P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANTS 5, 6, 10 to 13 and the wife of the 7th defendant had preferred this appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 2-8-1982 made in OS No. 32 of 1959 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. .

( 2 ) IT is made clear that for the purpose of disposal of this appeal all the details of the pleadings and also the evidence may not be essential. However, to be brief, OS No. 32 of 1959 was instituted as a scheme suit by the respondents-plaintiffs for the purpose of framing a scheme for administration of the temple belonging to Sri Keshava Swamy Maharaj and the properties belonging to the said temple. The said suit had undergone a very chequered career in various stages and ultimately on 2-8-1982, the learned II Additional Judge was pleased to frame a scheme and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal was preferred.

( 3 ) HEARD Sri Vilas Afzulpukar, the learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri Srinivasa Rangachary, one of the parties in person and also Sri Jagannadha Sarma, the learned Government Pleader for appeals.

( 4 ) SRI Vilas Afzulpurkar, the learned Counsel representing the appellants had contended that all the other factual details involved in the present dispute need not be gone into inasmuch almost all the conditions stipulated in the scheme are contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter in short referred to as the Act for the purpose of convenience) and hence, in the light of the overriding effect of Section 42 of the Act, all these questions may have to be decided by the authorities under the Act. Learned Counsel also had pointed out several clauses in the scheme, which are totally contrary to the provisions of the Act. Learned Counsel had further strenuously contended that in view of the provisions of the Act as such, the entire management and administration of the temple and all other connected and also the ancillary aspects may have to be decided by the authorities under the Act and the administration and management of this institution is governed by the provisions of the Act.

( 5 ) SRI Srinivasa Rangachari, a practising advocate and also incidentally one of the parties in person had drawn my attention to several factual aspects including pouranic and historical importance of the temple. Learned Counsel, in fact, had traced the history of the litigation, commencing from the preliminary decree dated 23-10-1961 and also the series of events. Learned Counsel also had no doubt raised a controversy relating to the founders and Archakas of the temple. But, however, contended that questions whether a particular set of persons are the founders of the temple or Arachakas of the temple or in which capacity they had served or which branch to represent in relation to such rights, are all matters, which may have to be decided by the authorities under the Act. Learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to a very crucial aspect that a Receiver-Commissioner has been managing all the affairs of the temple in pursuance of the directions of the Court even to this day. Learned Counsel had drawn my attention to Section 142 of the Act and also placed strong reliance on Government of A. P. v. G. Rajendranath Goud, 1999 (6) ALD 147.

( 6 ) SRI Jagannadha Sarma, the learned Government Pleader for Appeals also while making submissions in the present dispute had contended that it cannot be in dispute that the subject temple is governed by the Act and the authorities may have to decide all these questions and in view of the overriding effect stipulated by Section 42 of the Act, it can, be said that the scheme framed as such no longer can be continued. Learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to several clauses of the scheme and also different provisions of the Act.

( 7 ) HEARD the learned Counsel on record and also perused the material available on record.

( 8 ) IN the light of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document