In a deeply rooted religious feud that has simmered for nearly a century, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (November 11, 2025) upheld the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgment in a long-standing temple dispute between two Kuruba community factions - the Kapadam family of Gungulakunta village and the Kamatam family of Yerrayapalli village.
The case, revolving around the possession and rotation of sacred idols of Lord Sangalappa Swamy, marks yet another chapter in a saga of faith, family honor, and rural religious traditions in Anantapur district.
Background of the Dispute
The origins of this complex legal battle trace back to 1927 when the Kamatam family filed a suit seeking custody of pooja (worship) items belonging to Lord Sangalappa Swamy - including bronze horses and other paraphernalia of sentimental and spiritual value. The Kapadam family resisted the claim, and the court dismissed it.
A later compromise in 1933 was supposed to end the matter. Under that agreement, both families were to alternate temple rituals every three months, and the idols were to be kept six months each in the two villages. The Kamatam family was also required to contribute ₹2,000 as half the pooja expenses.
For decades, the arrangement seemed forgotten - until it resurfaced in 1999 when the Kapadam family alleged that the Kamatams had refused to rotate the idols as per the compromise.
Decades Later: The Legal Trail
The Kapadams moved an Execution Petition in 2000, seeking enforcement of the 1933 compromise decree. The case wound its way through the Andhra Pradesh courts - a civil court allowed the petition in 2005, ordering that the idols be handed over to the Kapadams.
But the High Court, in 2012, reversed that order, stating that there was no evidence to show the Kamatams had violated the compromise terms. A review plea was also dismissed in 2013, prompting the Kapadams to move the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
Hearing the appeal, a division bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi noted that the core issue was whether the 1933 compromise decree was ever acted upon - and if any violation of its terms had occurred.
The bench observed,
“The Executing Court proceeded merely on assumption. Findings based on presumption cannot replace proof. The decree-holder must establish actual violation.”
Referring to witness testimonies, the Court noted that none of the witnesses were part of the original 1933 suit, and their statements were based on assumptions and community hearsay rather than evidence.
“The appellants themselves were performing pooja and meeting expenses in 1933. The presumption therefore follows that possession of idols then was with them,” the Court remarked.
The bench further pointed out that there was no record of the ₹2,000 contribution ever being made, nor was there any proof that trustees were appointed or accounts maintained as the decree required.
Key Findings
The Court highlighted multiple inconsistencies in the Kapadam family’s case:
- No documentary proof or independent witnesses supported their claim that idols were taken away or withheld by the Kamatams.
- The condition of the ₹2,000 payment - which was central to sharing pooja rights - had never been met.
- The absence of any record of appointed trustees or shared income from temple offerings indicated that the compromise had never been operationalized.
Justice Mishra wrote,
“The non-payment of ₹2,000 and absence of evidence on rotation of idols support the respondents’ version that the compromise was never acted upon.”
Supreme Court's Decision
After reviewing the entire record, the bench concluded that the Kapadam family failed to prove any breach of the 1933 compromise. The Executing Court, it held, had wrongly relied on presumption instead of concrete proof.
“The High Court was justified in setting aside the Executing Court’s order,” the Supreme Court said, dismissing the appeals filed by the Kapadam family.
With that, the century-old dispute over Lord Sangalappa Swamy’s idols - a saga stretching back to the pre-Independence era - may finally have reached a judicial closure, though not necessarily an emotional one for the two families.
Case Title: Kapadam Sangalappa and Others v. Kamatam Sangalappa and Others