BAPESWARA RAO Vs. SITARAMASWAMI VANI TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the above Civil Revision Petition the order passed by the second Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada directing the plaintiff in O.S.No. 324 of 1974 on his file to value the additional relief of rendition of account of profits by the defendants therein estimated at Rs. 30,000/- under section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, herein after referred as the Act, and pay the Court fee prescribed thereunder is assailed.

(2.) The suit is for a declaration that the plaint schedule land is not an endowment within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 and that defendants 8 and 9 have no authority to appoint trustees or executive officers for management of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possessoin of the plaint schedule property after evicting defendants 1, 5 to 7 or alternatively for possession of the plaint schedule property by attornment by defendants 6 and 7 and for rendition of account of the profits from the plaint schedule land by defendants 1 to 5. The additional relief of rendition of account of the profits was asked for by way of an amendment of the plaint. The plaint was valued under section 27 of the Act. The plea of the plaintiff is that not withstanding the additional relief of rendition of accounts of the profits on the plaint schedule property asked for in the plaint, the nature of the suit is not changed as the profits asked for are in relation to the trust property and that the court fee already paid under section 27 of the Act is sufficient. The learned 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada negatived the plea of the plaintiff as in his opinion section 32 of the Act is attracted and court fee is to be computed on the amount estimated in the plaint. (3) Sri Adinarayana Raju, appearing for the defendants fairly conceeds that the view taken by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge is erreneous as the suit instituted by the petitioner in the civil revision petition is not asuit for accounts simplicitor. What is however urged by Sri Adinarayana Raju is, that the suit falls under section 24 (a) of the Act.

(3.) It is well settled that averments in the plaint constitute the basis for levy of court fee. In the plaint, it is stated that in O. S. No. 4/1970 on the file of the District Court, Krishna instituted by the petitioner earlier, he was declared to be hereditary trustee of the plaint schedule property constituted as specific endowment of the first defendant temple, that the plaintiff was wrongtully dispossessed from the plaint schedule property in or about the year 1954 by the Executive Officers of the Endowments Department on the footing that the plaint schedule property belonged to the first defendant temple and that, consequent upon the declaration obtained by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 4 of 1970, recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property is sough. The additional relief of rendition of accnoum of profits during the period, the plaintiff was out of possession of the same, is also sought. The profits are estimated at Rs. 30,000/ . Defendants 2 to 5 are the Executive Officers, past and present, appointed by the Endowment Department to manage the first defendant temple. The relief of account ability is confined to defendants 2 to 5. (5) Sri C. V. N. Babu contends that the suit squarely falls under section 27 of the Act, as the suit is instituted by him in his capacity as hereditary trustee of the first defendant temple, which right was declared by the Civil Court and as the contes ting-defendants against whom the relief of accountability is prayed for, ceased to be trustees consequent upon the declaration obtained by him. The explanation appended to section 27 of the Act reads that :