Pushpagiri Mutt vs C. Indiramma on 27 February, 2003
Equivalent citations: AIR2003AP379, 2003(4)ALD267, 2003(4)ALT348, AIR 2003 ANDHRA PRADESH ... appellant and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, Counsel representing the respondent.
2. Pushpagiri Mutt, represented by its Manager, defendant in the suit, is the appellant
Pushpagiri Mutt vs Chintakunta Erikala Reddy on 21 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(5)ALD714, 2000(5)ALT444 ... hereinafter called 'the Act').
2. The petitioner herein a Pushpagiri Mutt in Cuddapah. It owns considerable extents of lands. The respondent herein
plaintiff-Mutt, at the relevant times, the plaintiff-Mutt was described in the pleadings as follows:
The Executive Officer of Sri Pushpagiri Mutt, Cuddappah, Cuddappah ... Pushpagiri Mutt, Cuddappah". The plaintiff Mutt has to be represented by some person. Instead of filing the suit as "Sri Pushpagiri Mutt, Cuddppah
Sri-La-Sri Shanmuga Desiga ... vs The State Of Madras Represented By ... on 22 December
appointment. Her rights were ignored by the Executive Officer, Pushpagiri Mutt, who submitted the name of the 2nd responodent as the person entitled ... office. Mr. Veerabhadrayya contends that the Executive Officer, Pushpagiri Mutt is not the proprietor of the village in question and the nomination submitted
Andhra Pradesh High Court
31
in the case of MANAGER PUSHPAGIRI MUTT v. C. INIDRAMMA
reported in AIR 2003 AP 379 wherein it is held
judgments of this Court in A. Hanuma Ready and Ors. v. Pushpagiri Mutt, 1970 APHCN 30 (DB), Sanadhi Narayana v. State
Limitation cannot be extended merely on equitable grounds.
5. In Pushpagiri Mutt v. Ch. Erikala Reddy , relying on the decision of the Supreme Court
Division Bench of this court in Avula Hanuma Reddy v. Sri Pushpagiri Mutt, (1970) 1 APLJ 41,(Short Notes) that the provisions of the Tenancy
felt it would be appropriate to merge the temple in Pushpagiri Mutt with a faith and belief that temple would have proper maintenance. According
