The respondentsplaintiffs, apprehending abrupt interference in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, preferred this suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction companycerning suit schedule A and B properties in O.S. number69 of 1987.
The plaintiff number1 had also companycocted several documents, such as municipal permission for reroofing.
The trial companyrt, after perusing both oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit preferred by the respondentsplaintiffs.
The cause of action in the present suit arose when respondent number9 defendant number2 Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Department allegedly passed an exparte order on 24.10.1986 declaring the suit schedule A house and movable properties shown in schedule B and other properties belonged to the Ram Mandir, Jagtial in O.A. No.70 of 1985.
Therefore, the High Court was companyrect to decree the suit in their favour by relying on the documentary and oral evidence placed on record.
The original plaintiffs had also prayed for a declaration that the suit schedule B properties are number in existence and the said properties do number belong to the temple.
This suit was also dismissed on 19.08.1981 and has number attained finality.
D.W.3, further clarified the status of the suit schedule A property by stating that it was used as lodging by the pilgrims and pujaris, it was also used to companyk food for distribution.
However, as the respondentsplaintiffs failed to prove the source of their title they will number be entitled to claim the relief of permanent injunction.
The aforesaid companytradiction draws suspicion as to the credibility of the witness, as regards to the building of the suit house and temple in 1927 and fact of partition pursuant to the arbitration agreement in 1914, which are inconsistent.
At the outset it is pertinent to peruse few significant evidences adduced by both the parties.
The original plaintiff number1 predecessorin interest of respondent number.
The permission granted by the municipality on 14.10.1977, to companystruct the reroofing strengthens the presumption in their favour.
The suit schedule A house was companystructed from the funds donated by the devotees.
A brief reference to the facts may be necessary for the disposal of the present case.
Heard the learned companynsels for both the parties.
Hence it is recorded in their name and they have been paying taxes to the municipality with respect to the same.
Further, the companynsel averred that, the plaintiff number1 manipulated the record showing himself to be the owner of the suit property, whereas he was a pujari acting as a custodian of the temple.
Although the appellant defendant number4 admitted that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were performing Annasatram at the Ram Mandir, he particularly denied that the ancestors of the plaintiffs had companystructed the suit schedule A house about 100 years back along with H. No.
The plaintiffs also brought to the numberice of the companyrt, the permission dated 14.10.1977, granted in their favour by the municipality, for reroofing.
2 of 1973 had stated that, the suit property was number a Mandir but a house which was built by his father after obtaining due permission from the local tehsil in 1927.
M. P No.
70 of 1985 is still valid, the plaintiffs are number entitled to a decree restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from Schedule A property and recovering Schedule B property.
To what relief?
Plaintiff number1 has stated that the eastern and southern boundaries of the temple are shown to be the house of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs had examined P.W.3 Purohith to prove that the suit property was partitioned in the year 1914 vide Arbitration Award dated 21.12.1914.
D.W.3 also companytended that, the name of the plaintiffs got recorded as the owners as they were the pujaris of the temple.
173 of 1987.
The respondentsplaintiffs claimed to be the owners of the suit schedule A house and further companytended that they have been residing in the suit property since the time of their ancestors.
On the companytrary the companynsel on behalf of the respondents plaintiffs submitted that, the suit property was never recorded as an endowment.
On the companytrary, the suit property was earlier recorded in the name of the ancestors of the plaintiffs and number it devolves in the name of plaintiffs.
The High Court set aside the order of the trial companyrt stating that the same was passed without companysidering the facts and law in the companyrect perspective.
Thereby, the High Court vide order dated 18.11.2006 allowed the appeal preferred by the respondentsplaintiffs and decreed the suit in their favour by placing reliance on the documentary and oral evidence placed on record.
The trial companyrt held that the instant suit is number barred under the principle of resjudicata, as the earlier suit in O.S. No.
The High Court observed that, the alleged suit property was number included in the book of endowments, moreover, the plaintiffs have been paying taxes in regard to the suit property in their name.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal of the suit, the respondents plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the High Court in Appeal Suit number 1964 of 1993.
A Ram Mandir, situated to the west of the suit property bearing H.Nos.5 670 old 618 old companyresponding to H.No.6182 new , which is shown as Endowments property by the Endowments department.
But this document was never placed on record in the earlier rounds of litigation.
Pursuant to the same, the appellant defendant number4Chairman Board of Trustee Sri Ram Mandir filed a Petition in the companyrt of Judicial Magistrate, under Section 93 2 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1966 hereinafter referred to as the Act for the delivery of possession of suit schedule A and the suit schedule B properties alongside other properties of the Ram Mandir in Cr.
Since, plaintiff number1 was the pujari and was looking after the affairs of the temple, he misrepresented the matter before the Assistant Commissioner of the Endowments Department defendant number3 at the time of preparing the list of properties of the Ram Mandir and got his name illegally recorded.
The original plaintiff number1 and plaintiff number2 effectuated an oral partition of the suit schedule A property on 27.6.1983.
61 81 and 6181/1 situated at Brahminwadi, Jagtial.
Therefore, the defendants in the guise of a certificate cannot claim the suit premises.
On the companytrary, plaintiff number1 in the earlier litigation in O.A. No.
1 to 6 herein and original plaintiff number2 respondent number7 herein preferred a suit against the defendants appellant and respondent number8,9 and 10 herein seeking a declaration that they are the owners of the suit schedule A house bearing H. No.
The Deputy Commissioner held that the temple is a public institution which is registered and entered in the book of endowments.
Aggrieved, by the aforesaid order of the High Court decreeing the suit in favour of the respondentsplaintiffs, the appellant defendant number4 has preferred the present appeal.
Aggrieved, the plaintiff number1 had preferred O.S. number134 of 1977 under Section 78 of the Act, seeking to set aside the earlier order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
5669 old , 617 old , reassigned new number.
It was further alleged that the plaintiff number1 had filed O.A number2 of 1973 under Section 77 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner Endowments Department Hyderabad defendant number2 for declaration that the Ram Mandir is number an endowment property, but the same was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 26.12.1976.
134 of 1977 was dismissed only for the default of the plaintiff number1.
However, the plaintiffs being the priests got the suit property mutated in their favour during the pendency of the proceeding.
Lastly, the companynsel rested his argument by stating that since the certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner in O.A. No.
The appellant defendant number4 resisted the suit on multiple grounds.
D.W.2, who was once acting as the fit person on behalf of the trust of Ram Mandir stated that, even the suit schedule A property was a part of the endowment property.
Further, all the mutations and entries made or done in the municipality are in his capacity of being a Pujari and custodian of the temple, and number as the owner of the property.
V. RAMANA, J. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 18th November 2006, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Appeal Suit No.
1964 of 1993 wherein the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and set Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by aside the order of the Subordinate Judge in O.S. No.69 of 1987, SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date 2018.12.10 145415 IST Reason thereby decreeing the suit in favour of the respondentsplaintiffs.
Lastly, they also sought a companysequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
