Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : KRISHNA RAO
Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, (Admn.) Department, A.P. - Appellant
Versus
Veluvali Saktiprasada Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 09-23-63
HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT - SECTION 6 (9), 6 (19), 57 (B), 62 - MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT (XIX OF 1951) - SECTION 5 (1), 103 (A) - MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT (II OF 1927) - SECTION 84 (1), 84 (2), 9 (5) - MADRAS GENERAL CLAUSES ACT (I OF 1891) - SECTION 8 - INTERPRETATION ACT, 1889 (C. 63) - SECTION 38 (2) - HEREDITARY TRUSTEE - EXCEPTION TEMPLE - RES JUDICATA - REPEAL OF STATUTE - EFFECT - SAVING PROVISIONS - FINALITY OF DECISIONS - NOMINATION AND USAGE - ADVERSE POSSESSION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, claiming to be the hereditary trustee of the temple, filed a suit under Section 62 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XIX of 1951) to set aside an order passed by the Commissioner in Appeal and for a declaration that he is the hereditary trustee of the temple. The defendants contended that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff's application under Section 84 (1) of Act II of 1927 for declaring the temple as an excepted temple was dismissed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board and his appeal to the Commissioner under Section 61 of Act XIX of 1951 was also dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's family had been managing the temple affairs for four generations and this was sufficient to show that they were hereditary trustees. The court also found that neither the decision of the Board in O. A. No. 167 of 1935 nor the dismissal by the District Court of O. P. No. 84 of 1936 operated as res judicata. The court further found that even after the dismissal of O. P. No. 84 of 1936, the plaintiff continued to enjoy rights as hereditary trustee and that the present suit is not barred as the plaintiff could apply at any time under Section 57 (b) of the H. R. C. E. Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is the hereditary trustee of the temple? 2. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata? 3. Whether the plaintiff's claim is negated by his own case of nomination and usage?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff's family had been managing the temple affairs for four generations and this was sufficient to show that they were hereditary trustees. 2. The court held that neither the decision of the Board in O. A. No. 167 of 1935 nor the dismissal by the District Court of O. P. No. 84 of 1936 operated as res judicata. The court reasoned that the repeal of Act II of 1927 by the H. R. C. E. Act obliterated the distinction between excepted and non-excepted temples and the Board's decisions under Section 84 of Act II of 1927 had no legal existence unless rights acquired or liabilities incurred under them are affected. 3. The court held that the plaintiff's claim was not negated by his own case of nomination and usage. The court reasoned that the nomination set up by the plaintiff merely referred to the fact that when his grandfather's elder brother shifted to another town, he nominated his younger brother to be the trustee. As to usage, the court held that the rule of primogeniture was an arrangement within the family for convenience and did not militate against the claim of devolution by hereditary right.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and held that the plaintiff is the hereditary trustee of the temple.
( 2 ) THE defendants traversed the allegations of fact in the plaint that the plaintiff s ancestor Veluvali Sambhudu was a trustee of the temple in 1682 and the trusteeship continued in the family ever since. Their main defence was that, the suit was not maintainable, because the plaintiff s application in O. A. No. 167 of 1935 under section 84 (1) of Act II of 1927 for declaring the temple as an excepted temple was dismissed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board on 29th October, 1935 on the ground that he was not the hereditary trustee (Exhibit B-29) ; and he filed o. P. No. 84 of 1936 in the District Court, Eluru, under section 84 (2) of Act II of 1927, which was also dismissed for default on 24th July, 1941 (Exhibit B-3 ). They further pleaded that the Government had notified the temple under Chapter VI-A of Act II of 1927 in G. O. Mis. No. 4750 dated 29th October, 1936, that the Executive officer appointed in pursuance of the notification obtained delivery of the properties of the temple on 19th July, 1940, under the District Court s order in o. P. No. 28 of 1937, that trustees were also being appointed under that Act from time to time and that the plaintiff s right was barred by limitation as his cause of action had arisen even in 1935.
( 3 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge found, on a consideration of the evidence, that the plaintiff s family had been trustees and managing the temple affairs for four generations and this was sufficient in the circumstances to show that they were, hereditary trustees. He also found that neither the decision of the Board in O. A. No. 167 of 1935 (Exhibit B-29) nor the dismissal by the District Court of O. P. No. 84 of 1936 (Exhibit B-3) operated as res judicata. His reason was that, under section 84 (1) of Act II of 1927, the Board had power to decide only the status of the temple and not the status of the trustee; and that as to the application made by the plaintiff under section 84 (2) of that Act, it was dismissed only for default and not on the merits. He further found that even after Exhibit B-3 the plaintiff continued to enjoy ri
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
