Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 1010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
Sri Vighneswara Swami Temple – Appellant
Versus
K Venkatarama Reddy and Others – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 944 of 2001
Decided On : 19-02-2025
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Religious Endowments
Act Referred
ANDHRA PRADESH CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT: S.162, S.43, S.83
TRUSTS ACT: S.36
Headnote
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Scope of High Court's review in second appeal - The court reaffirmed the principle that it cannot interfere with the factual conclusions reached by the lower appellate court in a second appeal, especially when grounded in evidence. (Paras 14, 35)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff deity, claiming ownership via a gift deed, challenged an exchange deed executed by the Defendants who misrepresented themselves as trustees, resulting in the disputed property being transferred to a third party. (Paras 2, 4, 20)
Findings of Court:
The 1st Appellate Court found the exchange deed valid as it was executed by parties claiming to be trustees with no evident authority, subsequently dismissing the appeal based on proper evaluation and affirmed the judgment of the lower court. (Paras 34, 35)
Issues: The key issues included whether the Defendants acted as trustees and if the exchange deed was fraudulent or void. (Paras 6, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that disputes of management concerning institutions under the Act must be resolved by the designated Tribunal, and deficiencies in the Trial Court's assessment warranted the dismissal of the appeal. (Paras 12, 35)
Result: Second Appeal dismissed without costs. The decision of the 1st Appellate Court was upheld.
For the Appellant : P. Durga Prasad
For the Respondent: V. Mallik.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the appeal and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. allegations of misrepresentation and fraud concerning property exchange. (Para 4 , 15) |
| 3. key issues framed by the trial and appellate courts. (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 4. jurisdictional questions concerning the applicability of trusts act and endowments act. (Para 12 , 19 , 24 , 33) |
| 5. validating the exchange deed under review. (Para 22 , 34) |
| 6. dismissal of the appeal and affirmation of the lower court's decision. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellant / 1st Respondent / Plaintiff against the Decree and Judgment dated 05.12.2000, in A.S.No.21 of 1995 on the file of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Tanuku (for short, ‘the 1st Appellate Court’) reversing the decree and judgment dated 30.06.1995, in O.S.No.535 of 1980 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Tanuku (for short, ‘the Trial Court’).
2. The Appellant/1st Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.535 of 1980 for cancellation of the registered exchange deed dt.28.08.1989 executed by the Defendants 1 and 2 in favour of 3rd Defendant and for possession of the plaint schedule property to the Plaintiff after evicting the 3rd Defendant, and therefore, for determination of future profits from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession. The 1st Respondent / Appellant is the 3rd Defendant and Respondents 2 and 3/Respondents 2 and 3 are the Defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit.
3. Referring to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.535 of 1980 is expedient to mitigate confusion and better comprehend the case.
4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:
Sri Padala Veereddi, S/o Tatayya Pedda Venkatareddy, gifted the plaint schedule property to the Plaintiff diety through a registered gift deed dated. 21.9.1970. Since the date of the gift, the plaint schedule property was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff diety. The 3rd Defendant is the 1st Defendant's cousin's brother. Defendants 1 to 3 colluded with the dishonest intent to cause loss to the Plaintiff. They created a fraudulent and collusive registered exchange deed dated 28.08.1989, which transferred the plaint schedule property in exchange for the 3rd Defendant’s less fertile and less valuable property. Defendants 1 and 2 never acted as trustees for the Plaintiff's diety and had no rights to execute the exchange deed dated 28.08.1989 while misrepresenting themselves as trustees. Defendants 1 and 2 have acted detrimental to the interest of the Plaintiff's diety. On 28.08.1989, Defendants 1 and 2 delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to 3rd Defendant. The Plaintiff's sole trustee demanded possession of the plaint schedule property from the 3rd Defendant. However, the 3rd Defendant has failed to comply with this demand.
5. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement, while the 3rd Defendant filed a separate statement. The salient assertions articulated in the written statements of all the Defendants are as follows:
Manda Ramireddy was never the sole trustee to the Plaintiff's diety, nor did he manage its affairs or festivals; the original gift deed was not entrusted to him. The Plaintiff diety was established by the Late K. Satyanarayanareddy in January 1970, who served as its trustee, obtained a patta for coconut trees from the Grama Panchayat, Pittalavemavaram, for the diety’s benefit and collected donations until his death, during which he was recognized as the sole trustee. The property was gifted to the deity at his request, with possession and the original deed entrusted to him. Following his demise, the 1st Defendant took over as the sole trustee. In 1987, the 1st Defendant’s house was damaged in a fire, during which all important documents were stored at the house of M.Ramireddy, a friend of the 1st Defendant
