The burden of proof in a suit for declaration of title rests on the plaintiff, who must approach the court with clean hands and provide sufficient documentary and oral evidence to establish their claim.

JUDGMENT :

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 30.10.2008, in O.S. No.229 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondent herein is the defendant in the said Suit.

2. The Appellant/Plaintiff filed the above said suit for declaration of title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its officials and men from ever interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.229 of 2005, are as under:

i) The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. Originally the plaint schedule property belonged to Smt Kandukuri Ramamma alias Ravamma, W/o. Venkata Subbayya of Denduluru village. On 19.09.2001 the said Ravamma executed a registered gift deed in favour of the plaintiff giving Ac.1.84 cents of wet land covered by R.S.No. 167/2 and Ac.3.16 cents of wet land covered by R.S.No.12 of Malkapuram village and delivered possession of the same to him. He accepted the gift and took possession of the land and ever since he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and raising crops and paying land revenue to Government. The Government also issued pattadar passbook and title deed to him. But, to his surprise, the defendant got issued a legal notice dt.25.08.2004 claiming that the suit schedule property belongs to it. It was alleged in the notice that Sri Kandukuri Adamma settled wet land of Ac.1.84 cents in R.S.No.167/2 and dry land of Ac.3.16 cents covered by R.S.No.12 of Malkapuram village in favour of the defendant. Kandukuri Ravamma settled an extent of Ac.1.00 cents of land covered by R.S.No.46 of Kovvali village in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff is the sister's son of Kandukuri Ravamma. It is falsely alleged in the legal notice that the plaintiff is in management of the properties of the temple after the demise of Kandukuri Ravamma. In fact he was never in management of the properties of the temple. If the temple is under the Endowments Department it should have been registered as the public temple as per the provisions of Endowments Act. But the notice issued by the defendant is silent about the same. It was further alleged in the said notice that the plaintiff mismanaged the temple affairs and its properties and a Single Trustee was appointed for effective management of the temple and the plaintiff is accountable for the income and expenditure of the temple. Since he never managed the temple he is not liable to render accounts.

ii) On 04.09.2004, he got issued a reply notice to the defendant informing that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and his source of title. The defendant received the reply and got lodged a Caveat on 23.06.2005 before Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Eluru. The defendant is contemplating to conduct auction of leasehold rights of plaint schedule property on 11.07.2005 as if the property belongs to it. The defendant has nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

5. The defendant filed a written statement by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -

i) This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions contained in A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The defendant temple is situated in Denduluru village of Denduluru Mandal. The temple was registered on 16.11.1950 under Section 38 of Endowments Act and ever since the temple is under the supervision of Endowments Department. The defendant has got wet land of Ac.1.84 cents in R.S.No.167/2 and Ac.3.16 cents in R.S.No.12, total Ac.5