JAGANNADHASWAMY TEMPLE Vs. GARUDA VENKATA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit with costs by the judgment and decree dated 13-11-1991, the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.84 of 1984 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam, filed the present appeal.

(2.) The facts leading to the appeal are that Sri Jagannadhaswamy Temple, Visakhapatnam represented by its Executive Officer filed the suit claiming that the suit schedule vacant site of 1064 square yards belonging to the plaintiff was granted to Garuda Ramayya, son of Venkayya, the father of the 1st defendant under a permanent lease dated 8-4-1908 by the then trustees on a lumpsum payment of Rs.400/- and for an annual rent of Rs.50/- for the purpose of carrying out repairs to the temple, giving liberty to the lessee to make any constructions. The trustees had no power to grant a lease in perpetuity irrespective of the adequacy of the rent and such leases are not saved by the relevant statutes. After the death of the then trustee Garuda Sanyasayya Setty in 1936, the property was managed by the mother of the present hereditary trustee during his minority and after attaining majority the present hereditary trustee took over the management and the Executive Officer took charge on 2-2-1972. The lease amount of Rs.50/- was being collected from the 1st defendant by the hereditary trustee in ignorance of the legal rights and after appointment of the Executive Officer, such collection was stopped. The plaintiff issued a notice on 27-9-1982, for which a reply was given on 3-12-1982. The invalid permanent lease is not binding on the plaintiff and the possession of the lessee is that of a trespasser. The plaintiff is also entitled to Rs.500/- per annum as mesne profits and the suit was within time under Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act. Hence, the suit for declaration of invalidity of the permanent lease, ejection of the defendants after removing the structures, mesne profits at Rs.500/- per annum from 2-2-1982 till delivery of possession and for costs.

(3.) The 1st defendant resisted the suit claiming that under the document dated 8-4-1908, a permanent grant of the land itself was made for an annual 'kattubadi' of Rs.50/-, but not any rent. As per the grant for valid consideration, the 1st defendant made huge constructions worth more than Rs.4,00,000/- after obtaining permission from the municipality using the premises for business and residence. The transaction is neither a lease nor invalid and any trust or trust deed is not admitted. The annual 'kattubadi' was being collected and a suitable reply was given to the plaintiff's notice. No right of termination or re-entry was reserved in the document. Some kancherulu constructed thatched houses in the suit land without any income to the temple by the time of the permanent grant and even assuming the transaction to be a permanent lease which was subsisting by the time of A.P. Act XVII of 1966, the plaintiff has no right to evict the 1st defendant without any action under the statute to get the lease cancelled or to treat it as null and void. The unproductive and waste property granted for legal necessity for a very substantial consideration at that time cannot be questioned and the temple in a dilapidated condition without funds had to be repaired, for which the grant was made. A square yard of land was not fetching 4 annas at that time and the lease which stood the test of time and the possession of the 1st defendant since 1908 in his own right cannot be questioned. If he is a trespasser as contended by the plaintiff, his title by prescription on enjoyment for more than the statutory period has become perfected. Section 10 of the Limitation Act has no application and the 1st defendant is not liable to pay any mesne profits. Even earlier notices were issue on 24-7-1940 and 16-1-1973 by the grantor's son Garuda Chandra Bangar Raju, to which suitable replies were given on 28-8-1940 and 27-1-1973. The lease being not questioned since then, the suit is barred by time. In any view, the 1st defendant cannot be evicted without paying compensation for the improvements and investments made in the land and the property which fell to the 1st defendant's share in the family partition in 1944 did not yield any income till 1972 till the construction of ground floor in 1972 and the first floor in 1982. The appreciation in value due to the same made the plaintiff file the suit. Hence, the suit be dismissed with costs.