KALLURI LAKSHMINARAYANA Vs. KALLURI PUNNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the village of Mopparu, Tenali Taluk, there is a Hindu temple dedicated to Sri Venugopalaswami. In the year 1892, the adoptive father of the plaintiff and 18 persons including the defendants endowed this temple with 4 acres 62 cents of land for the annual celebration of kalyana utsavam. The plaint alleges that the donors continued to manage this property and celebrated utsavam through the defendants till 1914 when the plaintiff was appointed to carry on the work. There were two factions in the village, one sup- porting the plaintiff and the other the first defendant; for sometime the relations between the plaintiff and the defendants were not amicable; but each was trying to exclude the other in performing the utsavam. Proceedings in Civil and Criminal Courts had to be taken with the result that the suit land was laid down waste and the utsavam was not performed regularly. In O.S. No. 489 of 1919 the defendants adjusted their differences between themselves by a compromise to the exclusion of the plaintiff and the other founders of the endowment. As the first defendant claimed to control the management of the properties and the utsavam under the razinama those who appointed the plaintiff in 1914 found it necessary to re-affirm his appointment and after ineffective petitioners before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Tenali by both parties for permission to celebrate the festivals, the plaintiff was appointed a trustee at a meeting of the surviving founders and heirs of the deceased on the 10 of January, 1922. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff to declare his rights to manage the suit land and celebrate the kalyana utsavam in the temple, for possession of the suit land and for an account of the income accruing from it from 1918 onwards till delivery of possession.

(2.) The first defendant is the contesting defendant. The 2nd defendant may be left out of considerarion. The first defendant questioned the validity of the appointment of the plaintiff and stated that ever since the endowment in question, he has been in possession of endowed land and has exercised rights of management adversely for over 12 years and that he has, therefore, acquired a right to manage the land and conduct the utsavams, that the proceedings in Criminal Court were the outcome of the conduct of interested persons in trying to remove him from trusteeship that he has not been properly removed, that no valid appointment could be made without removing him and that the suit has been badly laid as no permission to institute it has been obtained under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) The lower Court found that the first defendant was not merely an agent or honorary servant, that from the very allegations made by the plaintiff it could be inferred that he was appointed as trustee from the very commencement and that as he had not been validly removed from his appointment, the donors and their heirs had no right to appoint the plaintiff as trustee or manager. It also found that the first defendant had also by prescription acquired the office of trustee in respect of the endowed lands. It further found that the appointment of the plaintiff at a meeting as trustee and manager in respect of the plaint lands for the purpose of the performance of the kalyana utsavam was true and valid and binding on the defendants provided of course there was none other validly holding the office as such trustee. The lower Court was also of opinion that the suit is not bad for want of sanction under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. The findings unfavourable to him have been attacked strenuously before us by Mr. Krishnaswami Iyer on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant.