KONDAVITTI BRAHMAYYA AND ORS. Vs. RAJESWARASWAMI TEMPLE, SITUATE AT PONNEKALLU, GUNTUR TALUK, BY ITS TRUSTEES GUDURU SITARAMAYYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of O. S. No. 178 of 1949, a suit filed by the plaintiff -respondent 1, for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for mesne profits. The plaintiff, defendant 27 and one Nagayya are the trustees of the temple of Sri Rajeswaraswami of Ponnekallu. Defendants 1 to 7 are the archakas of the suit temple and defendants 8 to 26 are the lessees under defendants 1 to 7. The plaintiff alleging that the plaint schedule properties are the properties of the deity, filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of possession. Defendants 1 to 7 denied that the properties are the properties of the deity and claimed that the suit lands were granted to the archakas burdened with service to the deity. They also claimed that they acquired a right by adverse possession. As many as seven issues were framed in the suit and they reflect the contentions of the parties. They are,

(2.) THE first question that arises in the appeal is whether the deity has title to the plaint schedule items or whether they were granted to the archakas subject to the service to the deity. The Inam register is almost conclusive on this question. Column 11 gives the name of the grantor. It shows that the lands were granted by Vasireddi Verkaiadri Naidu. Column 13 shows the name of the grantee. The name of the grantee is given as Sri Rajeswaraswami. Under Col. 8 the following recital is found :

(3.) IF so, it follows that the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree for possession and the learned Subordinate Judge rightly gave a decree for possession. But the learned counsel for the appellants contended that in view of some unreported judgments of this Court they are entitled to continue to be in possession, at any rate, of two -thirds of the plaint schedule properties, even though the subordinate Court and this Court have held that they have no title to the properties. In A. S. No. 218 of 1946, Satyanarayana Rao and Chandra Reddi JJ. held that having regard to the circumstances of that case the archakas would be entitled to be put in possession of two -third of the temple properties in lieu of remuneration. Satyanarayana Rao J. rightly observed in the judgment as follows: