BHAVANARAYANASWAMY VARI TEMPLE Vs. V V BHANVANARAYANT CHATYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant, Sri Bhavannarayanaswami Vari Temple of Serpavaram, represented by the Executive Officer is the appellant before me. The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit against the temple for a declaration of his title and possession in regard to the suit land admeasuring five acres, A permanent injunction was also sought restraining the defendant from obtaining possession of the suit land in pursuance of a certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments in O.A. No. 72 of 1954, The essential facts are that the plaintiff is one of the Pradhana Hereditary archakas of Sri Bhavannarayanaswami Vatu of Sarpavarna. The suit lands constitute hereditary archakatwam service inam and were granted to the plaintiff's predecessors more than two hundred years ago. The plaintiff's predecessors since then have been rendering archakatvam service and enjoying the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff is now in possession of the suit lands and rendering the service.

(2.) It is further alleged that in 1931 the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments' Board framed a schema for the temple in O.A. Nos. 351 of 1929 and 139/31. While framing the scheme, the Board went into the question of title in relation to the suit schedule lands and, accepting the plea of the plaintiff's predecessors that these lands are the archakatwam service nam lands, omitted these lands from the schedule appended to the scheme. The aid scheme became final. The plaintiff, therefore, contended that the said order of the Board operates as res judicata.

(3.) Despite this, the defendant filed an application, O.A. No. 72 of 1954 under S. 87 of the Madras Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act (19 of 1951) before the Deputy Commissioner of Machilipatnam for issue of an order directing the plaintiff to deliver possession of the suit lands to the defendant. The Deputy Commissioner, without keeping in view the legal effect of the order passed in 1931, issued the necessary certificate. Against the order, the plaintiff filed a Revision Petition before the High Court but the same was dismissed directing the plaintiff to a suit as is visualised under S. 87 of the H.R. & C.E. Act.