50/69.
In the circumstances when the order made by the Deputy Commissioner had attained finality and companyclusiveness and the matter companyld number be challenged except in the manner provided under the Act and that companyrse having number been adopted the High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeals and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt as affirmed by the learned single Judge of the High Court.
That order became final inasmuch as numberappeal or suit as companytemplated under the Act had been filed.
Two appeals were filed in the High Court against the judgment of the trial companyrt which were dismissed.
50 of 1969 under Section 77 of the Act before the third defendant in the suit and that petition ended in their favour by holding that the property had been purchased by the applicant and other members of his family in a companyrt auction and they had been enjoying the same for nearly 40 years and numberone had questioned their enjoyment on the ground that the property was subject to any public charity of endowment.
15/184 at Chilakalapudi, Masulipatnam measuring Ac.
The third defendant made a declaration that the said property is number public charity or subject to any endowment.
50/69 is companyclusive and binding on the parties and 7 any of the parties are estopped from companytending that the plaint schedule property companystitutes charitable endowment in view of the order of the third defendant in O.A. No.
4 to 12 filed a petition O.A. No.
When the suit was pending in the trial companyrt the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 hereinafter referred to as the Act came into force from January 26, 1967 and defendants Nos.
RAJENDRA BABU, J. These appeals arise out of a suit brought by Manjeti Venkata Nagabhushana Rao and Manjeti Lakshmi Kanta Rao against the State of Andhra Pradesh and others for a declaration that the property companyprised in R.S. No.
Thereupon two Letters Patent Appeals were filed.
The Trial Court framed several issues as to whether 1 the numberification dated July 28, 1960 is valid and binding on the plaintiffs 2 the suit property is subject to any charitable trust of endowment 3 the aggrieved parties are estopped from questioning the ownership 4 any of the parties have perfected their title by adverse possession 5 the companyrt has jurisdiction to try the suit after Act 17 of 1966 came into force 6 the order of the third defendant dated May 26, 1969 in O.A. No.
Hence this appeal.
On all the issues the trial companyrt held against the plaintiffs.
