HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.196 OF 2006
Dated 5-12-2014
Between:
Lakshmakkagari Venkataramana and others.
..Appellants.
And:
Nandigiri Rajappa.
..Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.196 OF 2006
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is against judgment dated 25/08/2005 in A.S.No.10 of 2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Punganur, whereunder judgment dated 25/02/2002 in O.S.No.131 of 1997 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur, is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this second appeal are as follows:
Respondent herein filed O.S.No. 131 of 1997 for the relief of permanent injunction restraining appellants herein, their men and agents from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property contending that property was endowed to “Voorguttamma” temple by the-then Zamindar of Punganur under service inam and the plaintiff being ‘archaka’ was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on behalf of himself and his family and no one has got any right and title over the suit schedule property and the appellants have no manner of right to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment. It is also contended that Revenue Authorities recognized the right of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and his name is recorded as ‘enjoyer’.
On plaintiff’s side three witnesses are examined and twelve documents are marked, whereas on defendants side, three witnesses are examined and two documents are marked.
On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court decreed the suit and granted permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the same, appellants herein preferred appeal to the Senior Civil Judge, Punganur and the appellate Judge on a re- appraisal of evidence confirmed judgment and decree of trial court. Aggrieved by the same, present second appeal is preferred.
This court admitted second appeal on 28/04/2006. The following are the grounds that are considered as substantial questions of law at the time of admission.
(i) Whether the courts below right in holding that the suit can be filed by the poojari/archaka is maintainable and whether it is not contravention of provisions of the Endowment Act.
(ii) Whether the courts below not committed an error in granting perpetual injunction in favour of respondents/plaintiffs in not having any right except performing pooja in the temple to seek an injunction against the lessees of endowed the property .
(iii) Whether the courts below gave a perpetual finding against appellants without deciding the right of plaintiff/respondent to institute a suit.
(iv) Whether the Senior Civil Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of provisions under section 1 [3] if the Endowment Act.
From out of these grounds, the main ground argued as question of law is ground No.IV.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for appellants mainly contended that civil court has no jurisdiction and the remedy of the plaintiff is to approach the authority under provisions of A.P.
Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act’) and both the courts erred in granting injunction against the appellants herein. He further submitted that this court in SRI RAMA SRI KANYAKAPARAMESWARI SRINAGARESWARA SWAMY VARLA ALAYAMULU v..
[1]
JAMPA SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS ( ) held that civil court jurisdiction is barred in respect of temple lands. He further submitted in KANDURI VEERA RAGHAVA CHARYULU v. NALLURI JAGANNADHA CHARYULU
[2]
(DIED) PER L.Rs. AND OTHERS ( ), this court held that when there is a remedy under the Act a civil suit is not maintainable.
In reply advocate for respondent submitted that the objection of jurisdiction was raised before trial court and an issue was also framed and the trial judge after considering provisions of the Act, held that those provisions are not applicable to the case on hand and held that civil court has got jurisdiction and the same was upheld by the appellate court and therefore, there is no substantial question of law involved for determination of this court. He further submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of both courts.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this second appeal is whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of the remedy under the provisions of Act?
POINT:
Respondent herein who is Archaka of “Voorguttamma” temple filed suit against the appellants herein contending that schedule property was endowed to “Voorguttamma” temple by the-then Zamindar of Punganur and it is an inam land and plaintiff and his ancestors are archakas of that temple and they are in possession and enjoyment of the property for the maintenance of the village goddess “Voorguttamma” and defendants without any manner of right over the suit schedule property had been obstructing the plaintiff from enjoying the property and therefore, he prayed for decree of injunction. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit and civil court has no jurisdiction besides other contentions. Trial court held that since “Voorguttamma” temple is not vested with the Endowments Department of Government, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. Appellate court on an overall consideration of the decisions relied on by appellants herein held that civil court has got jurisdiction.
Here, the main argument of the advocate for appellants is that the pleadings and evidence disclose that the schedule property is an endowed property therefore, provisions of the Act are applicable and once the provisions are applicable, remedy of plaintiff is to approach the competent authority and civil court’s jurisdiction is specifically ousted as per Section151 of the Act.
On the other hand, it is the contention of the advocate for respondent/plaintiff that bar of civil court jurisdiction is only for the dispute covered by the provisions of the Act and here, in this case, from the pleadings and evidence, it is clear that the appellants being third parties are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and the plaintiff who is in possession of the properties to protect the possession filed the suit for injunction and interference by third parties is not covered by the provisions of the Act and therefore, the objection of the appellants is not tenable.
Now I shall refer to Section 151 of the Act which deals with bar of civil court jurisdiction.
The section reads as follows:
“No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of administration or management of an institution or endowment or any other matters of dispute for determining or deciding for which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of Law except under and in conformity with the provisions of this Act.”
From a reading of the above section, it is clear that there is a bar to institute a suit or legal proceeding in respect of administration of management of an institution or endowment when a provision is made in the Act for such determination. So it has to be seen whether there is any provision in the Act to determine an interference by a third party in respect of the properties belonging to any temple or endowed properties. Section 87 of the Act deals with determination of disputes.
If the present lis falls within the purview of Section 87 of the Act, Civil Court cannot entertain such dispute and if the lis is not covered by Section 87 of the Act, then civil court can entertain. So, to verify whether this lis falls within the purview of Section 87 of the Act, it is necessary to read the said provision which reads as follows:
“(1) The Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction shall have the power, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned, to enquire into and decide any dispute as to the question-
(a) whether an institution or endowment is a charitable institution or endowment;
(b) whether an institution or endowment is a religious institution or endowment;
(c) whether any property is an endowment, if so whether it is a charitable endowment or a religious endowment;
(d) whether any property is a specific endowment;
(e) whether any person is entitled by custom or otherwise to any hounor, emoluments or perquisites in any charitable or religious institution or endowment and what the established usage of such institution or endowment is in regard to any other matter;
(f) whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a secular or religious character and whether any property is given wholly or partly for secular or religious uses; or
(g) where any property or money has been given for the support of an institution or endowment which is partly of a secular character and partly of a religious character or the performance of any service or charity connected with such institution or endowment or the performance of a charity which is partly of a secular character and partly of a religious character or where any property or money given is appropriated partly to secular uses and partly to religious uses, as to what portion of such property or money shall be allocated to secular or religious uses;
(h) whether a person is a founder or a member from the family of the founder of an Institution or Endowment.
(2) The Endowments Tribunal may, pending its decision under sub-section (1), pass such order as it deems fit for the administration of the property or custody of the money belonging to the institution or endowment.
(3) The Endowments Tribunal may while recording its decision under sub-section (1) and pending implementation of such decision, pass such interim order as it may deem fit for safeguarding the interests of the institution or endowment and for preventing damage to or loss or misappropriation or criminal breach of trust in respect of the properties or moneys belonging to or in the possession of the institution or endowment.
(4) The presumption in respect of matters covered by clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) in sub-section (1) is that the institution or the endowment is a public one and that the burden of proof in all such cases shall lie on the person claiming the institution or the endowment to be private or the property or money to be other than that of a religious endowment or specific endowment, as the case may be.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the above sub-sections, the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction shall continue to enquire into and decide the disputes referred to in sub-section (1) until the constitution of the Endowments Tribunal.”
From a plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that a third party’s interference with the endowed property is not covered in the above Section. In the two decisions relied by the advocate for appellants in KANDURI VEERA RAGHAVA CHARYULU v. NALLURI JAGANNADHA CHARYULU (DIED) PER L.Rs. AND OTHERS (2nd cited), the dispute is in respect of hereditary trusteeship of a person to a particular temple and in another decision in SRI RAMA SRI KANYAKAPARAMESWARI SRINAGARESWARA SWAMY VARLA ALAYAMULU v.. JAMPA SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS (1st cited), the dispute was between a lessee and the temple with regard to auction conducted in respect of leasehold rights. The dispute in these two decisions are clearly covered by Section 87 of the Act and they fall within the ambit of provisions of Section 87 of the Act and therefore, this Court held that Civil Court has no jurisdiction.
Both the trial court and appellate court dealt with the jurisdiction aspect, and rightly held that the civil court has got jurisdiction because interference was by 3rd party who has no manner of right in the endowed property.
As seen from the written statement, the defendants admitted that schedule property was an inam land given to “Voorguttamma” temple.
Trial court and appellate court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, held that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and when the plaintiff complained interference, trial court granted injunction and the same is confirmed by appellate court.
I do not find any wrong appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by both the courts and I also do not find any wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court and appellate court and therefore, the contention of the appellants with regard to civil court jurisdiction cannot be sustained.
For these reasons, it is held that there are no merits in the contention of the appellants and this Second Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.
As a sequel to the disposal of this appeal, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR
Dated 5-12-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR
Dvs
SECOND APPEAL No.196 OF 2006 Dated 5-12-2014
[1] 2005 (4) ALT 435
[2] 2005(6) ALT 344