The importance of documentary evidence and substantiation of claims in property disputes under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.

JUDGMENT :

The batch of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed aggrieved by the Order dated 09.05.2022 passed in various O.As by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani (in short “the tribunal’), whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the appellant herein to vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition schedule property within one month to the respondent/ Institution and also directed the appellant to pay damages for use and occupation of the schedule property from the date of petition till delivery of property and further directed the Station House Officer, Kothapeta Police Station, Vijayawada Urban to provide necessary police aid in implementation of the said orders to the respondents on requisition, in the event of failure of the appellant to comply with the orders and costs.

2. Since the facts and issue involved in all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, I find it expedient to decide these matters by a Common Judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, C.M.A.No.241 of 2022 is taken into consideration as a leading case. The appellant herein is the respondent and respondent herein is the petitioner before the tribunal.

4. The claim of the respondent/ petitioner before the tribunal is that the respondent herein is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property. The appellant herein have encroached the petition schedule property highhandedly and illegally without permission of the Endowments Department and made illegal constructions therein and that the appellant is an encroacher. Therefore the respondent herein issued legal notice, but the appellant instead of vacating the petition schedule property, issued a reply notice. Therefore O.A has been filed for eviction of the petition schedule property and handover the same to the respondent herein.

5. The appellant/ respondent has filed counter therein and contended that the schedule property and its door number mentioned in the O.A is incorrect and the respondent herein has no locus-standi to file the petition for eviction. The petition schedule property was never in possession and enjoyment of the respondent herein at any point of time. It is for the respondent herein alone to prove that it has absolute rights and title. Since it was never leased out to the appellant at all, the question of relationship between them as landlord and tenant does not arise. Therefore there is no need to pay any amount or damages for use and occupation and requested to dismiss the O.A.

6. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of respondent/ petitioner examined PW-1 and marked Ex.A1 to A6 and on behalf of appellant/petitioner examined none examined and no documents were marked.

7. Learned tribunal has framed the following point for determination viz.,

“1. Whether the respondent is an encroacher of the property of the petitioner/institution/ temple?

2. To what result?

8. After hearing on both the sides, the learned tribunal directed the respondent therein i.e appellant herein to vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition schedule property within one month to the respondent herein and also to pay damages for use and occupation of the schedule property from the date of petition till delivery of the property and also granted police aid to the respondent herein for compliance of the impugned order of the learned tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the present batch of C.M.As came to be filed.

9. Heard Mr. D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel and Mr. M. Sri Atchyut, learned counsel, representing Mr. E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Padmavathi Padnavis, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

10. During hearing learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the learned tribunal without appreciating the counter and material on record has simply directed the appellants herein to vacate and handover the possession of the petition schedule property to the respondent herein, ignoring the well settled principles of law. It is contended that lea