JAGGAYYA Vs. DIETY OF SEETHARAMASWAMY VARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of us referred this Second Appeal to a Division Beach in view of the questions of law raised in the case.

(2.) Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants in this appeal. The plaintiff is the Deity Sree Seetharamaswami Varu of Komaragiripatnarn represented by its trustees five of them. The suit is field for partition and separate possession of plaintiff's half share of the suit schedule property after effecting partition of the said property into two equal shares and for rendering account by defendants 1 and 2.

(3.) The plaint case is the temple of Sri Laxmaneswara Swamy Varu represented by its Managing Trustee who is added as 3rd defendant was an ancient temple but it has no sufficient income and one Kamarushi Venkata Subbayya wanted to endow some property to the said Diaty for Kalyanotsavam and by that time the father of the plaintiff and other residents were constructing a temple of Sri Seetharamaswamy Varu and requested the said Venkata Subbayya to endow the property to the Deity of Sri Seetharamaswamy varu also, and hence he executed a registered girft deed on 14-11-1935 in favour of both the temples, gifting the suit property of an extent of Acs. 2-50 cents dedicating permanently for Nitya Dhoopa Deepa Naivedyam of the plaintiff-Deity and Kalyanostavam of 3rd defendant's temple and directed the trustees of the temples to realise the income and utilise the same and the donor himself was in possession of the property till his death and utilised the income thereon as recited in the gift deed as long as he was alive and thereafter his son continued the same till 1950 when he died and defendants 1 and 2 who were tenants continued in possession of the property and not paying the rent or surrendering the property to the plaintiff and the trustees of 3rJ defendant temple are related to them and they are not taking any steps in this direction. So far as the plaintiff's status is concerned it is averred that the 1st plaintiff's brother constituted as a trustee of Sri Seetharamaswamy Vari temple and renovated and installed the Deity with his funds and dedicated Acs. 4-00 of wet land along with the plaintiff and other brothers under a registered deed, dated 12-10-1964 and the 2nd plaintiff constructed the compound wall of the plaintiffDeity and the 3rd plaintiff contributed the entire amount for Sikharapratista and installed Sri Anjaneyaswamy Varu in the temple and plaintiffs 4 and 5 are the devotees of the temple and hence the suit,