KHANDAVALLI VENKATACHARYULU Vs. DEITY SRI VENKATESWARASWAMIVARU OF VADAPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram in O.S. No. 14 of 1959. The 1st plaintiff is the deity, Sri Venkateswaraswamivaru of Vadapalli, represented by the Manager, and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the trustees appointed by the Area Committee. The suit was filed for recovery of the properties described in Schedules A to C attached to the plaint, after ejectirg the defendants, and for profits. The plaint A Schedule consists of 23 items of a total extent of Ac. 77-62 of cultivable lands, of which Items 1 to 10 measuring Ac. 51-07 are in Vadapalli vilkge and Item 11 to 23 of an extent of Ac. 26-55 are situate in the village of Lolla. The plaint B Schedule refers to two items of property in the village of Vadapalli of a total extent of Ac. 8-00 confirmed under T.D. No. 44-19, while plaint C Schedule refers to one item of Vadapalli village, measuring Ac. 13-26, also confirmed under T.D. No. 4419. It may be mentioned that according to the defendants, the property described in plaint C Schedule was their personal property, which they acquired in exchange for Items 7, 8, 16 and 17 of the plaint A Schedule.

(2.) Defendants 1 to 18 are the archakas of the temple, defendants 1 to 8 being members of Khandavalli family, and defendants 9 to 18 of the Vadapalli family. The case of the plaintiffs is that the shrine of Sri Venkateswaraswamyvaru in Vadapalli, East Godavari District, is an ancient temple, the origin of which was lest in antiquity. The existence of the temple finds a place in the Bhooband accounts as early as 1798 A.D. Items 1 to 6 and 11 to 15 of the A Schedule were confirmed by the Inam Commissioner under T.D. Nos. 4419, 2646, 942 and 3172 while Items 9 and 10 of the same schedule were confirmed urder T.D. No. 5287. Items 18 to 23 of the A Schedule are comprised in T.D. No. 3172. They were all confirmed in favour of the deity, under the respective Title Deeds, and. are the absolute properties of the plaintiffs. Defendants 1 to 18 are the archakas rendering services to the plaintiff-temple who were entitled to receive remuneration so long as they rendered services. They managed to get into possession of the suit properties, and remained in possession in a fiduciary capacity as de facto trustees. They were paying contribution on behalf of the deity in respect of the suit properties on the basis that they are the properties of the plaintiff-temple. Defendants 19 to 58 are the tenants under defendants 1 to 18. The 59th defendant is a trustee who did not join the plaintiffs in the institution of the suit, and hence was impleaded as a defendant.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 18 contested the suit and filed statements which are substantially the same. The other defendants 19, to 58 except the 21st defendant who remained ex parte, filed a statement adopting that of defendants 1 to 18. The case of the defendants 1 to 18 is that they are tht "Vykhanasas" (Brahmins serving as attendants in Vishnu temple) and the suit properties were granted to their ancestors by Sri Thimma Raju Maharaja of Peddapuram in 1759 A.D. Since then they have been in the possession and enjoyment for over 200 years, as their service inam lands. The plaintiff-temple is a Divyasthalam, and only the archakas perform the worship, and there is no trust attached to theii office. They did not supply any material for the worship, nor the daily offerings for the deity. The trustees supplied the materials required for cooking, and for "Nitya Naivedya Dhupa Dipa Aradhana" and daily worship. There were a number of other servants attached to the temple, and the lands as in the case of other servants, were granted by the Maharajah to the archakas for rendering services. The Maharajah also granted an annuity of 185 gold Mohurs for the expenses for Nitya Naiyedya Dhupa Dipa Aradhana and the Utsavams. The title of the defendants is established, by Haquikhat, Bhabands, Dowles, Ijjits, Kaifists etc. The entries in the Inam Fair Register to the contrary are incorrect. There were judgments in the litigation between the trustees and the archakas which operate as res judicata. The defend ants have in any event, perfected their title by adverse possession.