Sri Rama Swamy & Sri Prasanna Visweswaraswami Temple, Potegunta, Rapur Taluk, Nellore District, is the appellant. The respondents' suit, being O.S.No.42 of 1980, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Gudur, for declaration, possession and future mesne profits was decreed on 31.12.1982. Therefore, the present appeal is filed by the defendant temple.

2. The suit schedule properties are agricultural dry lands admeasuring Acs.16.91 cents comprised in Survey Nos.391, 392, 135, 164, 168 and 109 situated at Potegunta Village of Rapur Taluk in Nellore District. Plaintiffs alleged that they belong to Barber community, rendering bhajantri service (tom-tom) in the defendant temple. Their ancestors were granted the inam in respect of suit schedule properties. After their demise, plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the property till 1969. The Inam Register and Village Revenue Records also show their names as occupants. The inam was granted by the Zamindar of Venkatagiri on condition of the plaintiffs rendering bhajantri service. Defendant, which has no title to the properties, auctioned leasehold rights on 30.06.1968. Puttamreddi Bakkireddi became successful bidder. He and the defendant filed O.S.No.51 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Gudur, which was renumbered as O.S.No.20 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Venkatagiri, for injunction. After obtaining temporary injunction, defendant and Bakkireddi dispossessed the plaintiffs.

3. Plaintiffs further alleged that during the enquiry under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (Inams Abolition Act, for brevity), (A.P.Act No.XXXVII of 1956), they were not issued a notice as contemplated under the Inams Abolition Act. The proceedings obtained by the defendant, therefore, are void and did not confer any title. The inam enquiry was conducted in connivance with Village Munsif, who was also trustee of the temple. Therefore, plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that plaint schedule properties are personal inam of the plaintiffs, subject to performance of tom-tom service at temple, to direct the defendant to deliver possession of the property, and to direct defendant to pay future mesne profits at such rate as may be determined by the Court.

4. The defendant opposed the suit. The pleadings in the written statement in brief are as follows. The suit schedule properties from times immemorial are endowed and in occupation of the defendant temple. The temple has leased out the same to various individuals on yearly basis. The plaintiffs' allegation that suit schedule properties are personal inam for rendering service of tom-tom in the temple is not correct. Plaintiffs were never doing any such service. During the special functions like Sri Rama Navami, Dasara, Siva Rathri, Pratistapana day, Kartika Mondays etc., bhajantries are engaged on contract rate and they are duly paid by the trustee. The temple was registered as a religious institution under Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Endowments Act 1966) on 13.06.1968. The leasehold rights of the temple were auctioned on 30.06.1968.

5. The lands were also subject matter of enquiry before the Inams Abolition Tahasildar. After issuing notices as prescribed under the Inams Abolition Act and Rules made thereunder, the Special Deputy Tahasildar conducted enquiry in Inams Case No.43 of 1958 at Gudur. During the enquiry, the plaintiffs or their predecessors gave statements. The authority then recorded that suit schedule lands are owned by the defendant Institution. A regular patta was issued under Section 7 of the Inams Abolition Act to the defendant. These proceedings have become final and are binding. The plaintiffs have no right to seek a declaration and validity of the proceedings under the Inams Abolition Act cannot be gone into by the Civil Court. If the plaintiffs are aggrie