Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.KODANDA RAMAYYA, RAMA RAO
PINDI JAGGAYYA ALIAS JAGGARAO - Appellant
Versus
DEITY OF SEETHARAMASWAMY VARU, ALSO KNOWN AS SRIRAMULU VARU TEMPLE KOMARAGIRIPATNAM, TRUSTEES - Respondent
Decided On : 02-21-86
HINDU LAW - ENDOWMENT - VALIDITY - DEDICATION OF PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF AN IDOL BEFORE ITS INSTALLATION - CREATION OF TRUST - FAILURE OF ENDOWMENT DUE TO INSTALLATION OF DIFFERENT IDOL - COMPLETION OF ENDOWMENT - ADVERSE POSSESSION - LOCUS STANDI OF PLAINTIFFS TO FILE SUIT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, representing the plaintiff-deity, filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit property, alleging that it was an endowed property dedicated to the plaintiff-deity. The defendants, claiming title through a tenant of the original donor, contested the suit, raising various objections, including the validity of the endowment, adverse possession, and the plaintiffs' locus standi.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the endowment was valid, despite the fact that the idol was not installed at the time of the dedication and that a different idol was installed later. The court also held that the plaintiffs had locus standi to file the suit, as they were worshippers of the idol and had sufficient interest in the cause.
Issues: 1. Whether the endowment was valid, considering that the idol was not installed at the time of the dedication and that a different idol was installed later. 2. Whether the defendants had acquired title to the property by adverse possession. 3. Whether the plaintiffs had locus standi to file the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the endowment was valid, relying on the principles of Hindu law that an endowment can be made for the installation of an idol and that the vesting of property in the deity is only in a secondary sense. The court also held that the change of idol did not affect the validity of the endowment. 2. The court held that the defendants had not acquired title to the property by adverse possession, as the lease deed executed by their predecessors-in-title was still in force at the time Act 19 of 1951 came into force, which barred the acquisition of title by adverse possession. 3. The court held that the plaintiffs had locus standi to file the suit, as they were worshippers of the idol and had sufficient interest in the cause.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the lower court.
( 1 ) ONE of us referred this Second Appeal to a Division Beach in view of the questions of law raised in the case.
( 2 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 are the appellants in this appeal. The plaintiff is the Deity Sree Seetharamaswami Varu of Komaragiripatnarn represented by its trustees five of them. The suit is field for partition and separate possession of plaintiff s half share of the suit schedule property after effecting partition of the said property into two equal shares and for rendering account by defendants 1 and 2.
( 3 ) THE plaint case is the temple of Sri Laxmaneswara Swamy Varu represented by its Managing Trustee who is added as 3rd defendant was an ancient temple but it has no sufficient income and one Kamarushi Venkata subbayya wanted to endow some property to the said Diaty for Kalyanotsavam and by that time the father of the plaintiff and other residents were constructing a temple of Sri Seetharamaswamy Varu and requested the said venkata Subbayya to endow the property to the Deity of Sri Seetharamaswamy varu also, and hence he executed a registered girft deed on 14-11-1935 in favour of both the temples, gifting the suit property of an extent of Acs. 2-50 cents dedicating permanently for Nitya Dhoopa Deepa Naivedyam of the plaintiff-Deity and Kalyanostavam of 3rd defendant s temple and directed the trustees of the temples to realise the income and utilise the same and the donor himself was in possession of the property till his death and utilised the income thereon as recited in the gift deed as long as he was alive and thereafter his son continued the same till 1950 when he died and defendants 1 and 2 who were tenants continued in possession of the property and not paying the rent or surrendering the property to the plaintiff and the trustees of 3rj defendant temple are related to them and they are not taking any steps in this direction. So far as the plaintiff s status is concerned it is averred that the 1st plaintiff s brother constituted as a trustee of Sri Seetharamaswamy vari temple and renovated and installed the Deity with his funds and dedicated Acs. 4-00 of wet land along with the plaintiff and other brothers under a registered deed, dated 12-10-1964 and the 2nd plaintiff constructed the compound wall of the plaintiffdeity and the 3rd plaintiff contributed the entire amount for Sikharapratista and installed Sri Anjaneyaswamy varu in the temple and plaintiffs 4 and 5 are the devotees of the temple and hence the suit,
( 4 ) THE 3rd defendant denied the collusion alleged between themselves and defendants 1 and 2 and submitted they are also entitled to the half share of the plaint schedule property and prayed for a decree in their favour stating that defendants 1 and 2 are in unauthorised possession and they are not heeding their requests to pay the rent or to surrender the property. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit. They denied the very title of the property to the vendor and the execution of the gift deed and its validity, and also stated that the gift deed was not acted upon. They further raised the plea that then ancestor Pindi Papayya is not a tenant of the suit land under the donor of the said gift deed and the property belongs to him exclusively the property is being enjoyed by them under a registered will executed by pindi Papayya and in any view they have perfected their title by adverse possession and the suit is not maintainable and barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed.
( 5 ) THE trial court framed the relevant issues found in paragraph 5 of the judgment. On this controversy the courts below deferred on all material questions of fact and law. The trial court found that the plaint schedule property is not shown to be the property of Venkata Subbayya and the gift deed executed by him in favour of the plaintiffdeity and the 3rd defendant deity is not proved to be valid and binding on the defendants and defendants are in possession of the property in their own right
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
