SOMESWARASWAMY VARU Vs. SETTI SRIRAJITAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 6 of 1960 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry against the judgment and decree in the said suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs are the deities viz., Sri Someswaraswamivaru and Sri Venugopala Swamivaru installed in the temples at Vella village, respresented by the hereditary trustees. The case put forward on behalf of the deities is that the B Schedule lands, ten items of an extent of acres 10.08 cents in Vella village in East Godavari District are devadayam inams. granted to the deities in the year 1738 by the then Nizam of Hyderabad, that till the year 1900 they were in the possession, and enjoyment of the deities, that thereafter they were delivered to Setti Lakshmikantham, mother of defendants 1 to 3, of Kalavanthula caste under a registered contract, dated 15th June, 1900 to secure her services in the plaintiff temples, that under the said agreement she had to give dance recitals in the temples on stated occasions and enjoy the lands in lieu of her services, that she during her lifetime put her sister Chinakantham in possession of acre 2.20 cents in item 9 and 4th defendant Manikyam another sister in possession of item 8 and acre 0.49 cents in item 9, that on the passing of Act XXXI of 1947 (Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Devadasis (Prevention of Dedication) Act, 1947) the contract became void as there was a statutory prohibition against rendering these services and the plaintiffs became entitled to take possession of the lands, but as Lakshmikantham refused to give possession they had to file a petition under section 78 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1926, for the issue of a certificate and after obtaining the certificate they filed M.C. No. 49 of 1954, before the 1st Class. Magistrate, Kakinada, but on technical grounds the petition was dismissed and the C.R.P. No. 616 of 1658, filed in the High Court was also not successful that as Lakshmikantham and her sister Chinakantham had died, their legal representatives and Manikyam the 4th defendant another sister of Lakshmikantham, who have been in enjoyment of the land, had leased them out to defendants 7 to 10 and that they are liable to surrender possession. and hence this suit for possession and mesne profits.

(3.) The defendants in their written statement contended that the lands were not granted to the plaintiff deities by the Nizam, that the plaintiffs have no title to the suit lands, that from time immemorial, the lands have been in the possession of defendants 1 to 4 and their predecessors-in-title, that the lands have been granted to the ancestors of these defendants burdened with service, that their original rights have not been lost by agreement, dated 15th June, 1900, that they are not Devadasis and the contract had not become void and unenforceable by reason of Act (XXXI of 1947), that the suit lands are a part of the erstwhile zamindari village of Vella and that they have acquired occupancy rights in these lands and they are entitled to pattas as they constitute Darimila inam, that therefore, the jurisdiction of the Court is also barred by section 56 of Act (XXVI of 1948) and that the suit is also barred by time.