VERUAREDDI RAMARAGHAVA REDDY AND ORS. versus KONDURU SESHU REDDY AND ORS.

Citation: [1966] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 270 · Decided: 26-04-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

270 
VERUAREDDI RAMARAGHA VA REDDY AND. ORS. 
' 
'. 
v. 
KONDURU SESHU REDDY AND 2 ORS,,;,;< 
.. '' ·-· 
~ .. 
... ''• 
.. April 26, 1966. 
•.T[K.' SUBBA RAo AND V> RAMASWAMJ;.JJ.J: " r.: ~''·"''' 
··:~ '.,' 
• •' 
I~ 
-
;, •/~-'••I 
Specific Relief Act (1 of.1877); s, 42-Suit by worshipper for d~c• 
laration that compromise decree is not binding on temple-Suit, if, 
barred. 
· 
· 
' · 
· · • " 
A. 
·Madras Hindu ReligiOOS Endciw;,;ents Act (2 o( 1927), s:· 84(2)- c} 
Petition for declaration that properties belonged to .petitioner·and· 
not to temple-If maintainable. 
-
/ 
• 
. 
-
_. 
. 
. ''. 
• '.. 
- ! 
·:; ·-
-
·-
• 
l 
· .,./The appellants filed an original petition in the· ,District Court 
under s. 84(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious ·Endowments Act; 1927,.' 
for setting aside an order of the Endowments Board that a temple 
was a public temple and for a declaration that it was a private,tem-
p!e. The Commissioner of the Endowments Board ~nd a worshioper 
were the contesting respondents to the petition. Pending its dispo-
D . 
sal the 1927. Act. was repealed by the Hindu Religious and Charita-
ble Endowments Act of 1951. After the passing of the new Act the 
netition was amended by the addition of a prayer for a further dec-
laration that the properties in dispute were the· personal property 
of the appellants' family. Thereafter, a compromise decree between 
the appellants and the Commissioner was passed. by which it was 
declared that the temple was a public temple, that the properties 
were the personal properties of the aonellants but that the aoP"l-
E 
lants v.'E!re liatle to make annual payments in cash and kind to the 
temple for its maintenance. The worshipper, who was not a party 
to the compromise decree, filed the oresent suit for a declaration 
that the compromise decree vias not binding on the temple. 
On the questions whether: (i) the suit was not barred by the 
provisions of s. 42 of the Specific Rellef Act, 1877, and (ii) the com-
promise decree was invalid. 
HELD: (i) Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act ·i~··not exhaus-
F 
tive of the cases in which a declaratory decree may be made and 
courts have power to grant such a decree independently of the re-
quirements of the section. The relief sought for in the present case 
was for a declaration that the compromise decree was null and void.; 
Such a declaration is in itself a substantial relief and has imme-
~te coercive effect and the deity would be restored to its rights 
in the trust properties. The suit fell outside the purview of s. 42 G 
, 
and would be governed by the general provisions of the Civil Pro-
cedure Code and was therefore maintainable even though the wor-
shipper was not suing as a perolon entitled to any legal character or to 
a?y right as to anv pmoerty as required by s. 42 of the Specific Re-
lief Act. [276 E; 277 F-G] 
· 
Case law referred to. 
(ii) The compromiSe decree was not valid and binding on the B 
tempi~, because, the deity was not a P.~Y to.it.throush ;;ny repre-
ccntative. 
· 
· · · -
- · 
.. ; ·• 
. . ' 
• 
B 
c 
D 
P.AMARAGHAVA v. SilER!lU (Ramaswami, J.) 
271 
Though under s. 20 of the 1927 Act the Commissioner was ves-
ted with the power of superintendence and control over the temple, 
it does not mean that he has authority to represent the deity in 
proceedings before the District> Judge under s. 84(2) of the Act. 
Further, the compromise decree was beyond the scope of the pro-
ceedings, because, a declaration that the properties in dispute were 
the personal properties of the appellants' family and not of t1'e 
temple, was outside the purview of s. 84(2). [278 A-B, F, HJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 265 of 
1964. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 7, 1962 of 
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal Suit No. 312 of 57. 
F. Babula Reddy, K. Ra;endra Chaudhuri and K. R. 
Chaudhuri, for the appellants. 
P. Rama Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for respondent No. 1. 
T. V. R. Tatachari, for respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by certificate on be-
half of the defendants against the judgment of the High Court of 
Andhra Pradesh dated August 7, 1962 in Appeal Suit No. 312 bf 
1957. 
In the village of Varagali, in the district of Nellore, there is a 
temple in which is enshrined the idol of Sri Kodandaramaswami. 
The temple was built ·in the middle of the last century by one Burla 
E 
Rangareddi who managed the affairs of the t

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