PAGIDALA NANDAMMA Vs. NANDYAL BHAJANA MANDIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two issues of general interest and, perhaps, of importance are raised in these second appeals which stem out of two Original Suits Nos. 13 and 14 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Nandyal. They are : 1. What are the essential requirements to effect dedication and divest oneself of his private proprietory interest for making the property, endowed property : 2. What is the true and correct legal concept of a 'temple' as defined in clause 17 of section 6 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951.

(2.) For a proper appreciation of the issues arising for decision, it is necessary to set out shortly the history of the matter leading to this litigation : The building bearing Door No.282/2 of Nandyal Town originally belonged to one Vantla Nandi Reddy. He had purchased the same for Rs. 600 on 25th October, 1923 from one Pendekanti Seshaiah. Since the date of purchase, he was using it as a residential house. Nandi Reddy died in the year 1932. After Nandi Reddy's death, his wife, Vantla Nagamma, the plaintiff in O.S.'No. 15 of 1967 became the absolute owner of the property and continued to be in possession of the building. In the municipal registers also, the house stood in the name of Vantla Nagamma and she has been paying the taxes for the house.

(3.) One Aireddy Nagireddy filed an application before the Hindu Religous and Charitable Endowments Board alleging that the house bearing Door No.282/2 of Nandyal Town is a 'Bhajana Mandiram' and got himself appointed as a trustee of the 'Bhajana Mandiram'. Thereafter, as a trustee, Nagireddy filed O.A.No. 191 of 1953 before the Deputy Commissioner under section 87 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Vantla Nagamma contested the said petition on the ground that the house in question was never dedicated to any 'Bhajana Mandiram' either by her or by her hsusband, Nandi Reddy, was never used as a public place of worship and that it is her own private property. However, the Deputy Commissioner issued a certificate under section 87 on 6th April, 1956. Aggrieved against the said order, Nagamma filed a revision petition before the Commissioner in R.P.No.22 of 1966. The same was also dismissed. On the strength of the Certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagireddy styling himself as the Executive Officer of the said 'Bhajana Mandiram', filed M.C.No. 40 of 1957 before the Judicial First Glass Magistrate, Nandyal, for directing delivery of possession of the religious institution. During the pendency of the petition, Nagamma filed O.S.No.13 of 1957 on the file of the District Munsif, Nandyal, for a declaration of her right to the plaint schedule property, namely, the building bearing Door No. 282/2 of Nandyal Town, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, namely, the Nandyal Bhajana Mandiram represented by the Executive Officer, Sri P. Nagireddy from taking possession of the same. The Executive Officer of the defendant--'Bhajana Mandiram' filed a written statement contending inter alia that the plaintiff's husband , Nandi Reddy never used the said house as a residential house, that the suit building and the site were dedicated to the public as 'Bhajana Mandiram' for daily 'bhajana' by the husband of the plaintiff and another Vantla Chinna Nagircddy long prior to 1930, that the building was jointly Braised by them and that since the dedication the members of the Hindu Public recognised and used the building everyday as a place of public worship. It was further averred that the plaintiff never acquired title to the suit property and was never in possession and enjoyment of the same, that the mutation in the Municipal registers was obtained fraudulently by the plaintiff to defeat the interests of the trust, that the suit property was in possession of one P. Nandamma as a trustee till recently and that it was exempted from municipal tax even during the life-time of Nandi Reddy.