Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. On considering the evidence on record, trial Court held that Mahamuni temple is not a private temple and it is a sub-temple of Govindaraja Swamy temple. It was also held that the plaintiff has no title to the plaint schedule vacant site and that he is not entitled to for declaration to that effect. The trial Court further held that the relief of mandatory injunction had become infructuous in view of the interim orders passed by the trial Court. But on issue Nos. 3 and 4, which are crucial for consideration in the Second Appeal, the trial Court held that plaintiff is not subordinate, servant or office holder of TTD under Act No. 17 of 1966, and that the order of removal Ex. A.11 is not valid and binding on the plaintiff.

6. By the time, the trial Court delivered Judgment on 07.06.1990, Act No. 17 of 1966 was repealed by A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No. 30 of 1987). But, the trial Court appears to have ignored the effect of the amending Act on the right in respect of which the remedy was sought in the suit. Be that as it is, the first appellate Court in its Judgment, dated 09.07.1997 in A.S. No. 87 of 1990, again adverted to the ten issues as appellate points for consideration. It came to conclusion that Mahamuni temple is not a private temple and that it is a sub-temple under the control of TTD. After referring to the provisions of Act No. 30 of 1987, the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that Ex. A.11 (termination order) passed by TTD is valid and binding. It also concluded that having regard to Section 77 of Act No. 17 of 1966, the suit to set aside Ex. A.11 is not maintainable. The first appellate Court also held that order of removal of plaintiff is valid and binding on the plaintiff.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri Y.Srinvasa Murthy, submits that the first appellate Court did not appreciate the status of the plaintiff and Management of suit temple even after coming into force of Act No. 30 of 1987. Secondly, he submits that there was sufficient evidence to show that the plaintiff was hereditary Dharmakarta or trustee of Mahamuni temple and TTD would not have passed an order terminating him as Dharmakarta. According to learned Counsel, the inclusion of Mahamuni temple in Schedule I of Act No. 30 of 1987 as a sub-temple of TTD does not alter the character of the temple as being a private temple. He also submits that there was no prohibition for the civil Court to entertain a suit in a dispute between Dharmakarta of a temple and Department of Endowments.

8. Learned standing counsel for TTD Sri M. Adinarayana Raju submits that Mahamuni temple is not a private temple. It is sub-temple of Sri Govindaraja Swamy temple, which is included in Schedule I for the purpose of constituting TTD. Both the Courts have held that Mahamuni temple is not a private temple and therefore, the question cannot be re-agitated again. Secondly, he submits that the plaintiff is an office holder and therefore, he is subject to disciplinary control of TTD, which is entitled to suspend or remove an office holder including a hereditary office holder. Thirdly, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the Deputy Commissioner is alone competent under the Act No. 17 of 1966 to decide the status of the religious institution or the status of a person claiming hereditary management rights to such institution.