Avutapalli Bapeswara Rao vs Sri Sitharamaswami Vari Temple and others

Mr. Ramanujulu Naidu, J.—In the above Civil Revision Petition the order passed by the second Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada directing the plaintiff in O.S. No. 324 of 1974 on his file to value the additional relief of rendition of account of profits by the defendants (herein estimated at Rs. 30,000/- u/s 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, herein after referred as the Act, and pay the Court fee prescribed thereunder is assailed. The suit is for a declaration that the plaint schedule land is not an endowment within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 and that defendants 8 and 9 have no authority to appoint trustees or executive officers for management of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property after evicting defendants 1, 5 to 7 or alternatively for possession of the plaint schedule property by attornment by defendants 6 and 7 and for rendition of account of the profits from the plaint schedule land by defendants 1 to 5. The additional relief of rendition of account of the profits was asked for by way of an amendment of the plaint. The plaint was valued u/s 27 of the Act. The plea of the plaintiff is that notwithstanding the additional relief of rendition of accounts of the profits on the plaint schedule property asked for in the plaint, the nature of the suit is not changed as the profits asked for are in relation to the trust property and that the court fee already paid u/s 27 of the Act is sufficient. The learned 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada negatived the plea of the plaintiff as in his opinion section 32 of the Act is attracted and court fee is to be computed on the amount estimated in the plaint.

Sri Adinarayana Raju, appearing for the defendants fairly concedes that the view taken by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge is erroneous as the suit instituted by the petitioner in the civil revision petition is not a suit for accounts simplicitor. What is however urged by Sri Adinarayana Raju is, that the suit falls u/s 24 (a) of the Act.

It is well settled that averments in the plaint constitute the basis for levy of court fee. In the plaint, it is stated that in O. S. No. 4/1970 on the file of the District Court, Krishna instituted by the petitioner earlier, he was declared to be hereditary trustee of the plaint schedule property constituted as specific endowment of the first defendant temple, that the plaintiff was wrongfully dispossessed from the plaint schedule property in or about the year 1954 by the Executive Officers of the Endowments Department on the footing that the plaint schedule property belonged to the first defendant temple and that, consequent upon the declaration obtained by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 4 of 1970, recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property is sough. The additional relief of rendition of account of profits during the period, the plaintiff was out of possession of the same, is also sought. The profits are estimated at Rs. 30,000/--. Defendants 2 to 5 are the Executive Officers, past and present, appointed by the Endowment Department to manage the first defendant temple. The relief of account ability is confined to defendants 2 to 5. Sri C. V. N. Babu contends that the suit squarely falls u/s 27 of the Act, as the suit is instituted by him in his capacity as hereditary trustee of the first defendant temple, which right was declared by the Civil Court and as the comes ting-defendants against whom the relief of accountability is prayed for, ceased to be trustees consequent upon the declaration obtained by him. The explanation appended to section 27 of the Act reads that :--

"Any property comprised in a Hindu, Muslim or other religious or charitable endowment shall be deemed to be trust property within the meaning of the section and the manager of any such property shall be deemed to be the trustee thereof".

Relying on the explanation Sri C.V.N. Babu very rightly submits that defendants 2 to 5, who managed and have been managing the plaint schedule property under directions of the Endowment Department, should be deemed to be trustees of the first defendant-temple within the meaning of the explanation to section 27 of the Act and that consequent upon the declaration obtained by the petitioner plaintiff they ceased to be trustees of the temple. By reason of section 9 of the Act when a plaint falls under two categories and one such is special and another is general, the fee chargeable shall be the fee appropriate to the special description. In Sri La Sri Somasundara Gnana Desiga Swamigal, Madathipathi of Kovilur Mutt, represented by Power-Agent Sivaprakasa Swamigal Vs. Sri Krishnandaswami, the scope of section 28 of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act was considered. Section 27 of the Act is in Pari Materia with section 28 of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. It was held therein that:--

"If a suit could fall u/s 28 of the Tamilnadu Act. the fact that section 30 of the Act could also be applied would not take away the right of the plaintiff to value the suit u/s 28 and pay the court fee accordingly".

The submission of Sri Adinarayana Raju that the suit instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff is one exclusively covered u/s 24 (a) of the Act is not tenable, having regard to the averments is the plaint, As already stated, the petitioner-plaintiff claims to be hereditary trustees of the specific endowment ear-marked for the temple. The plaint schedule property is, according to the averments in the plaint, impressed with the character of trust, property. The profits sought to be recovered are in relation to the trust property, The defendants, against whom the relief of accountability is prayed for, are trustees within the meaning of the Explanation appended to section 27 of the Act. The additional relief of accountability is only ancillary to the substantive prayers in the plaint. I therefore hold that the valuation of the plaint and the court fee paid thereunder are correct. The order of the learned 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada is accordingly set abide and he is directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be so order as to costs in the revision petition.