Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Vaka Ramakrishna Reddy vs Vallamreddy Venkata Subba Reddy (Died) ... on 27 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(3)ALD43, 2004(4)ALT341, 2004 A I H C 2271, (2004) 3 ANDHLD 43 (2004) 4 ANDH LT 341, (2004) 4 ANDH LT 341
ORDER G. Yethirajulu, J.
1. This revision petition is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24-1-2000 of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole in Small Causes Suit No. 67 of 1998.
2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. During the pendency of the revision petition the first respondent died, therefore, Respondents 3 and 4 are brought on record as his Legal Representatives (L.Rs.).
3. The revision petitioner filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 2,390/- towards maktha for the years 1994-95 to 1997-98 over the lands cultivated by the first respondent with interest or to grant the same as damages for use and occupation of the land. The ancestors of the plaintiff endowed Ac.29-95 cents of land situated in S.No.223/2 of Karumanchi Village to Sri Sitaramaswamy Vari Devasthanam of Karavadi Village as a specific endowment. The plaintiff's father is one of the five trustees of the specific endowment and has got one-fourth share in the entire land. The first respondent is a lessee of an extent of Ac. 1-56 cents of the above land since more than 20 years. He entered into a fresh lease for three years on 19-6-1981 for an annual rent of Rs. 700/-and the due date for payment of rent is 'Magha Bahula Amavasya' of every year. He paid rents for some years and failed to pay for some years. Subsequently the plaintiff's father died.
4. The plaintiff also filed suits for recovery of rents against other tenants. Some of them were decreed and some of them are pending.
5. During the lifetime of the plaintiffs father a notice dated 17-12-1985 was issued to the first respondent demanding payment of arrears of rent and surrender of leasehold rights. The first respondent gave a reply with false contentions. There was prolonged litigation between the plaintiff and the first respondent regarding the right, title, possession and management of the endowed lands. Ultimately they were all confirmed by the High Court in favour of the plaintiff. The Respondents 1 and 2 colluded to defeat the rights of the plaintiff and the co-trustees. Since the first respondent repudiated the title of the plaintiff and forfeited the tenancy rights, he is liable to be evicted. Hence the suit for recovery of rents for the years 1994-95 to 1997-98.
6. The plaintiff farther averred that on 25-11-1958' Addanki Laxmaiah and others executed a sale deed for valuable consideration and conveyed the suit land in favour of Vaka Venkata Reddy, creating specific endowment empowering the said Venkata Reddy and his heirs to spend the income of the lands for Kainkairyam to Sri Sitaramaswamy varu. The Endowments Department filed O.S. No. 11 of 1961 in Sub-Court, Ongole against the L.Rs. of Venkata Reddy and the then tenants of manyam lands for recovery of possession, rendition of accounts and for payment of money. On 17-12-1963 the suit was dismissed with a finding that since the property is a specific endowment, the Endowments Department is not entitled to ask for accounts of the income of the said property. The appeals filed by the Endowments Department were dismissed holding that it has no right to recover possession of the lands from the plaintiff and his tenants, therefore, the respondents shall not interfere with plaintiff's right to collect rents.
7. The second respondent adopted the written statement filed by the first respondent. The averments made by the first respondent in the written statement are briefly as follows:
8. The suit property was endowed for performing Akhanda Deeparadhana. The plaintiff's father has no right to divide the endowed property. The first respondent never executed any lease-deed in favour of the plaintiff or his father. There was no agreement for payment of maktha at Rs. 700/- per acre. He paid Rs. 200/- per acre till 1983. There was litigation between Endowments Department, one Peesapati Venkataraya Sarma and the previous tenant Hanuma Reddy, The High Court of A.P. through its judgment directed the plaintiffs' father and others to produce accounts. Since they failed to do so, on 25-11-1995 it directed the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments to take complete charge of the institution. In 1996 the father of the plaintiff was removed from the Trusteeship by the Endowments Department. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. The plaintiff's father and others never performed Kalyanotsavam and Akhanda Deeparadhana. The tenant paid the rents to the second respondent and the revision petitioner-plaintiff has no right to ask for rents. The suit is barred by limitation; therefore, it is liable to be dismissed with costs.
9. Both parties adduced evidence. The mother of the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A. 4 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. The respondents examined D.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Ex.B.1.
10. The lower Court after considering the evidence adduced by both parties dismissed the suit on 24-1-2000 holding mat the plaintiff was not entitled for the relief as prayed for.
11. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower Court preferred this revision petition challenging its validity and legality.
12. The only issue that was taken up for determination by the trial Court was whether the plaintiff is entitled, for recovery of maktha as prayed for ?
13. The revision petitioner-plaintiff contended that a specific endowment was created in respect of an extent of Ac.29-95 cents in favour of the second respondent deity for performing Kalyanotsavam and Akhanda Deeparadhana. His ancestors executed Ex.A.1-registered sale deed in favour of his grandfather directing that the income of the land shall be utilized for Kalyanotsavam and Akhanda Deeparadhana to the second respondent deity. He further contended that their ancestors have got a share to an extent of one-fourth land and the first respondent is in possession of Ac. 1-56 cents, as a lessee. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that in view of the specific endowment created by the ancestors of the plaintiff, their family members were recognized as hereditary trustees and they are continuing as trustees since times immemorial, therefore, they are entitled to be in possession of the property and spend the income of the land for the purposes mentioned in Ex.A.1. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Executive Officer of the temple is not entitled to collect the rent from the first respondent and it is the prerogative of the family of the plaintiff to receive the rents and to spend the money. The learned Counsel also submitted that even if the members of the plaintiff's family are removed as trustees of the temple, it has no bearing on the right of the plaintiff to continue to have possession of the land and to recover rents from the tenants.
14. In support of the plaintiff's case, the mother of the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. She filed a certified copy of the judgment in O.S. No. 11 of 1961 passed by the Sub-Court, Ongole, which was filed by the Temple for recovery of possession and rendition of accounts. The Sub-Court dismissed the said suit. She stated that her father-in-law had one-fourth share in the entire land and the same was leased out to others for maktha and the said amount was being utilized for performing the rituals. The first respondent is a lessee for Ac.1-56 cents and was paying rent of Rs. 700/ - per annum. He did not pay any maktha to the plaintiff for the years 1994-95 to 1997-98. In the cross-examination she conceded that the plaintiff was removed from the post of hereditary trustee in 1996, but stated that an appeal preferred by them against the said order is still pending. She denied a suggestion that the specific endowment was not amenable for partition.
She further stated that she does not know whether the first respondent executed a lease-deed or not and it will be known only to her father-in-law. She expressed her ignorance about the action taken by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department against her family members for non-production of accounts regarding the income from the lands and expenditure.
15. Except producing Ex. A.1-registered sale-deed, which indicates creation of specific endowment in favour of second respondent deity and the judgment in O.S. No. 11 of 1961, the plaintiff did not produce any other evidence. In O.S. No. 11 of 1961 the Court held that since the family members of the plaintiff and others are jointly performing Kalyanotsavam etc., the plaintiff herein and other trustees cannot be made liable for rendition of accounts. But, it was held that they should celebrate Kalyanotsavams under the general supervision of one Peesapati Venkata Narayana and shall obey all lawful orders issued by him.
16. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, passed a detailed order on 5-10-1996 regarding the action taken against the trustees and ultimately removed them from the management of the specific endowment attached to the second respondent deity. Though P.W.1 stated that an appeal was preferred against the said order of the Assistant Commissioner, the plaintiff failed to mark a copy of the same and state as to what was the result of the said appeal. In the absence of any information in writing, it is not desirable to accept the said contention.
17. It is therefore to be considered whether the plaintiff is entitled to continue in possession of the suit property by collecting rents from the tenants and spend the said amount for the purpose for which the specific endowment was created.
18. The specific endowment was created in respect of the property in question through a registered deed, covered by Ex.A.1, dated 25-11-1862. It was recited in the said document that the land mentioned in it was sold to the predecessors of the respondents for utilizing the income of the temple for performing Kalyanothsavam to the deity Sri Sitaramaswamy varu. It was further mentioned that the transferee shall utilize the income of the lands for the Kainkairyam of the deity Sri Sitaramaswamy varu for ever. Neither the transferee nor his successors have right over the property. The above recitals are clearly indicating that the income of the property shall be utilized for performing Kainkairyam and Kalyanothsavam to the deity Sri Sitaramaswamy varu. There is no dispute by either of the parties in this regard. The revision petitioner is contending that the first respondent being the tenant of the land is bound to pay Maktha to him. The first respondent is contending that since he paid Maktha to the Executive Officer of the temple, he is not liable to pay any Maktha, as demanded by the revision petitioner.
19. The second respondent-Temple represented by the Executive Officer contended that since the revision petitioner was removed from trusteeship for failure to render accounts, the first respondent paid the rent to him for the purpose mentioned in Ex.A-1. There was a prolonged litigation between the revision petitioner and the second respondent-temple regarding the title, possession and management of the endowed lands. The second respondent filed O.S.No.11 of 1961 against the transferees under Ex.A-1 and their successors for rendition of the accounts of income of the suit properties for the period of their management. The Sub-Court, Ongole dismissed the suit through its judgment dated 17-12-1963 observing that the Kalyanothsavam and Kainkairyam are being performed by the Managing Trustees of the temple and the families of Defendant Nos. 1 to 5, therefore, they cannot be made liable to render accounts. The Sub-Court further observed that in view of Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1927 the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are trustees under the specific endowment for celebrating Kalyanothsavam of the temple under the general superintendence of P.W.1 and they shall obey all lawful orders issued by him. The Sub-Court further held that the plaintiff who is the managing trustee of the temple is entitled to ask for accounts of the income on the suit lands from Defendants 1 to 5.
20. The Sub-Court, Ongle while delivering its judgment in O.S. No. 11 of 1961 referred to judgments in other suits. PW-1 was the managing trustee appointed by the Endowments Department for the plaintiff temple. He deposed that the suit schedule properties are the properties specifically endowed to the deity. The certified copy of the judgment in O.S. No. 485 of 1888 issued by the District Munsiff Court, Ongole shows that one Pisapati Muthambhotlu obtained a decree in O.S. No. 197 of 1898 against the assets of late Venkata Narayana Reddy and attached the schedule properties. The grandson of the said Venkat Narayana Reddy filed a claim petition for release of the attached properties and the same was dismissed. He, therefore, filed O.S. No. 485 of 1888 for setting aside the order of dismissal of the claim petition in that suit. He alleged that the suit schedule properties are not the personal properties of the plaintiff and the second defendant therein. On the other hand, they belong to the plaintiff deity. In that suit, an issue was also framed to the effect whether the suit lands are the properties of the temple of Sri Sitaramaswamy Varu of Karavadi?
21. In the suit O.S. No. 11 of 1961, the plaintiff therein also relied on a certified copy of the judgment in O.S. No. 535 of 1888 delivered by the District Munsif Court, Ongole. The judgment in O.S. No. 535 of 1888 shows that the suit was filed for setting aside the order of dismissal passed against a claim petition filed by one Chalamareddi, adopted son of Vaka Bangarureddi, It was alleged, in that suit, that the income from the suit lands was being utilized for the expenses of the temple. It was further mentioned therein that neither the plaintiff nor one Sujji Reddy have any right and enjoyment of the property in question as their own. In the said suit, an issue "whether the suit schedule property was a public endowment and is not liable for attachment?" was also framed.
22. The District Munsif Court, Ongole tried the suits viz., O.S. Nos. 485 and 535 of 1888 together and for the reasons mentioned in the common judgment, dismissed O.S. No. 538 of 1888, but decreed O.S. No. 485 of 1888. The decree holder in both the suits, preferred appeals before the District Court and the same were allowed. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 485 of 1888 carried the matter to the High Court through Second Appeal No. 1215 of 1894. In Second Appeal, the High Court observed as follows:
It is clear from the terms of Ex.A-1 that the land was sold to Venkat Reddy in trust for the temple and on account of the temple no need of dedication by Venkat Reddy was necessary in order to secure the rights of the temple. The District Judge found that the property has been made to appear as temple property, though possibly the income had not always been appropriated as it should have been.
23. The issue "whether the said property is a specific endowment or not" was also decided in the second appeal by observing that the contention of the defendants in the suit that it is not a specific endowed property cannot be accepted. The High Court further observed in the judgment that according to the recitals of Ex.A-1, the purchasers, their heirs and L.Rs. shall always utilize the income from the land for the purpose of Kalyanothsavam of Sri Sitaramaswamy Varu and there is no necessity of separate dedication by Sri Vaka Venkata Reddy to save the rights of the temple.
24. In the suit on hand, the plaintiff cannot say that they are not liable for rendition of accounts of the income from the property and the expenditure incurred for Kalyanothsavam and other Kainkairyams. The intention of the original donor is very clear from Ex.A-1. He never contemplated to benefit any of the parties, except for the benefit of the second respondent deity. When no benefit was conferred on the trustees in their own capacity, they cannot expect any profit or benefit from those lands. As the subsequent trustees belong to the family of the original donor, they were managing the specific endowment and were utilizing the income of the specific endowment for Kalyanothsavam and Kainkairyam and due to passing of time there is every danger of the successors losing devotion to the deity. It is the contention of the plaintiff that in view of the recitals of Ex.A-1 they have right to utilize the amounts derived from the land for specific endowment and they are not liable to render any accounts for the income of the said property. The lower Court dismissed Small Cause Suit No. 67 of 1998 through the impugned judgment by observing that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the amount from the first defendant-tenant. The lower Court further observed that it is the duty of the Endowments department to protect the properties of the temple, including specific endowments. When a particular property is donated to the deity for the purpose of a particular Kainkairyam, it has to be protected by taking such measures like preventing the property going into the hands of others, preventing appropriation of the income from the property and ensuring performance of Kalyanotsavam and Kainkairyam to the deity without fail,
25. The word "specific endowment' is defined under Section 2 Clause 25 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987, (for short 'the Endowments Act, 1987') and it reads as follows:
The Specific Endowment is included in the definition of charitable institution.
26. A 'charitable institution' is defined in Section 2 Clause 4 of the Endowments Act, 1987 which reads as follows:
(4) Charitable institution' means any establishment, undertaking, organization or association formed for a charitable purpose and includes a specific endowment and dharmadayam;'
27. In a charitable institution, when there is a trustee or board of trustees they are empowered to manage the properties of such institution and administer its affairs. The transferee under Ex.A-1 and his successors continued as trustees for the specific endowment. But, subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department noticed that the trustees failed to render accounts for the endowed property. He kept them under suspension and initiated action against them by framing appropriate charges. The charges against the plaintiff and other trustees read as follows:
(1) The trustees of specific endowments have failed to render accounts on the income of the specific endowments measuring Ac.29-95 cents of land at Karumanchi Village bearing S.No.223 right from the year 1960, which endowment is intended for Kalyanothsavam and Akhandam in the temple.
(2) Non-maintaining accounts in the suit in O.S. Nos. 47/75 and 1/76, which amounts to mismanagement and misappropriation of income realized in the Endowment.
(3) They floated the directions of the Court in O.S. Nos. 47/75 and 1/76 to maintain true and correct accounts.
(4) The delinquent trustees failed to follow the Court directions, in the above said suit to deposit the income in a post office S.B. Account or in any scheduled bank and to get the accounts certified every year by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole.
(5) They are not spending the money for the purpose for which the specific Endowment is intended from the year 1960 which amounts to breach of trust.
28. The trustees of specific endowment have failed to render accounts of the income of specific endowment measuring Ac.29-95 cents of land at Karavadi Village bearing Survey No. 223, right from the year 1960. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Ongole conducted enquiry and considered the explanation of the plaintiff and other trustees wherein they stated that they are spending monies for the purpose of Kalyanothsavam, as per the Deed relating to the specific endowment. During the enquiry it was revealed that the family members of the donor have to perform Kalyanothsavam, besides meeting the expenditure for Kalyanothsavam to Sri Sitaramaswamy varu to perform festivals like Ugadi etc. They have completely ignored the performance of the above festivals and agreed to pay Rs. 6,000/- only. The Assistant Commissioner after completing the enquiry and after referring to the judgments of suits between the parties passed an order dated 5-1-1996 removing the trustees from the management of the specific endowment attached to the second respondent-temple. While passing the above order, the Assistant Commissioner considered the aspect whether the delinquent trustees are liable to render accounts for the total income arising out of the property intended for the specific purpose of Kalyanothsavam, festivals, and other Kainkairyams in Sri Sitaramaswamy Devastanam of Karavadi Village. The Assistant Commissioner observed that the trustees are not fair enough to agree for rendition of accounts and failed to deposit the income of land in any scheduled bank and keep the accounts for every financial year, through the Endowments Department. He also observed that the trustees have failed to prove that there was proper utilisation of the income from the specific endowment.
29. I have already observed that "charitable institution" includes "specific endowment", therefore, the provisions of the Endowments Act, 1987, govern the "specific endowment". When once the provisions of the Endowments Act, 1987 are applicable, the charitable institutions become public institutions, therefore, the trustees are bound to render accounts for the income they receive from the specific endowment, and are bound to spend the said money for Kalyanothsavam and other festivals. It was made out through Ex.B-1 that the plaintiff and other trustees failed to render any accounts and there were allegations that they are not utilizing the entire amount for the purpose mentioned therein. When once the trustees of charitable institution fail to discharge their duties, the Government has every power either to appoint another team of trustees or keep the temple under the management of the Executive Officer, pending appointment of the trustees. As per the provisions of the Endowments Act, 1987, the trustees, including the hereditary trustee, are liable to be removed. The system of hereditariship was also abolished through the Endowments Act, 1987, therefore, there cannot be a lien to any individual to claim the trusteeship. When it is made out from the material that the plaintiff and other trustees were removed through the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the management of the specific endowment has to be taken up by another team of trustees or the Executive Officer. Under Section 29 of the Endowments Act, 1987, it is the responsibility of the Executive Officer to protect the properties of the charitable institution and he is empowered to take steps for protecting such properties, subject to the supervision of the trustees. Since the plaintiff and others are no more trustees of the specific endowment, the question of supervising and managing the affairs of the specific endowment by them does not arise. The Executive Officer is competent to sue and be sued in the name of the specific endowment, therefore, he has every right to receive the rents paid by the tenants. Since the plaintiff and other trustees were removed from the trusteeship, they are not entitled to supervise the affairs of the specific endowment and the Executive Officer or the next team of the trustees have to protect the specific endowment and see that the income of the specific endowment is utilized for the purpose for which it was created. After carefully going through the record, it is understood that on account of passage of time, the successors of the transferee are getting the property divided due to increase of legal heirs and if the number further increases and if they are allowed partition the property for every generation, there is every likelihood of the property disintegrated and ultimately nothing remains to yield any income and it may not be possible to fulfill the obligation created under Ex.A-1 document. The transferee under Ex.A-1 gifted the property to fulfill the purpose of the endowment for which it was created. It is the duty of the trustees to maintain transparency regarding the income from the property and the expenditure they incur. The transparency of the income and expenditure would be possible only by opening a bank account in a nationalized bank and operating the account by depositing the amounts realized from the lands and withdrawing the same for the purpose for which the specific endowment was created. The suit viz., O.S.No.11 of 1961 filed by the temple was dismissed when there was no allegation of mismanagement of the property by the plaintiff and other trustees. But, the subsequent developments led to initiate departmental action against the trustees and as they were appropriating the income without maintaining proper accounts, the department plunged into action and ultimately removed the trustees.
30. The object of the specific endowment is to render Kalyanothsavam and Kainkairyam to the deity Sri Seetaramaswamy Varu. Under any circumstances, there shall be no deviation from fulfillment of the object. The object of the Endowments Act, 1987 is to protect the properties of charitable endowment and religious institutions. Since the concerned authorities noticed the failure of the trustees maintaining the accounts of the income and expenditure, there was no option, except to remove them from service and to entrust the duty of the management to the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer received the rents paid by the tenant and made necessary entries in the record on behalf of the temple. Since the plaintiff and other trustees are removed from trusteeship, they are not entitled to demand rents of specific endowment from the tenants on behalf of the temple.
31. So far as the participation of the plaintiff and their other family members in Kalyanothsavam and other Kainkairyam is concerned, since they are the legal heirs of the family which used to manage the specific endowment, they shall be allowed to participate in those functions as family members of the original trustee and they have every right to ascertain the particulars of the income of the lands and the expenditure incurred in respect of the endowed property.
32. Since the first respondent paid Maktha to the Executive Officer on proper acknowledgment, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the same. The lower Court was therefore right in dismissing the suit and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree of the Courts below. I hope that there is no need for any direction to the temple authorities to take necessary steps against tenants to get reasonable rent from the lands. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.