Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Thella Penchala Reddy vs Thella Rosi Reddy And 5 Others on 19 April, 2024
APHC010378782003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
SECOND APPEAL NO: 1100/2003
Between:
Thella Penchala Reddy ...APPELLANT
AND
Thella Rosi Reddy And 5 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. M P CHANDRAMOULI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following:
2
Dr. VRKS, J
S.A.No.1100 of 2003
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
SECOND APPEAL No.1100 of 2003
JUDGMENT:
Plaintiff No.2 in O.S.No.153 of 1989 is the sole appellant in this appeal preferred under Section 100 C.P.C.
2. On 21.11.2003 a learned Judge of this Court admitted this appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
1) Whether the lower appellate Court approached to the issue incorrectly in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court in O.S. and therefore it is perverse?
2) Whether the lower appellate Court failed to consider the existing facts and the effect of Ex.A.1 which are sufficient for the grant of relief prayed for in the suit?
3) Whether the lower appellate Court failed to consider that the temple is not notified under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and as such prima facie, it is a private temple?
4) Whether the Court below has erroneously clubbed the title and right to perform the pooja?
3. The first plaintiff in the suit is shown as respondent No.6 and in the appeal it is mentioned that he is only a proforma respondent. Five defendants in O.S.No.153 of 1989 are shown 3 Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1100 of 2003 as respondent Nos.1 to 5. As against respondent Nos.2 and 4 the appeal was dismissed for default on 26.06.2014. As against respondent No.1 the appeal stood abated on 27.04.2011. Despite notices, none entered appearance for respondent Nos.3 and 5.
4. Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, the learned counsel representing Sri M.P.Chandramouli, the learned counsel for appellant submitted arguments.
5. The following few facts are required to be noticed:
There is Sree Rama Temple in NuthakivariKandriga. Every year on the occasion of Sree Rama Navami,Utsavam is conducted there for the deity. Over a period of timeamong the villagers, different factions emerged. The rivalry among these factions led to filing of two suits. O.S.No.153 of 1989 was filed seeking a prohibitory injunction against the defendants and their men from interfering with the right of plaintiffs in performing festivities at the temple. The cause of concern is stated that the plaintiffs have held the right to perform the festivities lawfully. Defendants have been obstructing them and therefore they shall be restrained. Then there is another suit in O.S.No.159 of 1990 which was filed by defendant Nos.2 and 5 in O.S.No.153 of 1989. That suit was filed as against six defendants which include the second plaintiff in O.S.No.153 of 1989 being arrayed as defendant No.1. This O.S.No.159 of 1990 also seeks a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants therein from 4 Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1100 of 2003 performing Sree Rama Navami Utsavam till both the groups in the village agreed to perform the Utsavam jointly. Both the suits were presented to District Munsif Court, Gudur. Learned trial Court consolidated them and recorded evidence in O.S.No.153 of 1989 for both the suits.
6. There was the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.17 and there was the evidence of DWs.1 to 3.
7. After considering the entire evidence on record and the contentions raised on both sides and after recording various reasons, the learned trial Court dismissed O.S.No.159 of 1990. Be it noted that the said judgment became final since no appeal was preferred against it.
8. Learned trial Court decreed O.S.No.153 of 1989 holding that Sri Thella Penchala Reddy (second plaintiff) could offer first puja on Sree Rama Navami festival day and thereafter all the villagers are entitled to perform pujas. The defendants in O.S.No.153 of 1989 preferred A.S.No.22 of 1996. Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gudur heard both sides and considered the material on record and by a judgment dated 13.08.1999 allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgment of the learned trial Court. Learned first appellate Court upheld the permanent injunction that was granted by the trial Court, but stated that it could be in operation only for a period of three years. It also advised both parties to move an appropriate litigation for a decision as to whether the temple is a private temple or a public 5 Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1100 of 2003 temple. Impugning the said judgment of the first appellate Court, the second plaintiff preferred this second appeal raising the above mentioned substantial questions of law.
9. On considering the entire material on record and on considering the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the following aspects are to be noticed.
10. As per the submissions of the learned counsel for appellant, so far there has been no consensus arrived at among all the villagers. Neither party approached any legal forum to obtain a decision as to whether the temple in question is a public temple or a private temple. According to the plaintiffs in O.S.No.153 of 1989, their ancestors constructed the temple and since then for the last 70 years the ancestors and thereafter the plaintiffs have been organizing Sree Rama Navami festivals at the temple. They stated that from the revenue generated from the land covered by Ex.A.1 and the voluntary contributions from villagers have been utilized on day-to-day temple pujas as well as on Sree Rama Navami festival occasion. The pleaded case of defendants in O.S.No.153 of 1989 is that on the voluntary contributions of all the villagers the temple was constructed and day to day pujas as well as festivals were organized using the contributions of the villagers. Thus, the pleaded case on both sides was that the temple is not under the control of Department of Endowments and that it is not governed by the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Despite this long run litigation, as 6 Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1100 of 2003 submitted by learned counsel for appellant, the Department of Endowments did not take over this temple. When that being the case on record, there was no occasion for the learned first appellate Court in asking the parties to secure necessary declaration from the appropriate forum as to whether the temple is private or public. The pleaded case and the evidence on record clearly indicated that the temple is in a public place and public take darshan as a matter of right and the suit before the Court was not for a declaratory that it is a private or a public temple. The dispute is only with reference to the conducting of festivals and as to who has to perform the puja in the first instance. Therefore, learned first appellate Court committed an error in directing the parties for a decision as to whether it is a private or a public temple. While parties are entitled to litigate any further in that regard, the dispute placed before the learned first appellate Court could have been well decided without considering as to whether it was a private temple or a public temple. Therefore, point No.3 is answered accordingly.
11. The oral evidence adduced on both sides did indicate that under Ex.A.1-registered gift deed dated 29.03.1972 Ac.1.50 cents of land was donated to the temple by the donor for using the revenue gathered from it for the purpose of this temple. The evidence did indicate that the donor entrusted the task of management of those lands and the temple to the plaintiffs. The finding of the trial Court is that the plaintiffs are in a way trustees to the temple. Evidence on record also indicated that the 7 Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1100 of 2003 plaintiffs have been maintaining accounts for the last several years as seen from Ex.A.2-account book. Evidence also indicated through Exs.A.3 to A.17 that the plaintiffs have been remitting electricity charges for spending the energy during Sree Rama Navami festival. Thus, on evidence it was shown that plaintiffs have been performing pujas and thereafter everyone else in the village, as per their desire, have been performing pujas. No documentary evidence contrary to this was produced by the defendants in the suit. The true purport of the case presented to the trial Court is that the plaintiffs, by virtue of their continuous management of the temple and the properties donated to the temple, have been asserting the preferential right to perform pujas in the first instance. The evidence established that for decades it has been occurring in the manner alleged in the plaint. Thus, a customary right accrued. Therefore, the observations of the learned first appellate Court limiting the relief for a period of three years must be held inappropriate and is thus liable to be set aside. The points are answered in favour of the appellant.
12. In the result, this Second Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 13.08.1999 in A.S.No.22 of 1996 of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gudur is set aside. Consequently, the decree and judgment dated 20.06.1996 in O.S.No.153 of 1989 on the file of learned District Munsif, Gudur is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.
8Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1100 of 2003 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 19.04.2024 Ivd 9 Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1100 of 2003 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR SECOND APPEAL No.1100 of 2003 Date: 19.04.2024 Ivd