HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.No. 56 of 1997 Date: 16-03-2011 Between: Sri Chennakesava Swami and Sri Chennamalleswara Swami vari temples ……. Appellant and Narayanam Venkata Narasimhacharyulu and others ……… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.No. 56 of 1997 ORDER: (Per BPR, J) Heard Sri T.S. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri B.V.S. Sivarama Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The appellant herein is the temple known as Sri Chennakesava Swamy and Sri Chenna Malleswara Swamy Temples, Ullipalem village, Guntur District, which, by way of this appeal, seeks to assail the common judgment passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in A.S.Nos.3203 of 1985 and 1724 of 1989, dated 13-05-1996. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and also on perusal of the material on record, the present lis appears to be sufficiently more than a century old. There is no dispute to the fact that certain properties appear to be managed by the ancestors of the respondents herein, who have been rendering services as hereditary archakas in the temple. In the meantime, at some point of time, certain proceedings were initiated in O.S.No.184 of 1879 on the file of the District Munsiff, Bapatla, which has been filed by the archakas against the temple. Ultimately the matter was compromised and the decree was passed on 03-02-1980 in terms of the compromise. The said compromise remained unchallenged and it has become final. However, subsequently, in view of the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner, dated 17-12-1981, it has lead to filing of the suit by the archakas in O.S.No.89 of 1982 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Guntur, and the same was decreed in part. Aggrieved thereby, the temple as well as the archakas have filed appeals before this Court. The main question, which surrounded in these proceedings, is with regard to the fact of the said compromise and also whether the same will be binding on the temple. Though initially in the suit it was held in favour of the temple, however, the learned single Judge of this Court as per the common judgment, dated 13-03-1996 in A.S.Nos.3203 of 1985 and 1724 of 1989, which is under appeal, held that having regard to the nature of the compromise and the representations made to protect the interest of the institution as well, the said compromise is binding on the temple. It is these proceedings which are under challenge by the temple in this appeal. Having regard to the larger interest and putting it in a representative interest, we are of the view that there is no dispute in regard to the said compromise, which is more than a century old, and the same being given effect to and acted upon. There is also no dispute to the fact that the archakas and their successors are being in possession and they are rendering services in the temple without any hindrance so far. No action has been taken by the temple or by the department against the archakas in respect of their services nor any proceedings are also initiated. In view of the same, we do not find any question arises to go into the merits or to set at naught the findings as arrived at by the learned single Judge. Since there being no dispute in regard to the services rendered by the archakas and also their possession, the alleged compromise necessarily has to be given effect to and the same shall continue in future as well in favour of the respondents herein and also their successors. However, we make it clear that it is always open for the temple or the department to take appropriate action as per law in the event of any breach or failure on the part of the archakas to render services or on such other acts which warrant any action to be taken. As regards the amounts are concerned, it is always open for the respective parties to approach the concerned authorities by filing appropriate applications seeking appropriate reliefs and the same would be considered and disposed of on merits in accordance with law. Subject to the above, the Letter Patent Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J Date: 16-03-2011 YCR