and binding on the temple.
Thereafter, there was a companypromise between the petitioners 1 to 5 on the one, hand and the Commissioner, the 1st respondent on the other.
Originally, the Commissioner.
On January 18, 1950 the 1 st defendant filed O.P. number 3 of 1950 on the file of the District Judge Nellore 1 for setting aside the order of the Board dated October 5, 1949 declaring the temple of Sri Kodandaramaswamiwari as a temple defined in s. 6, cl.
After enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner submitted a report to the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, recommending that a scheme of Management may be framed for the administration of the.
Hindu Religious Endowment Board, Madras was impleaded as the sole respondent in the petition.
By reason of these changes the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments in the State of Andhra Pradesh was impleaded as the 1st respondent to the petition.
Then came the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The 1st defendant reiterated his plea that the temple was number a public temple.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 7, 1962 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal Suit No.
17 of the Act, 2 for a declaration that the temple was a private temple and 3 for a declaration that the properties set out in the schedule annexed to the petition were the personal properties of his family and they did number companystitute the temple properties.
Both the respondent companytested the petition on the ground that the temple was a public temple and that the properties mentioned in the schedule were the properties of the temple and number the personal properties of the 1st defendant.
plaintiff also filed M.P. number6422 of 1962 praying for amendment of the plaint the effect that the companypromise decree in O. P. number 3 of 1950 was number valid and binding on the temple.
the Hindu Religious and, Charitable Endowments Act of 1951 was a bar to the institution of the suit.
265 of 1964.
312 of 1957.
Babula Reddy, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the appellants.
The Board held an enquiry and by its order dated October S. 1949 held that the temple was a public one.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the result, the High Court owed the appeal and remanded the suit to the trial companyrt for disposing the same on the remaining issues.
In the meantime Madras Act II of 1927 was repealed and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951 was enacted.
The Board thereafter companymenced I proceedings for settling a scheme and issued numberice to the 1st defendant to state his objections.
For reasons which are number apparent on the record the petition was number disposed of for a number of years.
Rama Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for respondent No.
Against the decree of the trial companyrt the plaintiff preferred an appeal A S, 312 of 1957 to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
312 of 57.
temple and its properties.
Defendants 1 to 5 objected, to the suit on the ground that it was number open to the plaintiff to seek a declaration that a Part of the decree was number binding but the plaintiff should have directed his attack against the ,entirety of the decree.
By a deed dated August 19 1898 Venkata Subbareddi relinquished his interest in the properties in favour of one Vemareddi Rangareddi whose family members are defendants 1 to 5.
The plaintiff filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner , for Hindu Religious Endowments, Nellore, alleging mismanagement of the temple and its properties by the first defendant.
In the village of Varagali, in the district of Nellore, there is a temple in which is enshrined the idol of Sri Kodandaramaswami.
Notice was issued to the 1st defendant to show cause why the temple properties ghould number be leased out in public auction and the first, defendant companytested the application alleging that the properties were number the properties of the temple but they belonged to his family.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J This appeal is brought by certificate on behalf of the defendants against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra pradesh dated August 7, 1962 in Appeal Suit No.
The present plaintiff later on got himself impleaded as the 2nd respondent therein.
V. R. Tatachari, for respondent No.
The temple was built in the middle of the last century by one Burla Rangareddi who managed the affairs of the temple and its properties during his life time.
After his death his son, Venkata Subbareddi is in management.
The District Judge, Nellore recorded the companypromise and passed a decree in terms thereof by his order dated October 28, 1954, The material clauses of the companypromise decree, Ex.
