Case: Sri Bhimsehwara Swami Varu Temple Vs. Pedapudi Krishna Murthi &amp; Others

1. The appellant, Sri Bhimeshwara Swami Varu Temple, brought a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru, for a declaration that the properties described in Schedules A and B of the plaint were Devadayam lands belonging to it and for possession of the same after ejecting the respondents. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit in respect of items 1 to 3 of Schedule B only. This decree was set aside by the High Court which remanded the matter for a fresh trial. After remand the trial court decreed the suit except in regard to items 1 and 2 of Schedule A.2. The decree for the trial court was confirmed in appeal by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Letters Patent Appeal 71 of 1966 filed by the plaintiff against that Judgment was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the High Court on December 6, 1966. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff by special leave restricted to item No. 2 of Schedule A of the plaint.

Court's reasoning:
7. Our attention was finally drawn to a judgment (Exhibitof the District Munisiffs court in suit No. 684 of 1896. That was a suit filed by one Rajah Papamma Rao Bahadur zamindarni Garu against Kothalanka Bapanna for a declaration that lands measuring 22 acres and 19 cents at Vungutur belonged to the temple and that the Archakas had no right to the same. It was alleged by the plaintiff therein that hiswas the Dharmakarta of the temple, that he had built the temple at his own cost and had endowed it to the Deity. Kothalanka Bapanna, the defendant in that suit, set up his own title to the property. The trial court held that the lands belonged to the temple and that the defendant was in possession of the lands as an Archaks of the temple, but it dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was the Dharmakarta of the temple and had, therefore, no right to ask for possession of the lands. No reliance can be placed on this judgment in support of the appellants title because in an appeal against that judgment, the correctness of the finding that the lands belonged to the temple was not agitated. The appellate court dealt only with the plaintiffs right to sue as the Dharmakarta of the temple and confirming the finding recorded by the trial court on that issue, it dismissed the appeal.8. No useful purpose will be served by discussing the oral evidence led by the parties. That evidence is of an uncertain character and is inadequate to displace the presumption arising out of the several entries spread over a large number of years showing that R.S. No. 1057 belonged to the Archakas and was in their possession in their own right.