Guntur. The appeal was dismissed on 2-9-2000. Hence, the Second Appeal.

(3.) Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the disputes in relation to the hereditary trustee etc., at the relevant point of time, were required to be adjudicated under Section 77 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (Act 17 of 1966, for short 'the Old Act'). He submits that the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987, for short 'the New Act') has replaced the Old Act, and that an analogous provision, being Section 87, was incorporated in it for resolution of such disputes. He submits that in both the enactments, the filing of suits in relation to such matters was barred, and despite the same, the courts below have entertained the suit and granted the relief. He submits that on merits also, the rights of the appellant and his father were recognized in the proceedings before the civil Courts as well as through entries in the registers maintained, under the relevant provisions of both the Acts. Learned counsel further points out that the 1st respondent did not claim the right of hereditary trusteeship and in that view of the matter, the very relief in the suit was unfounded. He contends that the only purpose, for which the suit was filed, was to prevent the enquiry into the acts of indiscipline against the 1st respondent.