S S V SWAMYVARU Vs. P B MANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kakinada in A.S. No., 92/76 which in its turn arose out of O.S. No. 488/73 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Peddapuram.

(2.) The suit was filed by the appellant-Deity represented by the Executive Officer for possession of the plaint schedule land after ejecting the defendants there from and for future profits. The brief facts as stated in the plaint are like this: The schedule land belongs to the Diety as it was granted to it. The Stanacharya was to look after the administration of the temple and utilise the income for the purpose of Deity. He is therefore in the position of a trustee. The Stanacharya and the Archakas have to take shares for the service of the Deity from out of the income and not the whole income. They have to perform their duties. The patta was granted to the Deity by the Deputy Tahsildar, Peddapuram under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams Abolition Act, 1956. An appeal preferred by Yekkirala Laxmi Narasamma before the R.D.O. Peddapuram was dismissed. A further writ petition W.P. No. 1484/64 preferred by the Archakas against the order or R.D.O. was dismissed by the High Court on 21-6-1968. The decision in the writ petition is binding on the archakas. The plaintiff is entitled to possession of the schedule land. The archakas have no right to hand over possession to the 5th defendant.

(3.) The 2nd defendant filed a written statement stating that he has no interest in the office of Stanadhipathi or in the suit property. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff has no title to the property, that the Stanachari is not a trustee and that the grant was made to the archakas and not to the Deity. The so-called patta granted to the plaintiff does not convey any title and it is a void document inasmuch as no notice was given to the 1st defendant or his predecessors-in-title in spite of her title having been declared as long ago as in 1961. The 5th defendant is a tenant of the 1st defendant and it is learnt that late Laxminarasamma executed an agreement of sale in favour ot 5th defendant. She bequeathed the land to the 1st defendant under her will, dated 16-6-1967. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed.