LAWS(APH)-1965-10-18

NALLAMOTU SIVARAMBRAHMAN Vs. VANIPURAPU SATYANARAVANA

Decided On October 14, 1965
NALLAMOTU SIVARAMBRAHMAN Appellant
V/S
VANIPURAPU SATYANARAVANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali in O.S. No. 21 of 1959, dismissing the suit. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was filed under Section 92, C.P.C. seeking reliefs in respect of an alleged charitable trust endowed for the benefit of all the villagers of Davulur, Thumulur and Kollipara villages. The subject-matter of the alleged charitable trust was a tank in the village Davulur bearing Demarcation No. 432/1, an extent of Ac. 3-93 cents. The 1st plaintiff is of Davulur; and 2nd plaintiff is of Thumulur, the 3rd plaintiff is also of Davulur; and the 4th plaintiff is Kollipara.

(2.) The plaintiffs alleged that they were interested in the tank as it was a charitable trust endowed for the benefit of all the villagers of Davulur, Thumulur and Kollipara villages. The tank was dedicated for the benefit of the villagers of the said villages. It was endowed to the public about sixty years ago. On account of the 1st defendants mismanagement for over ten years, the tank was getting silted up. A part of the tank, which got silted, was being cultivated and the income therefrom was being realised by the 1st defendant. Alleging mismanagement and misappropriation, the plaintiffs sued for removing the 1st defendant from the management of the trust and for framing a scheme for proper administration of the same by appointing new trustees and giving directions as were necessary. (The suit was laid on 30-3-1959).

(3.) The 1st defendant is a Viswabrahmin of Davulur who was in management of the tank, which is the subject-matter of this suit. He denied that the suit tank was a public charitable trust dedicated for the benefit of the villages of Davulur, Thumulur and Kollipara. According to him, it was the property of the Viswabrahmin community residing in Davulur village and that community is interested in the tank and it is their private property. Paragraph 8 of the written statement sets up the main defences to this action: