1
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:
KURNOOL AT ADONI.
PRESENT: SMT. P.J. SUDHA,
II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni.
Tuesday, the 31st day of March, 2026.
Original Suit N0. 26 OF 201 4 .
Ulthi Veerbhadrappa … Plaintiff.
Versus.
1. Nakate Shyam 2. Sri Raghavendraswamy Mutt represented by its
Manager, Mantralayam, Kurnool District.
… Defendants
This suit came up on 23.3.2026 for final hearing before me regarding preliminary issue relating to jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit, in the presence of Sri. Y.R.Mallikarjuna, Advocate for plaintiff, and of Sri.
P. Jayatheertha, Advocate for defendants and after hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:
: O R D E R :
ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE RELATING TO JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT
1. This order is passed consequent to allowing I.A.No.49/2019 on 16.3.2020, which was filed under Order 14 Rule 2 and section 151 C.P.C. to 2 treat the issue ‘whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of G.O.Ms.No.837 dated 13.8.2009’, as preliminary issue.
2. The brief averments of the plaint are that plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property which is land in
Sy.No.352 in an extent of Ac.18-85 cents. The plaint schedule land originally belongs to Sri Raghvendra Swamy Mutt, Mantralayam. In the month of
February, 1983, the Manager of Mutt has given public notice for sale in public auction and conducted public auction for the sale of lands belongs to Sri
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Mantralayam situated in Several villages, including the plaint schedule land. As such on 6.4.1983, the public auction was conducted by the Mutt in the presence of Assistant Commissioner of
Endowments, Kurnool, and further it is condition precedent that the said auction have to be confirmed by the Endowment Commissioner, Hyderabad.
In the said public auction, the plaintiff have become the highest Bidder and knocked away the plaint schedule property for Rs.2,460/- per one acre and on 7.4.1983, the plaintiff deposited the amount as per the conditions and accordingly, the Mutt Authorities delivered possession of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff. Since then the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without any interruption.
As on the date of auction, the plaint schedule property was barren land not in a position to cultivate and raise any of the Dry crops. Subsequently, the plaintiff developed the plaint schedule property by investing huge amounts and made the land fit for cultivation. Meanwhile, on 11.11.1987 after 4 years, the Mutt authorities sent a notice to the plaintiff that the Endowment
Commissioner, Hyderabad have not confirmed the sale. Then only, the plaintiff came to know that the Commissioner Endowment, Hyderabad did not 3 confirm the sale by way cryptic order dated 1.10.1983 vide
Dis.No.M4/29889/83 that “ the bid secured is considered to be not satisfactory” without assigning any cogent reasons. Till then, the plaintiff has no personal knowledge of refusal and no copy of order was served on the plaintiff, who is the highest bidder in the public auction. Subsequently, a writ petition No.1545/1988 was filed by the plaintiff before the Hon’ble High Court,
Hyderabad and Hon’ble High court was pleased to grant stay of all proceedings in W.P.M.P.1937/1988 and the said Writ was disposed off with a direction that the plaintiff is at liberty to challenge the vires of New Act. By reserving the said right, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Government in
Appeal No.4823/1999 challenging the orders of Endowment Commissioner,
Hyderabad dt.1.10.1983 who refused to confirm the sale. The said appeal is pending.
Meanwhile, in the year 2004, during pendency of appeal before the
Government, the Mutt Authorities intended to auction lease hold rights of the lands situated in Santhekudlur village and gave notice to V.R.O, Santhekudlur village to proclaim tom-tom without mentioning the survey numbers against which they are intending to auction leasehold rights. Under an apprehension that the Mutt authorities will auction the leasehold rights in respect of plaint schedule land also, the plaintiff filed a W.P.No.9393/2004 and the Hon’ble
High Court granted stay in W.P.M.P.No.12034/2004 and finally the Writ petition was disposed in the year 2012 as the said writ petition does not survive for adjudication, since the proposed lease period had expired and accorded liberty to the plaintiff to pursue appeal before the Government. All the above facts are known to the 2nd defendant. Since the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property, all the revenue records discloses that the plaintiff is in possession of plaint schedule property.
4
It is further submitted that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and lawful enjoyment of the plaint schedule land since 1983 to the knowledge of the defendants. At no point of time, the Mutt Authorities have tried to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff as they are satisfied with the bid amount and suggested the plaintiff to pursue the matter with Endowment
Department. As such neither Defendant No.2 nor any Mutt Authorities have returned the deposit amount which is deposited by the plaintiff on 7.4.1983.
While so, the 1st defendant who belongs to Congress Party and Ex-
Sarpanch of Gonabhavi, now rendering service to the Mutt, in collusion with
Congress Party leaders of Santhekudlur village making hectic efforts to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property, with an intention to induct his followers in the plaint schedule land, so as enable them to enjoy the same. The defendants have no right to dispossess the plaintiff illegally and highhandedly that too when the appeal is pending before the Government.
Even during the pendency of appeal before the Government, the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant proposed the leasehold rights of plaint schedule land to be auctioned on 16.4.2014. Having coming to know the same, the plaintiff filed a W.P.No.11252/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court of
A.P., but for the reasons best known to the defendants, they did not conduct auction on 16.4.2014 and hence, Writ petition became infructuous and hence, the plaintiff withdrawn the Writ petition.
While so, on 16.6.2014, the defendants and their men attempted to trespass into the plaint schedule land and also attempted to induct the third parties into possession forcibly in order to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land highhandedly without following due process of law and the same is resisted by the plaintiff with the help of villagers. The defendants went away 5 proclaiming that they will come again with assistance of police and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. If the defendants do so, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, or persons claiming through the defendants from trespass into the plaint schedule land in order to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule land without following due process of law and for costs and any other relief in the circumstances of the case.
3. The 2nd defendant filed written statement and the same is adopted by the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant denied the case of plaintiff and put the plaintiff to strict proof of the allegations which are not specifically admitted by the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant submitted that the plaintiff created the revenue records by colluding with the revenue authorities without knowledge and consent of the real owner. The entries in the revenue records will not confer any right to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit land as on the date of filing the suit as alleged by him.
The intention of the plaintiff is to knock away the schedule mentioned property by misleading the authorities and Hon’ble Court by filing one after the other petitions and also the Mutt.
It is further submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. As per G.O.Ms.No.837 dated 13.8.2009, “ The Tribunal shall have jurisdiction for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh for determination of any disputes, question or the matter relating to a Charitable Institution etc.,” As per
G.O.Rt.No.1553 dated 22.10.2013, the Commissioner Endowments
Department is kept in full Additional Charge till further orders to facilitate the 6 relief. Knowing fully well, the plaintiff by mis-leading the court and got numbered the suit. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be rejected in limine. The 2nd defendant further request the court to treat this issue as preliminary issue.
The 2nd defendant further submitted that as per the direction of the
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderbad to the knowledge of
authorities and after following the due procedure only, the 2nd defendant made arrangements to conduct public auction. But the plaintiff has been obstructing the same on one other ground by dis-obeying the orders of the Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The plaintiff is having the support of political leaders and backing of rowdy elements.
It is further submitted that the plaintiff has suppressed the true and material facts. The plaintiff also suppressed the orders and direction given by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad for which the plaintiff is liable for prosecution. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in Writ petitions filed by the plaintiff, passed orders directing the Mutt Authorities to auction the leasehold rights of the schedule mentioned property and further observed that the plaintiff can participate in the auction. The practice of the plaintiff is that he will file petitions one after the other and if he fails to obtain any orders, either he will not press the said petitions or he will get dispose of the same. With a malafide intention to grab the valuable property, the plaintiff has filed the suit and petition. Hence, the plaintiff is liable for prosecution for misrepresentation and misleading the Hon’ble Courts. The plaintiff is also liable to pay the damages to the 2nd defendant Mutt for the loss and hardship caused by him. The plaintiff has made false and defamatory allegations against the 1st defendant who is serving the Mutt and hence, the plaintiff is 7 also liable to pay damages to the first defendant. There are no merits in the suit and suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial on 15.4.2015.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Permanent injunction as prayed for?
2. Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of
G.O.Ms.No.837 dated 13.8.2009?
3. To what relief
The suit is posted to 16.6.2015 for filing list of witnesses and trial.
5. Chief affidavit of PW1 was filed on 4.12.2018. While so, the defendants filed I.A.No.49/2019 under order 14 rule 2 C.P.C. and section 151 C.P.C. to treat the issue, whether the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, in view of G.O.Ms.No.837 dated 13.8.2009 as Preliminary Issue. The said petition was allowed on 16.3.2020.
6. Consequent to the orders in I.A.No.49/2019 dated 16.3.2020, this court proceed to hear both sides on Issue relating to the jurisdiction of this
Court as Preliminary issue. Both sides submitted their arguments and filed citations.
7 . PRELIMINARY ISSUE:
Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of
G.O.Ms.No.837 dated 13.8.2009?
8
Before discussing intricacies involved in the above issue, this court finds
it just and necessary to mention about certain admitted and undisputed facts and circumstances for better appreciation of the matter on hand and which is as follows:
A) It is an undisputed fact that the plaint schedule landed property originally belongs to Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Mantralayam, a
Hindu Religious Institution.
B) The Manager of the said Mutt issued public notice in the year 1983 that the lands belongs to Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt at various villages will be auctioned in the presence of Assistant Commissioner and the highest bidder shall have to deposit 1/3rd of bid amount on the date of auction and obtain a receipt from the Auction Officer and the sale will be confirmed subject to the approval of Endowment Commissioner,
Hyderabad and if such sale is not confirmed, the amount deposited by the highest bidder will be returned without interest.
C) It is also an undisputed fact that the plaintiff became highest bidder in the auction of plaint schedule land conducted on 6.4.1983. But, the
Endowment Commissioner, Hyderabad refused to confirm the auction by passing orders dated 1.10.1983 stating that “the bid secured is considered to be not satisfactory”.
D) Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed Writ petition
No.1545/1988 to issue of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate direction declaring that Section 74(c) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu
Religious Institutions and Endowments Act,1966 is unconstitutional, illegal and declaring the order of Endowment Commissioner, Hyderabad
dated 1.10.1983 is void and to direct the Endowment Commissioner to
complete the formalities in respect of auction sale in favour of plaintiff.
9
The said writ petition was dismissed on 2.4.1998 as it was submitted
before the Hon’ble High Court that the said Act was repealed and New
Act has come into force. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Writ petition by giving liberty to the plaintiff to challenge the vires of the New
Act, if he so desires.
E) The plaintiff filed appeal NO.4823/199 before the Government of
Andhra Pradesh, challenging the orders passed by the Endowment
Commissioner, Hyderabad dated 1.10.1983 and the said appeal is pending.
F) While so, when the Mutt authorities said to have issued notice to conduct auction on 1.6.2004 in respect of leasehold rights in the land in
Sy.No.352 to an extent of Ac.18.85 cents at Santhakudlur village belonging to Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Mantralayam, the plaintiff filed Writ petition No.9393 of 2004 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh to direct the Manager of Mutt not to proceed to lease out the lands. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P. was pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of advertisement of the Mutt to conduct auction on 1.6.2004 for lease out of the land, by its orders in
W.P.M.P.12034/2004 dt.1.6.2004. The above Writ petition
No.9393/2004 was dismissed on 3.7.2012, as it was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble High court that the cause of action in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication since the proposed lease period had expired and liberty was given to the plaintiff to pursue the remedy of appeal which he has already availed before the State
Government.
G) It is an admitted fact that the appeal filed by the plaintiff before the State
Government is pending.
10
H) Again when the Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt authorities issued advertisement in R.C.No.91 LS/2014 dated 12.3.2014, to lease out the lands in Sy.No.352 to an extent of Ac.18-85 cents at Santhakudlur village, the plaintiff filed Writ petition No.11252 of 2014 to issue Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the Mutt issuing the advertisement for lease of property without issuing notice to the plaintiff and pending consideration of the appeal filed by the plaintiff in Appeal No.4823/99
End.II is pending before the Government of Andhra Pradesh, is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the Mutt authorities not to proceed to lease out the lands in
Sy.No.352 to an extent of Ac.18-85 cents of Santhekudlur village, Adoni in pursuance of advertisement in R.C.No.91 LS/2014 dated 12.3.2014.
Later, the counsel for the plaintiff sought permission of the Hon’ble High
Court to withdraw the Writ petition with liberty to approach appropriate forum either under the Act or the Competent Civil Court. Accordingly, granting the liberty sought for, the Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. When the plaintiff prayed the court to permit him to withdraw the Writ petition with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum either under the Act or the Competent Civil court, the writ was dismissed as withdrawn by granting the liberty as prayed for. Thus, in the said writ petition, the Hon’ble High Court has no occasion to decide about the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit questioning the Advertisement issued by the Mutt for lease of plaint schedule land or for any other relief.
I) The above writ petition was withdrawn on 16.6.2014 and on 17.6.2014, plaintiff filed the present suit in O.S.No.26/2014 for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespass into plaint schedule 11 property and dispossess him without due process of law. The suit was registered on 19.6.2014. The plaintiff also filed I.A.No.431/2014 for grant of temporary injunction and it was allowed by this court on 20.3.2015 and being aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed
C.M.A.526/2015 before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and it was dismissed on 8.7.2016.
8. In the back drop of above facts and circumstances, now coming to issue in controversy, the defendants took a specific plea in the written statement at paragraph 12 that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as Endowment Tribunal is constituted as per orders in G.O.Ms.No.837
dated 13.8.2009 and accordingly, the issue relating to jurisdiction of the court
is framed as issue No.2. But, the defendants filed I.A.No.49/2019 to decide the issue relating to jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and the said petition was allowed on 16.3.2020 and consequent to the said orders, this Court proceeded to decide the issue relating to the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the suit, as a preliminary issue and both sides submitted arguments, which is detailed hereunder. Let us begin with the arguments of counsel for the defendants’, since the question relating to lack of jurisdiction to entertain the suit, is raised by the defendants.
9. DEFENDANTS’ SIDE ARGUMENTS
The learned counsel for the defendants would argue that admittedly the plaint schedule property belongs to Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt,
Mantralayam which is a Religious institution and hence, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the following grounds.
12 (A) As per Section 151 of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987, the Civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suits pertaining to Institution and Endowment.
Section 151 says: Bar of Jurisdiction: No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of administration or management of an institution or endowment or any other matters of dispute for determining or deciding for which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any court of law except under and in conformity with the provisions of the Act.
(B) As per G.O.Ms.No.837 Revenue (Endowments I) Department dated 13.8.2009, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued the notification as follows:
“In exercise of the powers conferred under section 162(1) of the
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987(Act 30 of 1987), the Government of Andhra
Pradesh hereby constitute the A.P.Endowments Tribunal and the
Tribunal shall have jurisdiction for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh for the determination of any disputes, question or the matter relating to a Charitable Institution, Dharmadayam, Religious Charity, Religious
Endowments, Religious Institutions or any Institution etc., as defined under the Act.” (C). Section 87 of the Act deals with the power of Endowment Tribunal to decide certain disputes and matters.
The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that in the present case, the plaint schedule landed property belongs to Sri Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt which is a Religious Institution and there is no dispute relating to the title over the plaint schedule property and hence, as the Endowment Tribunal is 13 constituted as per G.O.Ms.No.837 dated 13.8.2009, the Tribunal is having jurisdiction to decide the disputes relating to the said property and the Civil
Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Further, the plaintiff has already filed appeal before the State Government challenging the orders dated 1.10.1983, passed by the Endowment Commissioner who refused to confirm the sale in favour of plaintiff and the said appeal is pending. Even though, the
Mutt authorities conducted auction and the plaintiff became highest bidder, but the sale confirmation was subject to approval of the Endowment
Commissioner. But, the Endowment Commissioner refused to confirm the sale and hence, sale is not completed and the title over the plaint schedule property is not transferred in favour of plaintiff by the Mutt and hence, the property still belongs to Sri Raghavendraswamy Mutt, which is a religious institution and hence, the Endowment Tribunal is having jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to the property of a Religious institution and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for permanent injunction. Thus, the present suit filed in the year 2014, which is subsequent to constitution of Endowment
Tribunal for the State of Andhra Pradesh, is not maintainable and it is liable to be returned.
(D). The counsel for the defendants further submitted that it is well recognized that where a separate statute provides to seek remedy, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and in support of above submission, the counsel for the defendants relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1250 between Munishi Ram
and others, Appellants Vs Municipal Committee, Chheharta,
Respondent.
14
10. PLAINTIFF’S SIDE ARGUMENTS:
(a) The learned Counsel for the plaintiff would argue that the
Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad passed Cryptic order and refused to confirm the sale without assigning cogent reasons and the said order was also not served on the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know about the same on 11.11.1987 I.e.after 4 years when the Mutt Authorities sent a notice to him that the Endowment Commissioner, Hyderabad has not confirmed the sale.
Hence, being aggrieved by the said orders, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Government of Andhra Pradesh challenging the orders of the
Commissioner of Endowments dated 1.10.1983. Even though, appeal is pending before the Government, but the defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiff highhandedly and hence, present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff except under due process of law and the Civil Court is competent to grant such relief and hence, the Civil Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In support of his submission, he relied on decision of Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2004 (1) ALT 484 between V.
Narasing Raj -Petitioner Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and others,
wherein that case, a question whether the Civil Court is entitled to pass an order of injunction in a suit filed under Sub-section (2) of section 84 of
A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments passed under section 83(1) of the Act was arisen for consideration. Coming to the factual matrix of that case, the petitioner in that case claims that the property in his possession does not belongs to respondent temple and he is in possession of the same and constructed a compound wall with the approval of Alwal
Grampanchayat. Whereas, the respondent temple claims that the petitioner 15 encroached upon the temple premises and hence, action was initiated under section 83 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner and the Deputy
Commissioner conducted enquiry and declared the petitioner as an encroacher and directed him to vacate and handover the premises to the
Executive officer of the temple. As per sub section (2) of section 84 of the Act, any person aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under sub section (4) of section 83 is given a remedy by way of filing a suit in the
Civil Court to establish that the Charitable or religious Institution has no title to the property. But the petitioner filed a writ petition and it was dismissed as not maintainable with a finding that when the Act provides for a remedy by way of Civil suit, a revision petition is not maintainable. The petitioner filed a suit in civil Court. After disposal of the revision petition, the petitioner also filed the writ petition praying the court declare the action of the Government in not passing the stay orders on the revision petition as illegal and also seeks an order to set aside the orders of Deputy Commissioner in O.A.No.36/1998 and their Lordships held that the petitioner has already availed the remedy provided by the Act by filing a suit against the orders of the Deputy
Commissioner in O.A.No.36 of 1998, the Commissioner is not empowered to entertain a revision petition either suo moto or on an application against the orders of Deputy commissioner passed under section 83(4)(Which is prohibited by Sub section (1) of section 92), a revision petition itself is not maintainable under section 93(1) and hence, the Hon’ble High Court cannot grant the relief prayed by the petitioner.
It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that having regard to sub section (3) of section 84, the Civil Court is not empowered to grant injunction by way of interim measure when a suit for declaration is filed under sub- section(2) of the section 84 of the Act. Adverting to the said submission, their 16
Lordships held that Sub section (3) of section 84 prohibits the grant of injunction by the Civil Court in respect of any proceedings taken or about to be taken by the Deputy Commissioner under section 83. The same, on a true construction does not refer to the power of the Civil Court to entertain the suit, which is dealt with in Sub Section (2) of Section 84. Further, sub section (3) presumably, having regard to the salutary principles contained in Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 prohibits any court to grant injunction prohibiting exercise of statutory power and bars the Civil Court from granting injunction in respect of proceedings before the Deputy commissioner under section 83.
The same does not bar the Civil court from granting injunction when a suit is entertained under sub section (2) of section 84 of the Act.
(b) The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on a decision in I.T.I
Limited Vs Siemens public communications network limited AIR 2002 SC
2308 Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein ithas laid down that there is a strong presumption in favour of civil courts jurisdiction and when there is a doubt regarding jurisdiction, the court has to lean in favour of the existence of jurisdiction in civil Court.
(c) The learned counsel for the plaintiff further relied on a decision in
Executive Officer Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple,
Beeranguda, patancheruvu Mandal, Medak District Vs Sai Krupa Homes,
Karimnagar 2010 (6) ALT 699, wherein it was categorically laid down that present section 87 of Act 30 of 1987 being similar to the section 77 of the 1966 Act, and a suit for declaration, would not fall within the purview of the authorities under the Act 30 of 1987 under section 87. Similarly, a suit for declaration of title is not falling within the parameters of section 151 of the Act 30 of 1987.
17
(d) The learned counsel for the plaintiff further relied on a decision of
Hon’ble Division bench of Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh in Pindi
Jaggayya @ Jaggarao and another, Appellants Vs The Deity of
Seetharamaswamy Varu, also known as Sriramuluvaru Temple
Komaragiripatnam rep by its Trustees and others, Respondents reported
in 1987(1) A.L.T. 18, in that case it was held that when the question raised is one of the title claiming the endowment as belonging to a particular institution, it touches the question of title and the question of title is clearly outside the purview of section 77 of the Act,1966 and civil court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
(e) The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on a decision in Villuri
Subbarao Vs. Karyasddeswaraswamyvari temple, Dhinnayagudem 9-6-
1989 of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradeshwherein it was held that the suit which involves the determination of title to the property is cognizable by the Civil Court.
(f) Finally, the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on a decision of
Hon’ble High Court of Madras in second appeal No.487 of 2008 between
Siddammal and another, Appellants Vs A/M Selliandiammal Thrukoil, rep
by its executive officer, Bhavani, Erode District, Respondent. Coming to the factual matrix of that case, the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff temple and one Mr. Kaveri was inducted as tenant by the temple 20 years prior to the date of filing the suit and the land was leased on a specific condition that he shall be permitted to put a temporary hut for the purpose of residence and no permanent structure should be constructed on the land let out. Mr.Kaveri died leaving behind the defendants who are in possession of the plaint schedule property and when the plaintiff came to know that the defendants are removing the old thatched hut and trying to put up permanent 18 structure contrary to terms of lease, the plaintiff temple filed the suit for permanent injunction. As the defendants completed the construction after filing the suit, the suit was amended for the relief of Mandatory injunction. The defendants filed written statement that there is no bar in the agreement to put up permanent structure on the ground owned by the plaintiff and they have completed the construction of terraced house with the hope that the plaintiff temple will get the consent of the Government to sell the vacant site to respective tenants. After considering the evidence adduced by both parties, the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff temple and the defendants filed first appeal and it was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed second appeal before the Hon’ble High court of Madras and it was argued before the Hon’ble High court by the defendants that the suit is not maintainable, in view of section 108 of Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Act which bars a civil suit against the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment. Adverting to the said arguments, their Lordships held in paragraph 14 that there is no bar under any law, more particularly, under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, for filing a civil Suit seeking comprehensive remedy of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction as in that case. Neither section 108 nor section 79 of the Act, is relevant to the facts of that case since, the defendants are not trespassers and they were recognized as tenants. Since, they violated the terms and conditions of the agreement, the plaintiff temple has filed the suit to prevent the defendants from putting up permanent structure and to to remove permanent structure, a remedy which could be granted only by a competent civil court. There is no alternate procedure under the Act for the relief sought for in the suit and accordingly, dismissed the second appeal.
19
By referring to the ratio laid down in the above decisions, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that this court is having jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction and prayed the court to consider same.
11. Reply arguments of defendants:
By way of reply, the learned counsel for the defendants submitted that in all the decisions relied upon by the plaintiff which are referred supra, except in the decision of Madras High Court in Siddammal’s case, there was dispute regarding the title to the property and it was held in those judgments that when there is dispute relating to title, a suit for determination of such title dispute can be instituted before a Civil Court and the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit. But in the present suit, there is no dispute regarding the title over the property and the plaintiff has not filed the suit for declaration of title and the present suit is filed to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff except under due process of law.
The plaintiff himself categorically mentioned in the plaint that the plaint schedule property belongs to Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and the Mutt conducted auction for sale of plaint schedule property on on 6.4.1983 and sale confirmation was subject to final approval of the Endowment commissioner,
Hyderabad. Hence, as the Endowment Commissioner passed orders dt.1.10.1983 refusing to confirm the sale, the title in the property vests with the
Mutt. Therefore, as the plaint schedule land belongs to the Mutt, the
Endowment Tribunal alone has got jurisdiction to decide the disputes relating to the property belongs to the Mutt, as per section 87 and 151 of Act.
20
He further, submitted that in the decision of Siddammal’s case of the
Madras High Court, it was observed that as there is no provision in the Act barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the suit filed by the temple against its tenants for mandatory injunction is maintainable. But there is specific bar of
Civil Court’s jurisdiction under section 151 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and
Hindu Religious Institution and Endowment Act,1987. Hence, the ratio laid down in the Siddammal’s case of Hon’ble Madras High court has no relevance to the present suit. The counsel for the defendants further submitted that none of the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the plaintiff are relevant to the present case and prayed the court to pass appropriate orders.
1 2. DISCUSSION :
Upon careful consideration of the above rival contentions, arguments and the ratio laid down in the decisions relied on behalf of both the parties, the entire arguments are revolving around the provisions of Andhra Pradesh
Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act. For better understanding, it is necessary to once refer the evolution of above law governing the subject charitable and religious endowments in Andhra
Pradesh, which is as follows:
(1) Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act -II of 1927.
(2) Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act – XIX of 1951 (3) Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowment Act – 17 of 1966 (4). Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions an
Endowments Act, 1987.(Act 30 of 1987)
There cannot be any doubt regarding the fact that Telugu speaking northern districts of Madras Presidency were separated from Madras 21
Presidency to form a new State called Andhra State on 1st October, 1953 and on 1st November, 1956, the Telangana region, which has previously been part of the Hyderabad State under the Nizam was merged with Andhra State.
When Andhra State was part of composite Madras Presidency, Act II of 1927 and Act XIX of 1951 referred above was applicable and long after formation of
State of Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious
Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (Act 17 of 1966) was enacted and finally, Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987(Act 30 of 1987) was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the Administration and Governance of Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and endowments in the state of Andhra
Pradesh.
13. Now coming to the controversy on hand, the contention of the defendants in short is that in view of constitution of Endowments Tribunal in
Andhra Pradesh as empowered by Section 162(1) of Act, 1987 and under
G.O.Ms.No.837 dated 13.8.2009, for the determination of any dispute, question or the matter relating to a Charitable Institution, Dharmadayam,
Religious Charity, Religious Endowments,Religious Institution or any
Institution as defined under the Act and specific ouster of Civil Court’s jurisdiction as per section 151 of Act,1987, all disputes relating to religious institution and endowment property shall be decided before the Tribunal and
Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Section 87 of the
Act also deals with the powers of the endowment tribunal to decide certain disputes and matters. Thus, the Civil court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the suit for permanent injunction.
22
On the other hand, the contention of plaintiff in short is that the Mutt authorities conducted auction for sale of plaint schedule property on 6.4.1983 and the plaintiff became highest bidder in the said auction and the Mutt authorities delivered possession to the plaintiff, but the Endowment
Commissioner refused to confirm the sale, by his orders dated 1.10.83 without assigning cogent reasons or grounds and hence, the plaintiff filed appeal
before the Government of Andhra Pradesh challenging the order of
Endowment commissioner dated 1.10.1983, and the said appeal is pending
before the Government, as such the defendants have no right to dispossess
the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property except under due process of law and as the defendants had tried to dispossess him abruptly, he filed the suit for grant of permanent injunction and granting such relief is not within the purview of the Endowments Tribunal under section 87 of Act, 1987 and the
Civil court is having jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
14.In the backdrop of above submissions, it is necessary to have a brief glance of above provisions of law, for better appreciation of the matter on hand:
Section 87 of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowment Act, 1987 - Power of Endowment Tribunal to decide certain
disputes and matters. .
(1) The Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction shall have the power, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned, to enquire into and decide any dispute as to the question- 23
(a) Whether an institution or endowment is a charitable institution or endowment;
(b) Whether an institution or endowment is a religious institution or endowment;
(c) Whether any property is an endowment, if so whether it is a charitable endowment or a religious endowment;
(d) Whether any property is a specific endowment;
(e) Whether any person is entitled by custom or otherwise to any honor, emoluments or perquisites in any charitable or religious institution or endowment and what the established usage of such institution or endowment is in regard to any other matter;
(f) Whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a secular or religious character and whether any property is given wholly or partly for secular or religious uses; or
(g) Whether any property or money has been given for the support of an institution or endowment which is partly of a secular character and partly of a religious character or the performance of any service or charity connected with such institution of endowment or performance of a charity which is partly of a secular character and partly of a religious character or where any property or money given is appropriated partly to secular uses and partly to religious uses, as to what portion of such property or money shall be allocated to secular or religious uses;
(h) Whether a person is a founder or a member from the family of the founder of an Institution or Endowment.
(2) ..................
(3) ...................
(4) ...................
24 (5) ....................
Section 151 of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowment Act, 1987 -Bar of jurisdiction – No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of administration or management of an institution or endowment or any other matters of dispute for determining or deciding which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of Law except under and in conformity with the provisions of the Act.
Section 162(1) of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowment Act, 1987 – (1) Government may, for the purpose of this Act, constitute as many Tribunals as it may think fit, for the determination of any dispute, question or the matter relating to a Charitable Institution,
Dharmadayam, Religious Charity, Religious Endowments,Religious Institution or any Institution as defined in the Act and also define the local limits and jurisdiction of each of such Tribunals.
G.O.Ms.No.837 Revenue (Endowments I) Department, dated
13.8.2009 In exercise of the powers conferred under section 162(1) of the
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments
Act,1987(Act 30 of 1987) the Government of Andhra Pradesh hereby constitute the A.P. Endowment Tribunal sitting at Hyderabad. The Tribunal shall have jurisdiction for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh for the determination of any disputes, question or the matter relating to a charitable institution, Dharmadayam, religious charity, religious endowments, religious institution or any institution etc as defined in the Act.
25
15. On conjoint reading of above provisions, it is clear that The
Endowment Tribunal constituted as per G.O.Ms.No.837 dated 13.8.2009 shall have jurisdiction for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh for the determination of any disputes, question or the matter relating to a charitable institution,
Dharmadayam, religious charity, religious endowments, religious institution or any institution etc as defined in the Act and the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is expressly ousted to entertain suit for determination of disputes referred above.
16. Now, it is necessary to distinguish the ratio laid down in the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the plaintiff and its applicability and relevancy to the present case.
(a) Coming to the decision in V.Narasingh Raj’s case (2004 (1) ALT 484referred supra, in that case, there is dispute relating to title to the property between V.Narasingh Raj and Vara Vara Narasing Rao Dharashala of Sri
Balaji Venkateswara Swamy temple and when action was initiated under section 83 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner, the Hon’ble High Court held that section 84(2)of Act provides for filing a suit against any order passed by the Deputy commissioner under section 83 of the Act and further held, there is no bar to the Civil Court from granting injunction when a suit is entertained under sub section (2) of Section 84 of the Act.
The facts and circumstances and ratio laid down in the above decision is not applicable to the present case. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding the title to the property and no order is passed under section 83 of the Act for eviction of the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not file the suit as provided under sub section (2) of section 84 of the Act challenging any such 26 orders of eviction passed by the Deputy commissioner under section 83 of the
Act. Therefore, the above decision has no application to the present case.
(b) As far the applicability of ratio laid down in the decision of Hon’ble
High court of Andhra Pradesh in Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy
Temple’s case referred supra, it is categorically laid down in para 12 that present section 87 being similar to the section 77 of the 1966 Act, and a suit for declaration, would not fall within the purview of the authorities under the
Act 30 of 1987 under section 87. Similarly, a suit for declaration of title is not falling within the parameters of section 151 of the Act 30 of 1987.
In that case also, there was dispute regarding the title to the property and hence, it was held that dispute relating to title does not fall within the purview of the authorities under the Act. But, in the present case on hand, as already discussed above, there is no dispute relating to the title to the plaint schedule property and the suit is not filed for declaration of title, and therefore, the ratio laid down in the above case is not applicable to present case.
(c) In Pindi Jaggayya @ Jaggarao’s case (1987(1) A.L.T. 18) referred supra it washeld that when the question raised is one of the title claiming the endowment as belonging to a particular institution, it touches the question of title and the question of title is clearly outside the purview of section 77 of the
Act,1966 and civil court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
As already discussed above, there is no dispute regarding title to the property in this case and the plaintiff categorically mentioned that the property belongs to Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt and as the suit is not filed to declare the title of the plaintiff , the ratio laid down in the above decision is not 27 applicable to the present case and the plaintiff cannot invoke Civil Court’s jurisdiction.
(d) Coming to the decision in Villuri Subba Rao’s case referred supra, there is dispute regarding the title to the property. In that case, the
Plaintiff temple filed suit before the Civil Court for possession and contended that the plaint schedule property belongs to the temple and the 2nd defendant, who was appointed as managing trustee of the temple by Endowment department in 1956 has to deliver the possession. The 2nd defendant in that suit contended that the property in question is his ancestral property and he perfected his title to the property by adverse possession. After trial, the suit was decreed holding that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff temple.
Against that an appeal was filed as AS 14/80 and the said appeal was dismissed. The second appeal is filed against the judgment in A.S.No.14/80 and it was argued before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh that since the plaintiff contended that the property was endowed to the temple and it is denied by the 2nd defendant, that question has to be decided by the Deputy
Commissioner and a suit can be filed by the aggrieved person in the Court under the provisions of the Endowments Act and therefore, the suit filed in the
Civil Court is not maintainable. Upon considering the arguments of both sides, their Lordships discussed vividly about the scope of enquiry under section 77 of the Act ,1966 and all other relevant provisions of the Act,1966 and held in paragraph 8 that since the suit involves the determination title to the property, as the 2nd defendant contended that the suit property is his ancestral property or that he had perfected title to the property by adverse possession, the suit is cognizable by the Civil Court and rejected the 28 contention of the 2nd defendant that the suit is not maintainable in Civil Court and dismissed the 2nd appeal.
Thus, the ratio laid down in the above decision is not applicable to present suit. There is no dispute regarding title to the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff in this suit is not disputing the title of Sri Raghavendra Swamy
Mutt to the plaint schedule property and the present suit is not filed for declaration of title of the plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property. No substantial dispute regarding title to the property is involved in the present suit, which is not within the purview of Endowment Tribunal or which can be decided exclusively by the Civil Court. When section 151 of the Act expressly bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain suit or other legal proceeding in respect of administration and management of an institution or endowment or any other matters of dispute for determining or deciding for which provision is made in the Act, the Civil Court cannot entertain suit in respect of the above subject matter. The plaintiff is not disputing the title to the plaint schedule property and he filed the appeal before the Government challenging the order of Endowment Commissioner in refusing to confirm the sale, and therefore, the present suit filed for bare injunction is not maintainable
before the Civil Court. Hence, the ratio laid down in the above decision is not
applicable to the present case filed for permanent injunction.
(e) Finally, as far as the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in
Siddammal’s case also, the defendants in the said case who are tenants of plaintiff temple made permanent construction in the land belongs to the temple and the temple claimed that such constructions are in violation of lease agreement and filed a suit for mandatory injunction. The defendants therein contended that the constructions made by them are not in violation of the 29 lease agreement and there is no bar to make permanent structures. The trial court decreed the suit and the 1st appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed and in the said appeal, the defendants raised a question that the plaintiff temple is not entitled to file suit in Civil Court as there is bar for civil suit under section 108 of Act and the temple authorities ought to have resorted to section 79 of the Act. Adverting the above submission, their Lordships held that there no bar under any law, more particularly, under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act for filing a civil suit seeking permanent injunction and neither section 108 nor section 79 of the Act is the relevant to the said case, as the defendants are not trespassers and they were recognized as tenants and since they violated the terms and conditions of agreement, the plaintiff is entitled to file suit in civil Court and civil court is having jurisdiction.
On careful reading of the above facts and circumstances and the provisions of law referred in the above decision is not at all applicable to the present case. The provision of section 108 and 79 of the Hindu Religious and
Endowment Act referred in the above decision is not applicable to the present case. As far as Andhra Pradesh is concerned, the charitable institutions, religious institutions and religious endowments are governed by the Andhra
Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. As per section 151 of the Act, there is specific bar as to the Civil
Court’s Jurisdiction and the as per G.O.Ms.No.837 dated 13.8.2009,
Endowment Tribunal is constituted for the determination of any disputes, question or the matter relating to a charitable institution, Dharmadayam, religious charity, religious endowments, religious institution or any institution etc as defined in the Act. Hence, as there is no dispute regarding the title to the property and admittedly the property belongs to the Sri Raghavendra 30
Swamy Temple, Mantralayam, the present suit filed for bare injunction before the Civil Court is not maintainable as there is specific ouster of jurisdiction of
Civil Court, under section 151 of the Act.
17. Thus, as per the rulings relied upon by the counsel for the plaintiff, it is clear that when the question raised is one of title claiming the endowment as belonging to a particular institution, it touches the question of title and the question of title is clearly outside the purview of section 87 of the Act and hence, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed for declaration of title. But, in the present suit, there is no dispute relating to the title to the plaint schedule property and the suit is not filed for declaration of title to the plaint schedule property and hence, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed for bare injunction, in view of constitution of Endowment
Tribunal as per G.O.Ms.No.837 dated 13.8.2009.
18. Further, this court finds it relevant to refer to the decision of
Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh in M.Venkatapathi Naidu, Chittoor
Dist. vs The A.P.Endowments Tribunal, Guntur and another in
W.P.No.25176 of 2017 disposed off on 16 August, 2022.
Coming to the factual matrix of the said case, one Venkatapathi Naidu is the petitioner, the A.P. Endowments Tribunal is the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent is Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt, Tirupati who was the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.8.42 cents. The 2nd respondent had leased out this land to one M. Pachiappa Mudaliar, by way of a public auction held on 10.09.1971, on an annual rent of Rs.1700/-, for a period of six years. This lease also obtained the approval of the Commissioner, Endowments
Department. As M. Pachiappa Mudaliar had defaulted in payment of the lease 31 amounts, O.S.No.344 of 1975 was filed by the 2nd respondent, before the
District Munsiff Court, Chittoor for recovery of the lease amount and for possession of the property. While, the said suit was pending, M. Pachiappa
Mudaliar inducted the petitioner into possession of the said property.
Thereafter, the petitioner entered into a fresh lease with the 2nd respondent, for a period of six years, from 19.12.1979 to 18.12.1985 on an annual lease of Rs.4,525/-. This was approved by the Commissioner, Endowments vide proceedings in L.Dis.No.A2.A2/18920/80-2 dated 22.04.1980. Thereafter, the petitioner had also paid an amount of Rs.17,427/- to the 2nd respondent towards the arrears of lease payable by M. Pachiappa Mudaliar. Thereafter, this payment was ratified by the Commissioner, Endowments in proceedings vide ROC.No.A2/18920/80-1, dated 29.04.1980. Permission was also accorded to withdraw O.S.No.344 of 1975 and the same was also withdrawn.
The petitioner expressed his willingness to the 2nd respondent to purchase the property at the prevailing market rate. Thereupon, the Assistant
Commissioner, who was the then person in charge of Sri Swamy Hathiramjee
Mutt, had addressed a letter to the Commissioner, Endowments Department vide ROC.No.226/1982-A, dated 25.03.1982 recommending the sale of the property under Section 74(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu
Religious and Endowments Act, 1966 at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre. This proposal was approved by the Commissioner, Endowments Department vide proceedings in ROC.No.M2-24149/82, dated 04.05.1982 and the said approval was also published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and also in
Andhra Prabha daily newspaper on 08.06.1982. On the basis of this approval, the 2nd respondent- Mutt sold the land to the petitioner following directions given in G.O.Rt.No.1427 Revenue (Endowments III) Department dated 24.08.1982. It also appears that there were further proceedings of the 32
Commissioner, Endowments in ROC.No.M2/24149/82 dated 09.09.1982 and orders of the erstwhile High Court of A. P. dated 14.10.1982 in
W.P.M.P.No.10901 of 1982 in W.P.No.3621 of 1982.
As these lands had been kept in the prohibitory list under Section 22(a)
(i)(c) to the Registration Act, the petitioner along with two other persons had filed W.P.No.9903 of 2015 for deleting the said lands from the prohibitory list.
This writ petition came to be disposed of along with a batch of cases with certain directions. The petitioner then approached the Commissioner,
Endowments for No objection Certificate for alienation of the said land. As no orders were being passed on his representation, the petitioner filed Contempt
Case No.2337 of 2016 after which, the Commissioner, Endowments issued proceedings in Memo No.M1/26631/2016 dated 03.04.2017.
At this stage, the 2nd respondent had filed O.A.NO.394 of 2017 before the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal for a declaration that the land, purchased by the petitioner, belongs to the 2nd respondent and for a consequential direction of delivery of vacant possession of the property, to the 2nd respondent along with payment of damages.
The contentions raised by the 2nd respondent in the above O.A.No.394 of 2017 was that the sale of land to the petitioner was done in collusion with the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, who had sold away the property to the petitioner against the interest of the 2nd respondent-Mutt and consequently, the said sale requires to be disregarded on the ground of fraud and collusion.
As against filing O.A.No.394 of 2017 before the Endowment Tribunal, the petitioner has approached Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and filed the above Writ petition No.25176 of 2017 for a Writ of Prohibition requiring the 33
Hon’ble High Court to declare that the Endowments Tribunal, Pedda Kakani
has no jurisdiction to entertain O.A.No.394 of 2017 .
The contention of 2nd respondent Mutt is that the very sale of the land under the deed of sale dated 29.10.1982 is violative of the provisions of the
Act, 1966 rendering the said document null and void. Their Lordships held that the said question would have to be answered by the Tribunal. If the
Tribunal were to hold that the said deed of sale is null and void, the contention of the Mutt that there is no requirement for cancellation of the deed of sale would have to be upheld. However, if the Tribunal were to come to the conclusion that the application for declaration filed by the Mutt is hit by limitation or by any lacuna in the framing of the application or joinder of parties or on the ground that all the necessary permissions had been obtained and there is no violation of the provisions of the Act, 1966, the application would have to fail.
Their Lordships discussed vividly about the powers of Tribunal under section 87 of the Act and other relevant provisions of the Act and held that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot hold that the
Endowment tribunal is devoid of jurisdiction and consequently dismissed the writ petition.
19. Thus, as seen from the above decision in M.Venkatapathi Naidu’s case of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred supra, it is clear that the land belongs to Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt was sold in auction to the petitioner and it was approved by the Commissioner of Endowments and the petitioner was delivered possession. However, when he wants to alienate the same and applied for no objection to the Commissioner of Endowments, then such no objection was not granted and further a case was filed before the 34
Endowment Tribunal to declare the sale deed as null and void and to deliver the possession of the property to the Mutt on the ground that the sale was conducted in collusion with the then Assistant commissioner of Endowments.
The petitioner filed Writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of AP challenging the jurisdiction of Endowment Tribunal to entertain the said case and the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. held that the Endowment Tribunal is having jurisdiction to entertain the matter and decide the same and dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that the Endowment
Tribunal is entitled to determine all the disputes relating to religious institutions and endowments and the disputes relating to the property belongs to the religious institution and endowment. In that case also, the land was sold away by the Mutt in the auction and sale deed was also executed in favour of petitioner and it was later challenged by the Endowment Department
before the Endowment Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh held that even in such cases, the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.
Coming to the present case on hand, the land was sold in auction on 6.4.1983, and the Endowment Commissioner refused to confirm the sale by orders dated 1.10.1983 and the same is challenged by the plaintiff by filing appeal before the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the same is pending.
As the sale is not confirmed, the property still belongs to Sri Raghavendra
Swamy Mutt and hence, the disputes relating to the property of said Mutt shall have to be decided by the Endowment Tribunal and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed for grant of permanent Injunction.
20. In view of my foregoing discussion, this court is of considered view that in view of establishment of Endowment Tribunal in Andhra Pradesh as 35 per G.O.Ms.No.837 Revenue(Endowments)Department dated 13.8.2009 in exercise of powers conferred under section 162(1) of The Andhra Pradesh
Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987( Act 30 of 1987), and the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction for the entire State of
Andhra Pradesh for the determination of any disputes, question of the matter relating to a Charitable Institution, Dharmadayam, Religious charity, Religious
Endowment, Religious Institutions or any Institution etc., as defined in the Act, coupled with express ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court as per section 151 of the Act and that no dispute relating to title to the plaint schedule property is involved in the present suit to be decided by the civil court, this Court being
Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit filed for permanent injunction. This issue is answered accordingly in favour of defendants.
21. In the result, this court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of G.O.Ms.No.837 Revenue(Endowment)Department dated 13.8.2009 and the plaint shall be returned to the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 10 of C.P.C..for presentation before the Andhra Pradesh Endowments
Tribunal, within 30 days from the date of this order. No costs.
Date of Presentation of Plaint : 17.6.2014.
Date of filing : 19.6.2014
Date of Return of plaint : 31.3.2026.
Reason for Return of plaint : Lack of jurisdiction of this court to entertain the suit.
Name of the Plaintiff : Ulthi Veerabhadrappa
Name of the Defendants:1. Nakate Shyam 36
2. Sri Raghavendraswamy Mutt represented by its Manager, Mantralayam, Kurnool District.
Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 31 st day of March, 2026.
Sd/- Smt.P.J.Sudha
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KURNOOL AT ADONI.