C. UMAMAHESWARA RAO AND ANOTHER Vs. SRI HANUMANDESWARA DEVASTHANAM
LAWS(APH)-1963-11-43
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 23,1963

C. Umamaheswara Rao And Another Appellant
VERSUS
Sri Hanumandeswara Devasthanam Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ANANTANARAYANA AYYAR,J. - (1.) The Executive Officer of Sri Hanumandeswara Devasthanam situate at Koyyetipadu filed M. P. No. 14 of 1963 in the Court of the learned Additional District Munsif- Magistrate, Tanuku, citing eight respondents and praying for delivery of possession of various items of properties mentioned in the schedule in accordance with a certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Ex. P. 1. The schedule of properties in M. P. No. 14 of 1963 agreed with the schedule of properties given in Ex. P. 1 The first respondent, who is a hereditary trustee of the temple filed a counter contesting the petition. So did the 2nd respondent, who is the archaka of the temple. The ether respondents remained ex parte. The petitioner filed M. P. No. 59 of 196o praying for an amendment of the schedule to his petition by showing against items Nos. 4, 8, 9 and 11 new patta numbers and survey numbers. His contention was that the patta numbers and survey numbers given in the certificate of the Deputy Commissioner were the figures as they stood in 1950 under the old survey and that the new survey numbers which he wanted to be put were the numbers which came to be given to the same items of the land as a result of a supplementary survey. The first respondent contested the petition (M. P. No. 59 of 1963). The learned; Munsif-Magistrate proceeded to record evidence in the main proceedings in M. P. No. 14 of 1963. The Executive officer deposed as P.W. 1 and marked various documents including Ex. P. 1, Ex. P. 2 is the certified copy of the B Register relating to Koyyetipadu village which shows the patta numbers as they stood in 1958. Ex. P. 3 is a certified copy of the extract of the Fair Adangal as it stood after the supplemental survey. The extent of the various items i.e., 4, 8, 9 and 11 are the same in Ex. P. 2 and Ex. P. 3. The learned Munsif Magistrate passed orders dated 23-11-1963 allowing the amendment as prayed for in M. P. No. 59 of 1963 and also directing delivery of possession as prayed for by the petitioner in M. P. No. 14/1963. Respondents 1 and 2 (as numbered in M. P. No. 14 of 1963) felt aggrieved by that order and filed tins revision.
(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the amendment petition, it is stated as follows : "According to supplemental survey the patta numbers and some survey numbers are changed from the schedule filed in this petition. The area is the same and there is only change in survey numbers for four items only. After the petition is ordered for delivery of the schedule lands, there will be some practical difficulty in executing the order as per the supplemental survey. Hence the schedule filed along with the main petition is to be amended in this respect to put the corresponding supplemental survey numbers and patta numbers only to avoid practical difficulty at the time of delivery."
(3.) In the proposed amended schedule, the new survey numbers and patta numbers (title deed numbers) are shown after omitting the original survey numbers and patta numbers. They are only shown in addition to the original patta numbers and survey numbers against each respective item. The Executive Officer as P.W. 1 deposed in support of his allegation in the petition as follows : "I have no objection even if possession was ordered under the old survey numbers as stated in the certificate. I pray for delivery of properly mentioned under the Schedule with the standing crops thereon. . . . . . .";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.