Satyanarayana Rao, J. -
(1.)THE plaintiff who is the appellant herein laid this suit to establish his right to certain lands described in the plaint schedule and also to have It declared that the temple in B -schedule is a private one and that the order of the District Court in O.P. No. 23 of 1946 does not bind him. The suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge. The properties now claimed in the suit were owned by his adoptive father one Indrakanti Seshavadhanulu and were his self -acquired properties. Some of the properties were inherited by Seshavadhanulu from his brother, Rangavadhanulu, who was also the founder of the temple. He claimed the suit properties as the adopted son of Seshavadhanulu and also by adverse possession and his contention in the suit was that the temple was a private temple and not a public one and therefore the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board had no right to interfere with its administration and recover possession of the property in pursuance of the order in O.P. No. 23 of 1946, District Court, Kurnool.
(2.)THE plaintiff was adopted by Seshavadhanulu sometime before 16th May, 1919. On that day, Seshavadhanulu executed Exhibit A -1 which is styled an adoption deed and in which he acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff was taken in adoption and that he had performed daltahomam and upanayanam. Paragraph 3 of the deed refers to certain gifts of immoveable properties which he had made by that time and in respect of which the plaintiff, a the adopted son, would have no right. Paragraph 4 of the deed refers to the immoveable properties which were described in the schedule to the deed as well as paurohitam right which Seshavadhanulu had. It was stated in that paragraph that the plaintiff as the adopted son should be entitled to all the rights which Seshavadhanulu possessed just like his son. The schedule excludes the properties which are now in dispute. The suit temple was founded, as stated above, by Rangavadhanulu, the brother of Seshavadhanulu. Provision had been made for carrying on worship in the temple and to that end, on 24th June, 1919, two documents were executed. Exhibit B -1 was executed by the natural father of the plaintiff on behalf of the minor plaintiff in favour of one Panthangi Bheemarao, Under this document which is styled a "khararnama", it was enjoined that Bheemarao should carry on the worship in the temple and be in possession of the properties specified in the document and his duties were also specified. It was also further provided that in case Bheemarao failed to carry out the duties which were enjoined on him under the document, he should forfeit his right to the property and that the properties would be taken back to make some other arrangement for the carrying out of the worship and the services in the temple. The counter -part of this kharar executed by Bheemarao in favour of the natural father of the plaintiff is Exhibit A -10 under which Bheemarao agreed to carry out the conditions of the gift. On 26th June, 1919, Seshavadhanulu gifted to Bheemarao under Exhibit A -2 a house in Kurnool. Thereafter, Seshavadhanulu seems to have left the place of his residence, Kurnool, to Banaras and though he was not initiated into the order of sanyasis, he assumed the name of Maheswaranandathirithaswami. He returned to Kurnool in 1923 and as Bheemarao was anxious that his rights to the property already gifted should be secured from the owner of the properties, a khararnama was executed on 27th April, 1923, Exhibit B -2, by Seshavadhanulu. In the document, it was stated that the Siva temple in Kummari Street on the banks of the river Thungabhadra in Kurnoolpeta and the lands described in the schedule appended to the deed were acquired by his undivided brother Rangavadhanulu as his self -acquisitions and after his death they devolved upon him by heirship and the temple was known as Rangavadhanuluvari temple. He acknowledged the adoption of the plaintiff by him and took care to mention in the deed that the temple and the schedule properties were not included in the deed Exhibit A -1, as he had the intention of conveying the same to a proper person who would perform the poojas and would properly conduct the worship in Siva temple. With this end in view on 24th June, 1919, a khararnama. Exhibit B -1, was executed by the natural father of the plaintiff acting as his guardian and Bheemarao was put in possession of the properties. He also adverted to the fact that at the request of Bheemarao, he executed this document to secure his title to the properties. This document again repeats the conditions of the grant as in Exhibit B -1 and A -10. It also refers to Dharma Chatrams (choultries) etc., in the temple and which was put in possession of Bheemarao who was enjoined to carry out the direction of feeding Brahmins in the month of Sravana as in Exhibit B -1. We do not know the exact date of death of Seshavadhanulu.
In 1927, the plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 17 of 1927, Sub -Court, Kurnool, against Bheemarao and others to have it declared that he was absolute owner of the properties which are now the subject -matter of the suit on the basis that the kharars of 24th June, 1919 and 27th April, 1923, were not valid and did not bind him and also for recovery of possession of the properties. This suit was compromised on 22nd July, 1930 and Bheemarao retaining for himself about acres 6 -00 of land relinquished all his rights in the other properties covered by the previous kharars in favour of the plaintiff and got himself exonerated from his liability to do the poojas and repairs in the temple as per the terms of the kharars and the plaintiff himself undertook thereafter to conduct the said poojas. The compromise decree is Exhibit A -3. Plaintiff now alleges that in pursuance of this compromise he came into possession of the lands and thereafter he was leasing out the properties to tenants.
(3.)IN 1946, the two trustees appointed by the Endowments Board filed an application under S. 78 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act for recovery of possession of the properties from the plaintiff and his tenants and in this petition, the history of the temple and the various transactions relating to the suit properties were set out and it was claimed that the properties were endowed to the temple and that the trustees were entitled to recover possession of the same. After enquiry, this petition was ordered in favour of the trustees by the learned District Judge, Kurnool, on 30th November, 1946, Exhibit A -20. This suit was instituted by the plaintiff immediately thereafter impleading as parties to it the Endowments Board as the 1st defendant and the trustees as defendants 2 and 3.