GRANDHI VENKATESWARLU Vs. CHUNDURU SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question for consideration in this appeal is whether the 4th respondent in this appeal (the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 9 of 1971 on the file of the District Judge, Guntur) is the hereditary trustee of Sri Chandra Mowleswara Swami Vari Temple, Tenali. The temple was founded in 1911 by one Purnayya Siddhanti who endowed Ac. 4-00 of land to the temple and executed a deed dated 31st May, 1911 dedicating the property to the temple. By that deed he constituted himself as the trustee of the temple (Dharmakarta) but the deed did not provide for future succession to the office of the trusteeship or for appointment of a trustee.

(2.) In 1970, the 4th respondent filed an application, O.A. No. 128 of 1970 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Vijayawada, under section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for deciding the question as to whether the trusteeship of the temple was hereditary or not and for declaring that he was the hereditary trustee. This application was ordered by the Deputy Commissioner on 16th November, 1970. Thereupon, the four plaintiffs who had been appointed as trustees of the temple by the Asst. Commissioner filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal under section 78 of the Act for setting aside the the order of the Deputy Commissioner. They contended inter alia the Purnayya Siddhanti was not the founder of the temple and that in any event the 1st defendant was not the hereditary trustee. The Court below, after considering all the evidence, came to the conclusion that the founder of the temple was Purnayya Siddhanti and that the 1st defendant was the hereditary trustee. In the result, it upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the suit with one set of costs for the 1st defendant and another set of costs for defendants 2 and 4 viz., the Asst. Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner Endowments Department.

(3.) One of the plaintiffs viz., the 2nd plaintiff who subsequently became the managing trustee of the temple has filed this appeal against the said judgment and decree.