POTHARAJU SURYANARAYANA RAO Vs. GANTASALA DURGAPRASADA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatnam, confirming the judgment of the District Munsiff, Masulipatnam, who upheld the preliminary objection of the defendants that the plaintiff had no locus standi to maintain the suit on the ground that he was only a de facto trustee. The suit, which has given rise to this second appeal, was filed on behalf of the temple of Sri Rajasekaraswami Varu at Avanigadda for evicting the dismissed archaka from the temple properties. The 1st defendant is the dismissed archaka and the 2nd defendant is a person who was appointed as a trustee of this institution on 21-12-1948. The defence to the suit was that it was not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff, who was only a de facto trustee, when there is A de jure trustee. It was further pleaded II by the archaka that the properties belong to him and not to the institution. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff could not maintain the suit as there was a trustee appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board and this judgment was confirmed by the Subordinate Judge.

(2.) The only question that arises for consideration in this second appeal filed by the plaintiff is whether the plaintiff can sustain the suit. According 3 to the plaintiff he is the hereditary trustee, the office having been held by his family for nearly three generations and that the order of the Board declaring that he is not a hereditary trustee and appointing the 2nd defendant as a trustee was illegal and invalid and that it was competent for him to bring the suit, that the properties in suit were in the possession of a dismissed archaka, who had no right to continue in possession after he ceased to be an archaka, and that therefore he was entitled to recover the property for the institution.

(3.) The question for consideration in the Second Appeal is, whether the plain-I tiff has locus standi to bring the suit for recovering possession of the properties of the institution from a person who should be regarded as a trespasser ? In this context, it is useful to note that the plaintiff has filed a suit, O.S. No. 65 of 1952 in the Sub-Court, Masulipatnam for a declaration that the order of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board is not valid and for an injunction restraining the new trustee from taking possession of the properties of the temple and obtained an interim injunction. It is also worthy of note that a number of letters were written by the Hindu Religious Endowment Board, Exs. A-2 to A-9, from 31-3-1949 to 5-4-1951 even subsequent to the appointment of the 2nd defendant describing him as the trustee of the suit temple. In this state of affairs there is no substance in the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff could not maintain the suit especially when the trustee appointed by the Board was also impleaded as a party and a decree could be given in favour of the institution transposing the 2nd defendant as one of the plaintiffs.