Chairman,Bd.Of Trustee Sr.R.M.J, A.P. vs S. Rajyalaxmi (Dead)

2. A brief reference to the facts may be necessary for the disposal of the   present   case.   The   original   plaintiff   no.1  (predecessor­in­ interest of respondent nos. 1 to 6 herein) and original plaintiff no.2 (respondent  no.7 herein) preferred a suit against the defendants (appellant   and   respondent   no.8,9   and   10   herein)   seeking   a declaration that they are the owners of the suit schedule ‘A’ house bearing H. No. 5­6­69 (old), 6­1­7 (old), reassigned new nos. 6­1­ 81 and 6­1­81/1 situated at Brahminwadi, Jagtial.  The original plaintiffs had also prayed for a declaration that the suit schedule ‘B’ properties are not in existence and the said properties do not belong   to   the   temple.   Lastly,   they   also   sought   a   consequential relief   of   permanent   injunction   against   the   defendants   from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

4. The  cause  of  action  in the present suit arose when respondent no.9   (defendant   no.2­   Deputy   Commissioner   of   Endowments Department)   allegedly   passed   an  ex­parte  order   on   24.10.1986 declaring   the   suit   schedule   ‘A’   house   and   movable   properties shown in schedule ‘B’ and other properties belonged to the Ram Mandir, Jagtial in O.A. No.70 of 1985. Pursuant to the same, the appellant   (defendant   no.4­Chairman   Board   of   Trustee   Sri   Ram Mandir) filed a Petition in the court of Judicial Magistrate, under Section 93(2) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for   the   delivery   of   possession   of   suit   schedule   ‘A’   and   the   suit schedule   ‘B’   properties   alongside   other   properties   of   the   Ram Mandir in Cr. M. P No. 173 of 1987.

6. The   appellant   (defendant   no.4)  resisted   the   suit   on   multiple grounds.   Although  the   appellant  (defendant  no.4) admitted that the   ancestors  of   the  plaintiffs  were performing  “Annasatram” at the Ram Mandir, he particularly denied that the ancestors of the plaintiffs  had constructed the suit schedule ‘A’ house about 100 years back along with H. No. 6­2­21. The suit schedule ‘A’ house was constructed from the funds donated by the devotees.  It was further alleged that the plaintiff no.1 had filed O.A no.2 of 1973 under   Section   77   of   the   Act   before   the   Deputy   Commissioner Endowments   Department   Hyderabad  (defendant   no.2)  for declaration that the Ram Mandir is not an endowment property, but  the   same   was   dismissed by  the Deputy  Commissioner  vide order dated 26.12.1976.  The Deputy Commissioner held that the temple is a public institution which is registered and entered in the   book   of   endowments.   Aggrieved,   the   plaintiff   no.1   had preferred   O.S.   no.134   of   1977   under   Section   78   of   the   Act, seeking   to   set   aside   the   earlier   order   passed   by   the   Deputy 4 Commissioner. This suit was also dismissed on 19.08.1981 and has now attained finality. However, the plaintiffs being the priests got the suit property mutated in their favour during the pendency of   the   proceeding.   Since,   plaintiff   no.1   was   the   pujari   and   was looking   after   the   affairs   of   the   temple,   he   misrepresented   the matter   before   the   Assistant   Commissioner   of   the   Endowments Department (defendant no.3) at the time of preparing the list of properties of the Ram Mandir and got his name illegally recorded. The plaintiff no.1 had also concocted several documents, such as municipal   permission   for   re­roofing.   Further,   all   the   mutations and entries made or done in the municipality are in his capacity of   being   a   Pujari   and   custodian   of   the   temple,   and   not   as   the owner of the property. The appellant  further submitted that the Schedule B properties are in existence and are in the custody of the   plaintiff   no.1   itself,   who   supressed   this   fact.   Lastly,   the appellant,  submitted   that   the   plaintiffs   have   exhausted   all remedies   and   have   filed   the   suit   to   prolong   the   litigation   and hence is liable to be dismissed.

18. On the contrary, the appellant­defendant no.4  has put forth the earlier   order   dated   26.12.1976   passed   by   the   Deputy Commissioner   in   O.A.   No.   2   in   1973,   involving   the   same   suit property. It was categorically held therein, that the suit property is related to the temple, and the plaintiff no.1 is staying therein to perform   his   duty.   The   earlier   order   also   stated   that,   the   suit property was originally granted as Inam to the forefathers of the plaintiffs for the conducting pooja and to feed the brahmins. In the aforesaid order, it also noted that, the plaintiff had removed the idols from the suit temple to meet his personal needs.  Aggrieved, by the aforementioned order in O.A. No. 2 in 1973, plaintiff no.1 thereafter had filed O.S. No.134/77, before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court which came to be dismissed on 19.08.1981 for default, hence has attained finality. Therefore, the present suit involving the   same   property   seeking   similar   relief   as   O.S.   No.134/77   is barred by time. However, the defence has also clearly averred that since the plaintiffs and their forefathers were working as pujaris in 10 the   Ram   Temple,   the   endowment   department   in   order   to demarcate the Ram Mandir itself, mentioned the suit property as the   adjoining   premises.   Keeping  in   view   the   aforesaid   facts   and circumstances, the plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence to counter the case put forth by the appellant­defendant no.4.

22. Resultantly,   we   restore   the   order   passed   by   the   Subordinate Judge, Jagtial in O.S 69 of 1987. The appeal is allowed, however, without any order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.