LAWS(PVC)-1925-11-83

TADANKI BRAHMAYYA (DIED) Vs. PUVVULA MADHURAM

Decided On November 18, 1925
TADANKI BRAHMAYYA (DIED) Appellant
V/S
PUVVULA MADHURAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts out of which this second appeal arises may be stated as follows:

(2.) In the Zemindari of Telaprolu there is a village called Pamulapadu. In the village there is a temple dedicated to Sri Chidanandeswara Swami and it is said that the suit inam was granted to certain dancing girls long before the permanent settlement for the purpose of rendering service in the temple. In the year 1904 the Tahsildar of Nuzwid started an enquiry on the question whether the services were being properly performed by the dancing girls in the temple and whether therefore the Government ought not to resume the inam. The correspondence dealing with this matter consists of Exs. C to G during the years 1904 and 1905. Finally the Government placed the inam under attachment and began to collect assess ment on the inam. Ex. G is the final order of the Collector.

(3.) It appears from it that at that time, the services were not being rendered for the preceding 15 years. The manager of the Telaprolu estate says in Ex. F "there is little or no probability of the Kalyanothsavam in the Pamulapadu temple being performed in the near future." Ex. G shows that the service was not rendered by the dancing girls for some time because the Utsavam at which such services had to be rendered was not performed. They were willing to render service if the Utsavam is resumed. In 1911 the Zemindar of Telaprolu executed a deed of gift (Ex. Q) giving the suit village of Pamulapadu in favour of his brother-in-law Gangadara Ram Rao and his sons. The gift was followed by a sub-division and now the donee is regarded as the proprietor of the village paying a separate Peishkush. He then began to take steps to get the services in the temple properly rendered and to revive the Kalyanotsavam. He issued two notices on 23 August, 1912 and 21 October, 1912 to the representatives of the service holders, namely, the present defendants 2 and 3. To these they replied by Exs. H and J denying that the land was a service inam and that they were liable to render service in Kalyanotsavam, etc., festivals. After this denial the proprietor appointed the plaintiff for the purpose of rendering service in the temple. This was in June, 1913, Meanwhile in 1913 by Ex. K. the Government released the inam from attachment and informed the trustee that he could take such action as he thought fit to secure the revival of the services. In 1915 by Ex. P the proprietor called upon the defendants 2 and 3 to render services in the temple. In this notice he says that as he entertained some doubt as to the legality of the prior notices, a fresh notice was issued. He also calls upon them to appear before the Tanadar of Pamulapadu on 8 May, 1915 to show cause why they should not be dismissed from service. He entertained doubts as to the legality of the earlier notices apparently because they were issued at a time when the inam was under the attachment of Government and when the Government was collecting assessment on the inam. Soon after the notice, Ex. P, the proprietor seems to have filed a suit to recover possession of the suit inam. That suit was dismissed on the ground that the right of resumption was not in the Zemindar but in the Government and that the proper person to recover the inam from the defendants would be the new appointee to the office. Thereupon the present plaintiff who was appointed in June, 1913 filed this suit inb August, 1919. Both the Lower Courts decreed the suit and the defendants have filed this second appeal.