GANASALA GURUMURTHI Vs. Y S PRAKASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Y. S. Prakasa Rao, Executive Officer of Sri Satyanarayanaswami Temple, Kasimkota, filed M.P. No. 84 of 1963 in M.P. No. 71 of 1963 on the file of the Munsif-Magistrate, Narasapatnam, for being substituted in place of one Bhima Rao. The sole respondent, Ganasala Gurumurthy, opposed the petition. The learned Munsif-Magistrate allowed the petition. Ganasala Gurumurthy filed Crl R.P. No. 13 of 1963 before the Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The latter dismissed that revision petition. Thereupon Ganasala Gurumurthy filed this revision petition in this Court.

(2.) One Bhima Rao was appointed under section 58, clause (5) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowmens Act (Madras Act XIX of 1951) as applied to Andhra Pradesh as a ' fit person ' to discharge the functions of a trustee of the temple pending the framing of a scheme for the temple. He filed M.P. No. 120 of 1962 in the Court of the Munsif-Magistrate, Yelamanchili, under section 87 of the Act against Ganasala Gurumurthy who was a hereditary trustee of the same temple requesting for an order for delivery of possession of the records of the temple. The learned Munsif-Magistrate, after due enquiry, passed an order on 1st December, 1962, directing delivery of the records as prayed for to Bhima Rao. The latter tried to get possession of the records with the help of that order. He filed M.P. No. 13 of 1963 to enforce the order in M. C. No. 120 of 1962 by summoning the respondent (Ganasala Gurumurthy) and causing production of the records and other documents. The respondent contested the petition and filed a counter. The case (M.P. No. 13 of 1963) was subsequently transferred by the District Court to the file of the learned Munsif-Magistrate, Narasapatnam, and became M.P. No. 71 of 1963 on the file of the latter. By that time, a scheme was framed for the temple and Y.S. Prakasa Rao was appointed Executive Officer under the scheme. Thereby Prakasa Rao became entitled to have possession of the records in place of Bhima Rao who ceased to be so entitled. Prakasa Rao filed M.P. No. 84 of 1963 for being substituted in place of Bhima Rao.

(3.) The respondent filed a counter contending that there was no provision for substitution of name in the H.R. and C.E. Act and that, therefore, the relief prayed for could not be granted. Thus, the only question was whether in law Prakasa Rao could continue the proceedings which had been originally filed by Bhima Rao. It was contended before the learned Munsif-Magistrate that there was not only change in the name of the person but also a change in the office in the sense that, in the place of a 'fit person' appointed under section 58 (5), there was an Executive Officer who had been appointed under the scheme.