V.S. Jagannatha Rao Pantulu Garu vs Mangalagiri Ramacharulu and Others

Venkatasubba Rao, J.—The application was made to the District Judge u/s 78, Religious Endowments Act. The applicant says that he is the

trustee of the temple in question appointed by the Board in the scheme settled by it u/s 57. He applied to be put in possession of some land, a

house and certain moveable property. The District Judge allowed the application only in regard to some of the moveables, namely, items 1, 2, 4, 7,

9, 16 and 17, Schedule C, and he dismissed the application in regard to the land and the house.

I shall first deal with the land. In regard to this, respondent 1 had'' filed a suit against the 2nd claiming it in the first instance, as his separate

property. In the course of the trial, however, he made a distinct admission that it was trust property and the learned District Munsif who heard the

suit recorded the admission and after coming to the conclusion that is was trust property, gave judgment, holding that both the plaintiff and the

defendant in that suit (the present respondents 1 and 2) were jointly entitled to the management of the temple and the properties belonging to it.

The Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal upheld this part of the District Munsif''s judgment. In the appeal again, the admission was repeated

and recorded. It will thus be seen, that, though in form that suit was one. between two private individuals, it was in effect and substance a right

claimed on behalf of the trust by respondent 1 against respondent 2 and I am therefore disposed to treat that litigation as virtually between the

temple on the one side and respondent 2 on the other. I must therefore take it that the question of ownership of the land was finally determined in

that suit by a decision by which respondent 2 is conclusively bound. It is not any longer open to her to allege as against the temple that she still

remains the owner of the property. To such a case, Section 78 clearly applies, and the learned Judge''s order to this extent must be set aside.

Now, turning to the house, Mr. Venkataramana Rao, for the trustee, the petitioner before us, attempted to argue; that the Board decided while

settling the scheme, that the house belonged to the temple and that on that ground, the Court should make an order u/s 78 directing delivery. But

the order of the Board shows that it gave no such decision. On the contrary, in that order) it is recorded that respondent 2 while; expressing her

willingness to have a scheme settled, contended that her right to the house should be left undisturbed. The Board did not purport to decide the

question of the ownership of the house, although in the scheme which is embodied in the order, it is assumed that the temple is the owner. This

certainly cannot amount to a decision. It is impossible, therefore, on the}; ground taken by the learned Counsel for the trustee, to allow the

application in respect of this item. It is unnecessary to decide at present what the powers of the Board are, to adjudicate on title setup adverse to

the trust. The order of the District Judge so far as this item is concerned is therefore confirmed.

In the result, both the respondents are directed to deliver to the petitioner possession of the land besides the items of moveables referred to

above and mentioned in the order of the District Judge. The rest of the application is dismissed. In the circumstances, each party shall bear his own

costs of this petition.

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

I agree.