JUDGMENT :- These two appeals arise out of the Judgment and decree in O. S. 102/49 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Gluru. The plaintiff had filed A. S. 761/50 and the 3rd defendant A. S. 258/51. The plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are brothers. The plaintiff, claiming; that himself and the third defendant are the hereditary archakas of Sri Visweswaraswami Varu of Bhadriraju Kondapadu, instituted the suit for a declaration of their occupancy rights in the plaint A schedule lands and to possession thereof so long as archakatwam service was rendered. The basis of the claim is twofold : (1) that the grant was to the ancestors of the plaintiff and 3rd defendant burdened with the obligation of rendering service; alternatively, (2) that what was granted in inam to the temple was that only the melwaram, the Kudivaram right vesting in the archakas.

2. The 1st and 2nd defendants were the trustees appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board. They resisted the suit by filing a written statement in which they denied that the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are hereditary archakas, that the grant was to the archakas and lastly that what was granted to the temple was only melwaram.

3. Several issues were raised on the pleadings, but it is sufficient to refer only to issues Nos. 3, 9 and 5, namely,

(1). Whether the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are the hereditary archakas of the suit temple ?

(2). Whether the suit lands were granted in favour of the deity and whether the deity is the owner thereof ?

(3). Whether in any view the plaintiff and 3rd defendant are entitled to Kudivaram rights in the suit lands ?

On all these issues, the findings given by the trial Court are against the appellants.

4. All three points are canvassed before us in these appeals filed by the aggrieved archakas.

5. On the question whether the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are the hereditary archakas or not we think it is unnecessary for us to express any opinion in the view we have taken on the other issues and so the question is left open. It was also desired by the parties that this question may be left undecided in these appeals.

6. We will now deal with the other problems arising in these appeals. The controversy mainly centres round the question whether the grant of the suit lands was to the deity or whether they constitute archaka service inam burdened with the obligation of rendering service to the temple. The original grant is not forthcoming and our decision has to rest mainly on the extract of inam fair register marked as Ex. B. 8 and also a copy of the inam statement, (Ex. B. 9) made by the then archakas.

7. Taking up Ex. B. 8 first, under the main heading "Class Extent and value of inam" it is classified as Devadayam.

8. Of course this description by itself is not determinative of the question as it only denotes that it is a religious endowment which will include a service inam attached to a temple. Column 5 shows that the area covered by the grant is ac. 10-61 cents. We find under column 8 "description of inam - if for service, it is to be stated whether the service is continued. If for tanks, buildings, etc., whether they are efficiently kept up," the statement "Devadayam granted for the support of the Pagoda of Visweswaraswami and it is kept up". The entries in columns 9 and 10 are, that the inam is free of tax, and is hereditary respectively. It is true that in column 11 it is stated that the name of original grantee is not known. But that is not of any significance as in the next two columns the temple is shown as having been entered in inam accounts. Under the column grouped under the headings "Particulars regarding the present enjoyment" the name of Sri Visweswara Swami is entered with the addition of the words Archaka Velavapalli Papayya aged 20 years. The learned Counsel for Appellant wants us to draw the inference that it was service inam from the use of the expression hereditary in column 10. We do not think such an inference is admissible

Click Here to Read the rest of this document