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

1967 Supreme(AP) 42

S.OBUL REDDY
Kerla Ankamma Devasthanam Vinnakota – Appellant
Versus
Manikonda Venkata Ratnama – Respondent


S. OBUL REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE sole question that arises for consideration in these second appeals is when does limitation start to run in case where a trustee alienates the property of the temple or the deity.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the point involved in these second appeals, it may be necessary to state the relevant facts. The plaintiff (appellant) laid three connected suits O. S. 1/59, O. S. 33/59 and O. S. 34/59 in the Court of the District Munsif, Gudivada for recovery of the temple lands which are in the possession of the defendants. The case of the plaintiff in all the three suits is that the lands in question belonged to the temple and the previous trustees described as Maikonda family were in possession of the suit lands of the temple on behalf of the temple and were utilising the net income derived from the lands for Dhoopa Deepa Naivedyam and for other festivals concerning the temple. While acting as hereditary trustee the members of the Manikonda family some of whom are now defendants, alienated the properties to the defendants on the ground that the lands were their own private property. They were alienated under three sale deeds (1) Ext. B-6 dated 5-3-1942, (2) Ext. B-8 date








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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top