VENKATESWARASWAMIVARU DEVASTHANAM Vs. VELIDANDLA KANAKALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal is preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the Fist Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in Appeal Suit No. 67 of 1971 by which the learned Subordinate Judge set aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Vijayawada in Original Suit No. 406 of 1969 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs exclusive possession of the site covered by Plot Nos. 2 to 4 of the plaint plan by using the door-ways marked Q and R, therein and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to get the loose earth and stones placed at the door-way marked Q removed. According to the plaintiffs the suit property was bequeathed to the first plaintiff who is the wife of the second plaintiff by her father under a will, Ex. A-1 dated 14-4-1956. It was also alternatively pleaded that the plaintiffs have been in uninterrupted, open, notorious and exclusive possession for over 20 years with the animus of ownership in plots 2 to 4 and thereby perfected their title by the long and continuous possession to those plots. It was alleged that there is a Mandapam JKHM shown in the plaint plan which was never used by the defendant for any religious purposes of the temple for over a period of 50 years and that the officials of the defendant are threatening to interfere with the plaintiffs right to and possession of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit. The defence in the suit was that the plaintiffs have no manner of right, title or interest to the plots 2 to 4 of the plaint plan and that the said plots are owned by and have been in exclusive possession of the defendant-Devasthanam. It was also alleged that the Mandapam was used for Brahmotsavams for deity till a new Mandapam was constructed recently.

(3.) The only document filed by the first plaintiff to establish her ownership to the three plots was Ex. A-1, a copy of an unregistered will. P.W. 1 its scribe and P.W. 3, the attestor, are also examined to prove it. It is stated that the original will had become too old for preservation in Court. The testator, it appears, died. The defendant Temple filed Ex. B-1, the survey map showing alignment of survey numbers and Ex. B-2, the survey extract of the Town Survey Register showing Survey No. 353 to belong to Venkateswaraswamy Gudi. The Executive Officer has examined himself as D.W. 1. D.Ws. 2 to 4 are examined to show that the Mandapam has been in existence for the last 50 or 60 years and that Utsavams were being performed in the Mandapam till the construction of a new Mandapam inside the temple about 15 years ago. The trial court, on a consideration of the entire evidence in the case held : 1. That the first plaintiff failed to establish her title to plots 2 to 4 of the plaint plan, 2. That the defendant-temple established its right to and possession of the suit sites; 3. That the concept of ownership is incompatible with and cannot co-exist with any easementary right in respect of the property when the ownership is claimed; and 4. that the suit claim is false and frivolous to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the suit was dismissed and the plaintiffs were directed to pay exemplary costs of Rs. 200 to the defendant.