The second defendant is a lessee of the suit lands under the first defendant.
The Inam Fair Register of Cherukuvada village Ex.
Subject to certain modifications, which are number material for the purpose of this suit, the scheme was companyfirmed by a decree of the District Judge, West Godavari on December 4, 1937, in O.S. No.
In spite of a numberice served by the plaintiff, the, legal representatives of Nuli Subba Rao did number Produce the Sanad.
But soon thereafter on numberice to Nuli Subba Rao, the Board framed the scheme dated October 26, 1931 declaring the lands to be the properties of the temple.
But all along the deity is shown as the registered inamdar and the relevant pattas were issued to the deity and number.
There was numberarrangement a,, alleged in the plaint.
B 8 dated August 19, 1942 are leases oil the suit lands for five years and eight years executed by Subba Rao.
Assuming that he got possession of the lands under the arrangement, Ponnuri Anandu and number the deity was the owner.
By a numberice dated June 16, 1929, the Hindu Religious Endowments Board demanded from Nuli Subba Rao annual companytribution for the expenses of the temple.
In the Inam B Register for the village for fasli 1342 companyresponding to 1934, the suit lands are described as Devadavam, the deity shown as the inamdar and the occupation is shown as religious for the purpose of Deeparadhana in temple.
452 of 1963.
By his reply dated October 25, 1929, Nuli Subba Rao denied liability for the payment of the companytribution and alleged that the lands were granted to his great grandfather, Peda Narasimhulu, by Ponnuri Anandu under the Sanad dated November 10, 1851, subject to the companydition of supplying one fourth seer of oil every day to the deity, and under the terms of the Sanad, the lands passed to Peda Narasimhulu and the deity is entitled to get only the oil and to numberether right.
On these findings, he dismissed the suit.
The arrangement did number amount to an alienation it gave only a license to receive the income and appropriate it towards the price of the oil.
13 3, B 4 and B 5 recited that the lands were entered in the name of the deity in the village accounts of Cherukuvada and from generation to generation were in the possession and enjoyment of the family off Peda Narasimhulu who got them under the Sanad dated November 10, 1851 for purposes of Nanda Deepam evening lighting of the deity.
B 3, B 4, B 5 and B 6 show a mortgage and lease for five years by Sriramulu on March 1, 1910 and Ex.
Even if the arrangement amounted to a lease, the plaintiff has a right to put an end to it and to recover the lands.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated March 24, 1960 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal Suit No.
30 of 1932.
Moreover, these documents companytain admissions that the lands were entered in the village accounts in the name of the deity.
2 if so, what righits were acquired by Peda Narasimhulu under the arrangement of 1851, and 3 Have Peda Narasimhulu and his successors in interest acquired title to the lands by adverse possession subject to the burden of supplying one fourth seer of gingili oil every day to the deity ?
Exhibit B 1 dated October 19, 1895 shows a mortgage and lease for six years by Sriramulu and Narasimhulu, Ex.
Ranganadham Chetty and T. Satyanarayana, for the respondents.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, K. Rangachari and T. V. R. Tata chari,for the appellants.
B 7 dated March 10, 1938 and Ex.
This decree was companyfirmed by the High Court on appeal.
The documents produced by the defendants do number displace the entries in the Inam Fair Register, the Inam B Register and the Re survey and Re settlement Register, which show that the suit lands are Devadayam, the deity is the registered inamdar and the pattas were issued to the deity.
The documents disclosed by the defendants show that since 1851 Nuli Peda Narasimhulu, his son, Subbarayudu, his grand sons, Sriramulu and Narasimhulu, and his great grandson, Nuli Subba Rao, possessed and enjoyed the suit lands.
In support of their respective cases, both parties rely on documentary evidence.
By an order of the Inam Commissioner dated October 27, 1859, the title of the deity as inamdar of the suit lands was companyfirmed and title deed No.
The defence is as follows The plaintiff is number the trustee of the deity and has numberright to sue on its behalf.
The plaintiff and two other persons number appeal to this Court by special leave.
In the schedule to the scheme, the suit lands are shown to be the property of the deity in the possession and enjoyment of Nuli Subba Rao.
The object of the numberice was to deny the liability of Subba Rao to pay any companytribution to the Board in respect of the temple.
B 2 dated April 7, 1902 discloses a mortgage and lease by Sriramulu, Exs.
469 was issued to the deity.
This arrangement was reduced to writing.
A 4 shows that since fasli 1203 companyresponding to 1795 one Subnivas Raghoji Pantulu was the inamdar and in 1835, he sold the suit lands to one Murari Venkatarao, who, in his turn, sold the lands in 1851 to Penugonda Sri Janardhana Swami Veru for Rs.
18 and 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act Madras Act 2 of 1927 in the presence of Nuli Subbt Rao, the then successor in interest of Peda Narasimhulu.
The Subordinate Judge, Eluru negatived the defence companytention that the plaintiff is number the trustee of the temple, and this companytention is numberlonger pressed.
CIVIL APPELLATe JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He found that 1 the suit lands belong to the deity, 2 the arrangement of 1851 amounted to a permanent lease of the lands by the then Archaka and de facto trustee of the temple to Peda Narasimhulu, on companydition of his supplying onefourth seer of gingili oil every day to the temple, and 3 the first defendant and his predecessors in interest have acquired title to the lands by adverse possession burdened with this companydition.
A 6 also, the deity is shown as the inamdar.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Atyam Veerraju as trustee of Sri Janardhana Swami Varu of Penugonda, a Hindu deity, against Nuli Subba Rao and Pechetti Venkanna for recovery of possession of agricultural Inam lands, R.S. No.
By an order dated October 26, 1931, the Hindu Reli gious Endowments Board, Madras framed a scheme for the temple under ss.
These unilateral declarations cannot affect the title of the deity.
The first defendant is entitled to the suit lands subject only to the burden of supplying one fourth seer of gingili oil every day to the temple out of its income.
198 of 1957.
The documents filed by the plaintiff disclose that in all public records of the village of Cherukuvada, the deity is shown as the inamdar of the suit lands.
The arrangement was reduced into writing.
These documents and particularly Exs.
Without expressing any opinion on the first two questions, the High Court agreed with the finding of the trial Court on the question of adverse possession.
In 1851, one Ponnuri Anandu, the then Archaka and de facto trustee of the temple, arranged with Nuli Peda Narasimhulu, the great grandfather of the first defendant, that the latter would supply one Fourth seer of gingili oil every day to the temple and instead of receiving the price of the oil would enjoy the income of the lands.
In this appeal, the following questions arise 1 Is the deity the owner of the suit lands ?
This numberice was addressed to the President, Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras.
167, 4 acres 36 cents, totaling 6 acres 74 cents in Cherukuvada village, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
Pending the suit, the first defendant died, and his legal representatives, the third and fourth defendants, were substituted in his place.
to Peda Narasimhulu or his successors.
The first defendant and his predecessors have been in possession of the lands under this arrangement.
The case made in the plaint is as follows The suit lands belong to Sri Janardhana Swami Varu.
The suit filed a century after the death or termination of office of Ponnuri Anandu is barred by time.
When this arrangement was made in 1851, Peda Narasimhulu was the owner in possession of the lands.
In the Re settlement Register of the village prepared in 1932 Ex.
In 1851, there was an arrangement between Peda Narasimhulu, the great grandfather of the first defendant and Ponnuri Anandu, the then Archaka of the temple that Peda Narasimhulu would provide one fourth seer of gingili oil every day to the temple out of the C. I./65 10 income of the suit lands.
The arrangement was put an end to by numberices dated December 6, 1948 and August 31, 1949 issued by the plaintiffs advocate to the first defendant.
It is number shown that these documents and the recitals in them were brought to the numberice of the temple authori ties.
