ADIRAJU HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPT KAKINADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second round that the plaintiff-appellant herein has come down to this Court on the same issue, and I hope this will be the final one. Aggrieved by the order dt, 30-11-1972 of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, first defendant in the suit, the suit is filed for setting aside the same. The averments of the plaintiff are that one Adiraju Guru Ramaiah who was a Yogi, constructed a temple on a portion of 'Pindiputta' (a hillock) within the limits of the Vijayawada Municipality. He constructed the building in Question adjacent to the East of the temple in order to serve as a residence for himself, disciples and relatives. He was performing puja in the temple. The Government initially issued 'B' forms for the unauihorised encroachments, but on his application, the Board of Revenue sanctioned the alienation of 0-13 cents of land to him and to one Sri Challapalli Narasimham Panthulu free of rent, on condition that they should use the same for the construction of the temple and the Choultry (building in question) and reserving the right to resume the grant in the event of violation of the condition Narasimham Panthulu did not take any interest. The said Yogi got constructed the temple and the house and later died on 2-10-1939. The plaintiff, who is Gururama Yogi's brother's son, used to live with him and assisted him in the performance of pujas. The plaint schedule house (choultry) was constructed by Gururama Yogi with his own money and the monies contributed by his disciples. He lived in that house treating it purely as his residence. Subsequently he opened "Rama Yogi Mutt" in the house and started teaching his disciples for a certain period. The plaintiff took up the management of the temple and performance of the daily rites of worship and lived in the adjoining building. The plaint schedule building was never used as a choultry and muchless any choultry was attached to the temple by the Yogi. The plaintiff continued to live in the same till the date of the suit.

(2.) The Railway Porters' Union was asking permission to construct a Mantapam in the temple in 1954 which the plaintiff permitted. The Union started assembling in the temple to take rest and to distribute the sundry earnings, They approached the Endowments Department and managed to get themselves to be appointed as the trustees of the temple. They evicted the plaintiff from the temple on 1-10-1956 and threatend to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit house. So, he filed a suit O.S. 544/1956 on the file of the Dist. Munsiff's Court, Vijayawada wherein the main issues were: Whether the plaintiff was entitled for a permanent injunction and whether the suit was barred under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The suit was dismissed, so also the first as well as second appeal preferred therefrom. The point that was considered by the three Courts was whether the plaintiff had title and possession to the plaint schedule property in his own right and whether he was entitled to an injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the trustees of the temple filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner (HR & CE) for granting a certificate that the plaint schedule property belongs to the temple. But it was dismissed. The suit schedule building is not within the premises of the temple. The extent of the temple will be about 0-13 cents whereas the suit schedule building is in an extent of 0-05 cents. They have separate door numbers and separate sub-divisions and house taxes were being separately paid. The trustees of the temple have no manner of right in the building. At the instance of the trustees, the Assistant Commissioner reported to the Deputy Commissioner/first defendant herein, for eviction of the plaintiff from the suit building under Sec. 75 of the Act alleging that the plaintiff was an encroacher. The first defendant after enquiring into the matter in 0.A. 102/70 allowed the petition by his order dt. 30-11-1972 directing the plaintiff to remove the encroachment within one month. It is this order that is challenged in the suit,

(3.) The averments in the written statement filed by the first defendant are that the Government alienated an extent of 0-13 cents of land to the said yogi and the said Narasimham Panthulu for construction of temple and choultry free of charges of occupancy rights and free of ground-rent with certain conditions. The yogi constructed the temple and choultry with public funds and not with his personal funds. So, if is a public charitable endowment. The plaintiff is an unauthorised occupant of the choultry. So, he has no manner of right to remain there. In fact, the plaintiff on an earlier occasion filed a suit o S 554/56 which was dismissed negativing the contentions raised by him, so also the first and second appeals. Since the contentions raised herein are the same they are barred by resjudicata. It is charitable and endowment institution under Sec. 14 of the Act 17 of 1966. Hence, the order passed in 0 S 102/1970 is proper and legal. It is further controverted that the Government alone is not competent to evict the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property, and that when once the property is vested in the temple it is the temple that is entitled to evict the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.