JAMMI RAJA RAO versus ANJANEYASWAMI TEMPLE VALU ETC.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 47 · Decided: 06-03-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. FATHIMA BEEVI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

JAMMI RAJA RAO 
v. 
ANJANEYASWAMI TEMPLE VALU ETC. 
MARCH 6, 1992 
[M. FATHIMA BEEVI AND S.C. AGRAWAL JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and En-
dowments Act, 1966. 
A 
B 
Section 77-Temple-f'ublic or private-Test of detennination-What C 
is--Entries in the Inam Register-Evidentiary value of 
Section 103--Temple-Claim for adverse possession-Limita-
tion-Relevant date for 
considering whether right acquire by prescrip-
tion-What is. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136 
Appeal by special /eave-Concurrent finding of fact-Power of Supreme 
Court to interfere with. 
D 
The appellant's father filed an application under sections 18 and 84 E 
of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 claiming that Sri 
Anjaneya Swami Temple situated at Valuthimmapuram in Peddapuram 
Taluk East Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh, was private temple and 
that he was the hereditary trustee-of the same. By its order dated 30th 
March, 1935 the Board of Commissioners dismissed the application hold-
F 
ing that the said temple was a public temple. Thereafter he filed a petition 
in the Court of District Judges, East Godavari for setting aside the Board's 
orde~ but later withdrew it because he was appointed a trustee of the 
temple by the Board. He remained in possession of the temple and the 
properties attached to it till his death in 1946. Thereafter, the appellant 
came in possession of the same. He filed an application under section 57 G 
of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Hindu Religious and Endowments 
Act, 1951 (later replaced by 1966 Act) praying that the temple be deter-
mined as a private temple and that he should be declared its hereditary 
trustee, Manger-cum-Archaka. By its order dated August 30, 1969, the 
Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Kakinada dismissed the application H 
47 
48 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
holding that the appellant was not able to establish his exclusive right over 
the suit temple and that there was no evidence to show that the trusteeship 
of the temple was a hereditary one. 
B 
c 
The appellant filed a suit in the Court of District Judge East 
Godavari for setting aside the Dy. Commissioner's order dated August 30, 
1969 contending that :(i) the idol in the temple was installed by his 
ancestors for exclusive worship of their family and there were no wor-
shipers from the public; (ii) .the trusteeship management and archakatvam 
vests solely in their family ever since the inception of the temple and no 
outsider has succeeded to ti• .office even by appointment; (iii) that his 
father was guilty of negligence in prosecuting the proceedings before the 
Board and the District Judge; fie had no authority to withdraw the petition. 
Consequently the acts of his father were not in any manner binding OJt.his 
successor trustees. 
The Executive Officer of the temple also filed a suit fo.r recovery of 
D possession, ejection of the appellant and for a direction to the appellant 
to· render true and proper accounts of the net proceeds realised by the 
appellant from the suit lands. 
By its common judgment dated January 10, 1972 the District Judge 
B dismissed the appellant's suit and decreed the Executive Officer's suit 
holding that the temple was a public temple and the appellant was not a 
hereditary trustee of the temple. The appellant was also directed to render 
accounts of the net income realised from the temple. Against the judgment 
of the District Judge appeals were filed in the High Court which dismissed 
the appeals holding that the documentary evidence - the partition deed 
F 
and will executed by the predecessors of the appellant's father and extracts 
from the register prepared under section 38 of the 1926 Act by the 
appellant's father - does not e~'tablish the appellant's case. 
In the appeals ·to this Court it was contended on behalf of the 
G appellant that: (i) the High cou11 erred in holding that the suit temple was 
a public and not a private temple and in arriving at the said finding the 
High Court has neither applied the correct test no1· has llroperly con-
sidered the material documents produced by the appellants; (ii) the fact 
that the suit temple is situated in the private residential house of the 
appellant has not been considered by the High Court; (iii) even if the suit 
H temple is held to be a public temple the appellant has acquired title over 
-
RAJA RAO v. TEMPLE V ALU 
49 
the suit properties by prescription inasmuch as

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.