An exchange deed executed by alleged trustees of a deity without proper authority is valid under current jurisdictional provisions; the High Court's review is limited to substantial questions of law only.

JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellant / 1^st 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 1^st 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/1^st 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 3^rd Defendant and for possession of the plaint schedule property to the Plaintiff after evicting the 3^rd Defendant, and therefore, for determination of future profits from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession. The 1^st Respondent / Appellant is the 3^rd 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 3^rd Defendant is the 1^st 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 3^rd Defendant. The Plaintiff's sole trustee demanded possession of the plaint schedule property from the 3^rd Defendant. However, the 3^rd Defendant has failed to comply with this demand.

5. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement, while the 3^rd 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 1^st Defendant took over as the sole trustee. In 1987, the 1^st 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 1^st Defendant