NDLI: Jammi Raja Rao Vs. Anjaneyaswami Temple Valu Etc.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	hindu religious charitable
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (17 of 1966)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966. Section 77-Temple-Public or private-Test of determination-What is -Entries in the Inam Register- Evidentiary value of Section 103--Temple-Claim for adverse possession-Limitation-Relevant date for considering whether right acquire by prescription-What is. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136 Appeal by special Leave-Concurrent finding of fact-Power of Supreme Court to interfere with.The appellant's father filed an application under sections 18 and 84 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 holding 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 order 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 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Hindu Religious and Endowments Act, 1951 (later replaced by 1966 Act) praying that the temple be determined 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 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. 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 worshippers 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 the 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 on his successor trustees. The Executive Officer of the temple also filed a suit for recovery of 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 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 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 establish the appellant's case. In the appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that: (i) the High court 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 nor has properly considered 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 temple is held to be a public temple the appellant has acquired title over the suit properties by prescription inasmuch as after his father's death the A appellant was in possession of the property in his own right and the suit filed by the Executive. Officer of the temple was barred by limitation; and (iv) the partition deed executed by predecessors of the appellant's father show that there was only a partial dedication of the property in favour of the deity. Therefore the property retained its private character.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal
Neutral Citation	1992 INSC 67
Petitioner	Jammi Raja Rao
Respondent	Anjaneyaswami Temple Valu Etc.
SCR	[1992] 2 S.C.R. 47
Judgement Date	1992-03-06
Case Number	301

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Jammi Raja Rao Vs. Anjaneyaswami Temple Valu Etc.

Please Log-in to view this content

M. Radhakrishna Gade Rao Sahib Vs. State of Madras

Commissioner of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Mysore Vs. U. Krishna Rao & Ors.

Kakinada Annadana Samajam Etc. Vs. Commissioner of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Hyderabad & Ors.

Commissioner of Endowments and Ors. Vs. Vittal Rao and Ors.

Sri Vedagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Temple Vs. Induru Pattabhirami Reddy

Gurpur Guni Venkataraya Narashima Prabhu & Ors. Vs. B. G. Achia, Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Mangalore and Anr.

Nellor Marthandam Vellalar and Ors. Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Ors.

M. J. Thulasiraman and Another Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Administration and Another

Sri Bhavanarayanaswamivari Temple Vs. Vadapalli Venkata Bhavanarayanacharyulu

Jammi Raja Rao Vs. Anjaneyaswami Temple Valu Etc.

Jammi Raja Rao Vs. Anjaneyaswami Temple Valu Etc.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

M. Radhakrishna Gade Rao Sahib Vs. State of Madras

Commissioner of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Mysore Vs. U. Krishna Rao & Ors.

Kakinada Annadana Samajam Etc. Vs. Commissioner of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Hyderabad & Ors.

Commissioner of Endowments and Ors. Vs. Vittal Rao and Ors.

Sri Vedagiri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Temple Vs. Induru Pattabhirami Reddy

Gurpur Guni Venkataraya Narashima Prabhu & Ors. Vs. B. G. Achia, Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Mangalore and Anr.

Nellor Marthandam Vellalar and Ors. Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Ors.

M. J. Thulasiraman and Another Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Administration and Another

Sri Bhavanarayanaswamivari Temple Vs. Vadapalli Venkata Bhavanarayanacharyulu

Jammi Raja Rao Vs. Anjaneyaswami Temple Valu Etc.