GUTHA HARIHARABRAHMAN Vs. DODDAPPANENI JANIKIRAMAIAH CHATAPARRU
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DODDAPPANENI JANIKIRAMAIAH, CHATAPARRU
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This Second Appeal arises out of O. S. No. 305 of 1947 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of eluru, a suit filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. of 1944 for rendition of accounts in respect of the management of the temples of Sri Janardanaswami and Sri Malleswaraswami of Chattaparru. The plaintiff is the present Managing Trustee of the said temples. The suit was filed for rendition of accounts in respect of the managing of the temples by Ex-Trustees Gutta Pichayya, Gutta Subramanyam and Guutta Venkatasubbamma, the 9th defendant. Defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of Gutta Pichayya. Defendants 2 to 7 are the sons of Gutta Sitaramabrahman. The 8th defendant is Sitaramabrahmans brother. It was alleged in the plaint that Gutta Pichayya and the 9th defendant as guardian of sitaramabrahmam managed the said temples as trustees from 1901, that the 9th defendant acted as a trustee till sitaramabrahmam attained majority, that Pichayya and Sitaramabrahmam after he attained majority acted as trustees till the year 1938, that during the period of their management the trustees collected large sums of money, from the debtors of the temples and from the temple properties and misappropriated the same, that the trustees were guilty of acts of misfeasance, malfeasance, and non-fesance and that, therefore, they were liable to render accounts to the temples for the period of their management and to pay the amount due to the temples with interest.
(2.) The defendants, inter alia, pleaded that they were not guiltyof any misappropriation, that the suit was barred bylimitation, and that S. 73, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, was a bar to the maintainability of the suit.
(3.) The learned District Munsif held that the suit was barred by limitation against the 9th defendant, but was well within time against the other defendants. He also found that s. 73 was not a bar to the maintainability of the suit. In the result, he gave a preliminary decree for accounts with a direction that the Commissioner shall take an account of the management of the temples and the properties by Pichayya and Sitarambrahmam from 1901 to 1938. On appeal, the learned subordinate Judge took the same view on the two questions raised and dismissed the appeal. Hence the Second Appeal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.