SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(SC) 143

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy and others, Appellants
Versus
Konduru Seshu Reddy and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 265 of 1964, dated 26- 4-1966.
Advocates appeared
M/s. P. Babula, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri, Advocates, for Appellants; M/s. P. Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair (for No. 1) and Mr. T. V. R. Tatachari, Advocate (for No. 2), for Respondents.

Advocates:
A.V.Velayudhan Nair, K.R.CHAUDHARY, K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, P.BADUL REDDY, P.RAM REDDY, T.V.R.TATACHARI

Headnote:SUITS FOR A SPECIFIC RELIEF - DECLARATORY DECREE - COMPROMISE DECREE - Scope of declaratory relief – power of the court to grant

       -lies in the Civil Court

       -powers of the Civil Court

        – this section of the Act (Corresponding to Section 42 of the repealed Act) is not exhaustive of the case in which a declaratory decree may be made and the courts have power to grant such a decree independently of the requirements of the Section. It follows, therefore, as in the case of Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy v. Kondurau, AIR 1967 SC 436 = 1966 Supp. SCR 270, the suit of the plaintiff for a declaration that the compromise decree is not binding on the deity is maintainable as falling out the purview of this section. The result is that, as observed in the case of M/s Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd. v. His Highness Maharaja Sir Brijnath Singhji Deo, AIR 1975 SC 1810, this section merely gives statutory recognition to a well recognized type of declaratory relief and subject it to a limitation, but it cannot be deemed to exhaust every kind of declaratory relief or to circumscribe the jurisdiction of courts to give declarations of right in appropriate cases falling outside this section. The circumstances in which a declaratory decree under this section should be awarded is a matter of discretion depending upon the facts of each case. No doubt a complete stranger whose interest is not affected by another’s legal character or who has no interest in another’s property could not get a declaration under this section, with reference to the legal character of the property involved. In this case the plaintiff needed the declaration and, in the circumstances of the case, the declarations sought for could not be reasonably denied to him.

       

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment holds that a declaratory decree may be granted independently of Section 42 in appropriate cases, and that the suit to declare the compromise decree not binding on the temple is maintainable outside Section 42’s restrictions (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It explains that a deity may be represented in proceedings through a disinterested next friend when the Shebait is negligent or adversarial, and that representation by the Commissioner is not necessary or sufficient in this context (!) (!) . - It determines that the compromise decree declaring certain lands as personal properties of the defendants and not temple properties is inappropriate to bind the temple if not properly represented, and that the compromise decree is not valid or binding on the temple (!) (!) (!) . - The court cites precedent distinguishing declaratory relief under Section 42 from broader declaratory relief available under general Civil Procedure or other statutes (e.g., Partab Singh v. Bhabute Singh) (!) (!) (!) . - The High Court’s holding that S. 42 is not exhaustive and that the suit is maintainable is affirmed, with the decree modified to grant a declaratory decree that the compromise decree is not binding on the temple (!) (!) .

What is the scope and propriety of declaratory relief under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act as it applies to temple endowments and compromise decrees?

What is the proper representation of a deity in civil proceedings concerning endowments when the Shebait is negligent or adverse to the deity, and can worshippers sue through a disinterested next friend?

What grounds justify declaring a compromise decree not binding on the temple despite earlier settlement, and does such declaration fall outside the purview of Section 42?


Judgment

RAMASWAMI, J. : This appeal is brought by certificate on behalf of the defendants against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, dated August 7, 1962 in Appeal Suit No. 312 of 1957.

2. In the village of Varagali, in the district of Nellore, there is a temple in which is enshrined the idol of Sri Kodandaramaswami. The temple was built in the middle of the last century by one Burla Rangareddi who managed the affairs of the temple and its properties during his lifetime. After is death, his son, Venkata Subbareddy was in management. By a deed dated August 19, 1898 Venkata Subbareddi relinquished his interest in the properties in favour of one Vemareddi Rangareddi whose family members are defendants 1 to 5. The plaintiff filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner for Hindu Religious Endowments, Nellore, alleging mismanagement of the temple and its properties by the first defendant. Notice was issued to the 1st defendant to show cause why the temple properties should not be leased out in public auction and the first defendant contested the application alleging that the properties were not the properties of the temple but they belonged to his family. After enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner submitted a report to the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, recommending that a scheme of management may be framed for the administration of the temple and its properties. The Board thereafter commenced proceedings for settling a scheme and issued notice to the 1st defendant to state his objections. The 1st defendant reiterated his plea that the temple was not public temple. The Board held an enquiry and by its order, dated October 5, 1949 held that the temple was a public one. On January 8, 1950 the 1st defendant filed O. P. No. 3 of 1950 on the file of the District Judge. Nellore, (1) for setting aside the order of the Board, dated October 5, 1949 declaring the temple of Sri Kodandaramaswamivari as a temple defined in Section 6, Clause 17 of the Act, (2) for a declaration that the temple was a private temple and (3) for a declaration that the properties .set out in the schedule annexed to the petition were the personal properties of his family and they did not constitute the temple properties. Originally, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowment Board, Madras, was impleaded as the sole respondent in the petition. The present plaintiff later on got himself impleaded as the 2nd respondent therein. Both the respondents contested the petition on the ground that the temple was a public temple and that the properties mentioned in the schedule were the properties of the temple and not the personal properties of the 1st defendant. For reasons which are not apparent on the record the petition was not disposed of for a number of years. In the meantime Madras Act II of 1927 was repealed and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951 was enacted. Then came the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh. By reason of these changes the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments in the State of Andhra Pradesh was impleaded as the 1st respondent to the petition. Thereafter there was a compromise between the petitioners 1 to 5 on the one hand and the Commissioner, the 1st respondent on the other. The District Judge, Nellore, recorded the compromise and passed a decree in terms thereof by his order, dated October 28, 1954.

3. The material clauses of the compromise decree, Ex. B-11 are as follows :

"1. That Sri Kodanclaramaswami temple, Varagali, be and hereby is declared as a temple as defined in S. 6, C1. 17 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

2. That petitioners l to 4 be and hereby are, declared as the present hereditary trustees of the said temple;

3. That the properties set out in Schedule A filed herewith be and hereby are, declared as the personal properties of the family of the petitioners subject to a charge as noted below;

4. That petitioners 1 to 4 their heirs, successors administrators a




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top