In declaratory suits, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their claims, and appellate courts may not interfere with factual findings unless they are erroneous or based on inadmissible evidence.

Judgment :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 15.02.2016 in A.S.No.50 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni (“First Appellate Court” for short), reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 20.10.2010 in O.S.No.169 of 2004, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur (“Trial Court” for short).

2. The appellant Nos.1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs and 1^st respondent herein is sole defendant in O.S.No.169 of 2004, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur.

During the pendency of the appeal suit before First Appellate Court, 1^st respondent herein died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.2 to 4 therein. The 3^rd appellant herein died during the pendency of this appeal and her legal representatives were brought on record as appellant Nos.4 and 5 and that the 2^nd appellant herein died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.5 to 10.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.169 of 2004, on the file of Junior Civil Judge,Yemmiganur, with a prayer for declaring the plaintiffs to perform the duty of Archakathvam on yearly term basis as well as defendant and order to deliver the keys and ornaments of Lord Beerappa Swamy Temple situated in Chetnipalli Village, Mantralayam Mandal every year after performing Sivarathri Utsvam on rotation every year to the plaintiffs and defendant; to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and servants, etc., from interfering in any manner in discharging the duty of Archakathvam during the period of plaintiffs and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.50 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. The learned II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, allowed the appeal by reversing the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.169 of 2004, is as follows:

(i) The plaintiffs and defendant are residents of Chetnipalle Village of Mantralayam Mandal. There is a Beerappa Swamy Temple situated at Chetnipalli Village, constructed about 100 years ago by the ancestors of the plaintiffs, performed the Archakathvam and offered prayers to the said Beerappa Swamy from the time immemorial. The plaintiffs and defendant are belongs to Kuruva community and all the Kuruva community people are offering prayers to the said Beerappa Swamy as per their customs and usages. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are father and son and are performing the Archakathvam of Beerappa Swamy Temple. As per the understanding, the plaintiffs perform Archakathvam for a period of ten years and handed over the same to the defendant for a period of ten years. In the year 1988, the defendant violated the said practice and custom and interfered intentionally and purposefully in discharging the duties of Archakathvam of the said Beerappa Swamy temple. The 1^st plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.21 of 1988 on the file of this Court against the defendant for permanent injunction restraining not to interfere in any manner. After filing of the said suit, the village elders by name S.K. Venkoba Rao, R.P. Basavanna Gowd and community elders have effected amicable settlement between the 1^st plaintiff and defendant and the said suit is dismissed for default on 18.07.1988. As per the settlement, the plaintiffs and defendant agreed to perform the Archakathvam of the said Beerappa Swmay temple on yearly basis. The