Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. These two appeals have been preferred under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the common judgment and decree dated 22-7-1997 passed in A.S.No. 95/96 and A.S. No. 105/96 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, reversing the common judgment and decree dated 22-8-1996 passed in O.S.No. 42/92 and O.S.No. 123/92 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Tirupathi.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are being referred as they are arrayed in O.S.No. 42/92.

3. The dispute in both the suits relates to the membership bearing batch number 52 in Tirumala-Tirupathi De vasthanam Kalyanakatta at Tirumala. The membership in that Batch No. 52 of Kalyanakatta vests rights on the member to participate in tonsure at that Kalyanakatta and he is entitled for remuneration as paid by Devasthanam. Unless one becomes a member under that Kalyanakatta Sangam, no one is entitled for participating in the tonsuring ritual and for the emoluments. The membership bearing batch number 52 originally belonged to one Y. Krishna Murthy. He died on 28-3-1969 leaving behind his widow Y. Venkataratnamma, his minor son Y. Venkataeswarulu and minor daughter Hussenamma (defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No. 42/92). As the said legal heirs of Y. Krishna Murthy were not in a position to work in Kalyanakatta, the membership bearing batch No. 52 was temporarily transferred in favour of one S. Muniratnam with their consent. As the said Muniratnam was unable to render service in Kalyanakatta due to his ill-health, the first defendant, namely, Y. Venkataratnamma requested the fourth defendant, namely, T.T. Devasthanam, to transfer the membership in favour of V. Narayana, the plaintiff in O.S.No. 42/92. Accordingly T.T.D. Devasthanam issued proceedings dated 7-5-1980 {Ex.A-3 and Ex. B-2) conferring the said membership temporarily on the plaintiff V. Narayana subject to the following conditions :

5. The second defendant Venkateswarulu in O.S.No. 42/92 filed the suit G.S. No. 123/92 against the T.T.D. (D-1) and V. Narayana-plaintiff in O.S. No. 42/92 as D-2 for declaration of his right to tonsure under membership bearing batch number 52 as the legal heir of his deceased father Y. Krishna Murthy and also to have all the attendant benefits and for permanent injunction restraining the T.T.D. and its subordinates from anyway allowing the second defendant, namely, V. Narayana or anybody for tonsuring under the membership bearing batch number 52 and for regularising him. The case of plaintiff in O.S.No. 123/92 is his defence in O.S.No. 42/92. It is his case that the service of doing tonsure under the membership bearing batch number 52 is hereditary and after demise of his father Krishna Murthy, the plaintiff being the only son of his father, succeeded to the said membership bearing batch number 52, that he was born on 8-5-1967 that the plaintiff came to know that the second defendant (plaintiff in O.S.No. 42/92) had fraudulently misrepresented his mother and worked on her behalf under membership bearing number 52 and he could not claim any right on the original member as per the proceedings of T.T.D. dt. 7-5-1980 and he should vacate when the son of original member became major. It is also his case that after obtaining majority he approached the first defendant T.T.D. and requested to permit him to render service under the membership bearing batch number 52 and also not to regularise the services of V. Narayana. The defence of the second defendant in O.S.No. 123/92 is that of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 42/92 as he happens to be the plaintiff in that suit. He has also taken up a plea that the plaintiff's suit is barred by time.

9. In the first instance, I will take up the question of limitation. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the finding of the first Appellate Court that the suit O.S.No. 123/92 is barred by time is perverse. He claims that it is a suit for declaration of appellant's right to tonsure under badge No. 52 of TTD Kalyanakatta, Tirumala, as legal heir of his father and also to have all the attendant benefits thereon; that right to tonsure is an hereditary right which is an immovable property, thus the appellant's suit, in effect, is for recovery of possession of the said immovable property. The learned Counsel further contends that as the respondent committed breach of the condition in not delivering the badge after the appellant attained majority, the limitation for recovery of the said possession under Article 66 of the Limitation Act is 12 years from the date of breach of the condition and as such the present suit is not barred by time. The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand, submits that the plaintiff's suit relates to the declaration of right to tonsure, therefore the relevant Article is Article 58 which prescribes the period of limitation as three years from the date the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff-appellant. The learned Counsel for the respondent further submits alternatively, that even if the right to tonsure is taken as a right for immovable property then the relevant Article is Article 60 of the Limitation Act, wherein the period of limitation prescribed is three years from the date the plaintiff attained majority as the relief sought for by the plaintiff is to set aside the sale of the right of tonsure which was effected by his mother during his minority under Ex.A-4. In the instant case the plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration of his right for tonsure and for consequential relief of claiming the attendant benefits to the said right. It is well settled that mere form of relief claimed in a suit does not determine the real character of that suit and in order to ascertain under which Article of the Limitation Act the particular suit would fall, the plaint as a whole has to be examined to see whether the relief is declaration properly so called or whether the relief for declaration is an unnecessary claim. If on such determination it is found that the suit is in effect one for possession against a party in possession adversely to the plaintiff, then Article 58 would not be attracted to the suit. If on the contrary on examining the plaint, the relief other than the relief for declaration is found to be unnecessary, superfluous or premature such a suit will be a suit for declaration only attracting Article 58. In the instant case, as seen from the averments in the plaint in O.S. No. 123/92 the relief sought for by the appellant-plaintiff is for declaration of his right to tonsure in TTD Kalyanakata which has been transferred in favour of the respondent by the TTD under Exs.A-3/B-2 dated 7-5-1980 and in pursuance of which the respondent has been exercising the said right. The said right has been transferred by the mother of the plaintiff-appellant both on her behalf and on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff under Ex.A-4 dt. 30-5-1980. Therefore, the nature of the suit is one for declaration of right for tonsure only. As such the Article that is applicable is Article 58 of the Limitation Act and the period of limitation is three years from the date the said right accrued to the plaintiff for the first time. Admittedly, the appellant-plaintiff attained majority on 8-5-1985 as his date of birth as seen from Ex. A-1 /B-1 is 8-5-1967. Therefore, the right for tonsure accrued to the plaintiff for the first time on attaining majority on 8-5-1985 and the appellant-plaintiff ought to have filed the said suit within three years thereafter. But, in the instant case the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit on 4-3-1992 i.e., long after the expiry of the period of limitation. As such the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff in O.S.No. 123/92 is barred by time.

16. Relying on the decision in (2 supra) the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the right of tonsure is a right in immovable property and its transfer requires registration. In that case, considering the definition of immovable property as mentioned in Section 2(6) of Registration Act that it includes hereditary allowances and as shebait is a hereditary office, it was held that right to perform puja is a right in immovable property. In the instant case, as earlier stated the TTD has categorically pleaded in its written statement that the right to tonsure is not a hereditary office. There is nothing on record to show that any specific allowances are prescribed to this office. Hence, it cannot be said that the right to tonsure is a right in immovable property. Therefore, there cannot be any objection for marking the document Ex.A-4 on the ground that it is not registered. That right has been transferred in favour of the respondent herein for valuable consideration as deposed by PWs and it is binding on the appellant as it was executed on his behalf also during his minority and he did not choose to set it aside after attaining majority. The lower appellatte Court, having considered and reappreciated the entire evidence both oral and documentary independently came to the correct conclusions. It has given cogent and convincing reasons for not accepting the findings of the trial Court. The findings of the appellate Court cannot be said to be based on no evidence. Nor can they be said to be perverse. The lower appellate Court considered both the questions of facts and questions of law in right perspective and came to the correct conclusions. I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the lower appellate Court.