VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE OF PANDURU Vs. RAKUDITI SEETHARAMCHARYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decree ana judgment in O.S. No. 45 of 1961 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kakinada. Plaintiff is the appellant.

(2.) The plaintiff-temple, represented by its trustee Bavisetti Veerraju obtained a decree against defendants 1 and 2, who arc the archakas, and another, for possession of certain lands and other properties together with mesne profits in O.S. No. 31 of 1951 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada. Plaintiff was represented in that suit by two advocates of whom the 3rd defendant is one and Sri K. Satyanarayana is the other. Sri Satyanarayana having retired from the case, the 3rd defendant alone filed E.P. No. 287 of 1957 for execution of the decree referred to above. Defendants i and 2 moved the executing Court for stay of the proceedings on the ground that they filed a petition before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, expressing their readiness to enter into a compromise in terms of G.O. No. 2496. Later on, they filed two more petitions for recording adjustment of the decree in terms of the Government Order referred to above and stay of execution. All these petitions were opposed by the plaintiff. On 13th July, 1959, the 3rd defendant obtained the signature of the plaintiff's trustee to a memo, Exhibit A-15, representing that it contained only a statement that the temple came within a particular category mentioned in G.O. No. 2496. The trustee learnt afterwards that the aforesaid memo, contained a clause indicating his willingness for apportionment of the temple lands between him and the Archakas when he had no authority to agree to any such apportionment without the express permission of the Commissioner. The 3rd defendant wrote to the trustee on 7th August, 1959, giving the impression that the Court passed an order accepting the apportionment of lands as suggested by the archakas in their petition to record compromise. Since that apportionment was detrimental to the interests of the temple, the trustee reported the matter to the Assistant Commissioner who, in his turn, instructed him to take steps for avoiding the order. The adjustment recorded by the Court is not valid and binding on the plaintiff as the trustee did not consent to it or authorise the 3rd defendant to enter into any such compromise and also because the Commissioner aid not accord sanction for entering into that compromise.

(3.) Even otherwise, the temple is not bound by the compromise as it is injurious to its interests. The trustee thereafter moved the executing Court to review the order recording the adjustment, in vain. Hence the suit for a declaration that the order dated 6th September, 1959, recording adjustment of the decree in O.S. No. 31 of 1951 under Order 21, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, is not binding on the plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the material allegations contained in the plaint and contending that the compromise recorded in E.P. No. 287 of 1957 is perfectly valid and binding on the plaintiff as the trustee was aware of the terms thereof and also assented to the same, that it is not true to say that the trustee affixed his signature to the memo, without knowing the contents thereof or that the apportionment agreed to between the parties is detrimental to the interests of the temple, that the suit is barred by res judicata in view of the dismissal of execution application No. 890 of 1959 filed by the plaintiff for review of the order recording adjustment and that section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is also a bar to its maintainability.