Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 15237
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
Sri Vighneswara Swami Temple v. K. Venkatarama Reddy
Second Appeal | A.S.No.21 of 1995 | O.S.No.535 of 1980
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri P. Durga Prasad
For the Respondents: Sri V. Malik
The validity of property transactions involving trust requires clear authority and adherence to prescribed legal frameworks, particularly in determining the nature of trustees and institutional governance.
Headnote:(A) The Indian Trusts Act - Applicability in trust management without a Trust Deed, authority for trustee alienation is critical - Section 100 of CPC - Jurisdiction of the High Court stressed - Proper evaluation of evident findings are essential, clear secular intent of legislature upheld. (Paras 12, 14, 35)
(B) Religious Institutions - Validity of transaction relating to religious properties examined - Jurisdictional constraints detailed within the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - Evidence evaluated confirms Plaintiff temple classified not a public temple, supported by historical context of trusteeship. (Paras 34, 13) Facts of the Case: The Plaintiff initiated proceedings against the third Defendant regarding fraud linked to property exchange deed dated 28.08.1989, with a contested position on trusteeship resulting in earlier trial court ruling favoring Plaintiff, which the appellate court later overturned.
Findings of Court:
The 1st Appellate Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims on the basis of procedural failures and lack of proper evidence to substantiate claims of fraudulent alientation, asserting validity of the exchanged deed under private management.
Issues: Whether exchange deed is liable to cancellation and if Plaintiff is entitled to the restitution of possession.
Ratio Decidendi: Both higher courts clarified that the crucial evaluations of trusteeship were substantiated leading to the legitimacy of all executed property transactions; emphasized that the courts act on evident findings without disturbing established fact patterns.
Result: The Second Appeal lacks merit in its entirety.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of the property transaction and issues surrounding trustee authority. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 10) |
| 2. need for clarity in the structure of appeals regarding prior judgments. (Para 12 , 14 , 35) |
| 3. constitutional authority of designated courts regarding disputes over religious and charitable trusts. (Para 20 , 25 , 34) |
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 dated. 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. M. Rami Reddy then stole the original gift deed dated 31.03.1970, along with personal documents. The 1st Defendant sought help from local elders to recover the stolen documents. The 2nd Defenda
