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

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

The suit by a worshipper for a declaration that the compromise decree is not binding on the temple is maintainable as it falls outside the purview of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act; the compromise decree is not valid or binding on the deity, as the deity was not represented by a proper next friend or...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Veruareddi Ramaraghava Reddy and Ors.; Respondent: Konduru Seshu Reddy; Respondent: T. V. R. Tatachari
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 April 1966
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal Against Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Declaratory Relief, Binding Nature of Compromise Decree, Representation of Deity in Legal Proceedings, Hindu Religious Endowments
Religious Endowments Property Law Specific Relief Declaratory Relief Binding Nature of Compromise Decree Representation of Deity in Legal Proceedings Hindu Religious Endowments

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Veruareddi Ramaraghava Reddy and Ors.

Appellant

Konduru Seshu Reddy

Respondent

T. V. R. Tatachari

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal Against Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit for declaration by a worshipper is barred by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877
  2. 2 Whether the compromise decree is valid and binding on the temple/deity

Ratio Decidendi

The suit by a worshipper for a declaration that the compromise decree is not binding on the temple is maintainable as it falls outside the purview of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act; the compromise decree is not valid or binding on the deity, as the deity was not represented by a proper next friend or representative and the Commissioner had no authority to represent the deity in those proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff-respondent no. 1 granted a declaratory decree that the compromise decree in O.P. no. 3 of 1950 on the file of the District Court Nellore is not valid and binding on Sri Kodandaramaswami temple.
  • Parties to bear their own costs throughout.