Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J
Kuruva Pujari Allappa – Appellant
Versus
Kuruva Pujari Piddeppa Died By LRs. – Respondent
Judgment :
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 15.02.2016 in A.S.No.50 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni (“First Appellate Court” for short), reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 20.10.2010 in O.S.No.169 of 2004, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur (“Trial Court” for short).
2. The appellant Nos.1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs and 1st respondent herein is sole defendant in O.S.No.169 of 2004, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur.
During the pendency of the appeal suit before First Appellate Court, 1st respondent herein died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.2 to 4 therein. The 3rd appellant herein died during the pendency of this appeal and her legal representatives were brought on record as appellant Nos.4 and 5 and that the 2nd appellant herein died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.5 to 10.
3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.169 of 2004, on the file of Junior Civil Judge,Yemmiganur, with a p
In declaratory suits, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their claims, and appellate courts may not interfere with factual findings unless they are erroneous or based on inadmiss....
Amended S.55 TN HR&CE Act abolishes hereditary pujari rights; civil declaration unavailable.
The judgment clarified that the abolition of hereditary rights under the Act precludes claims to Archakatvam service based solely on lineage without meeting statutory criteria.
The availability of an alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner under Section 69 of the HR and CE Act rendered the writ petition not maintainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a dispute over temple rights, the courts may determine the issue of title in a suit for injunction if the matter involved is simple and str....
The court ruled that the administrative authority exceeded its jurisdiction in determining hereditary rights, necessitating resolution by the Endowments Tribunal as per Act 30 of 1987.
Continuity of worship must be preserved during administrative inquiries, and appointments should be respected unless compelling irregularities are proven.
The Civil Court has jurisdiction to hear suits claiming hereditary rights unless explicitly barred; prior judgments must be assessed for relevance in context.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction under Section 21 of Act 30 of 1963, and the possession was not with the first defendant, but with the seco....
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
