IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that the land in Sy. No. 47 is private property of the applicants, not endowed to the temple, overturning the tribunal's decision.

JUDGMENT :

P. SREE SUDHA, J.

1. Parties in both the appeals are one and the same and they raise common issue. Therefore, with their consent, they are being disposed of by a common order.

2. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 15.03.2019, passed in O.A. No. 125 of 2010 (Old O.A. No. 3/2003) by the Telangana Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad.

3. The application vide O.A. No. 125 of 2010 was filed by the appellants in C.M.A. No. 680 of 2019 to declare the land covered by Sy. No. 47 having the extent of Ac. 32.31 guntas situated at Ammapally village of Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District not as endowed property of 2nd respondent temple and it is the private and personal property of applicants and to delete the relevant entry in the Section 38 Registrar of the temple and to set aside the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent vide R.C. No. C/985/2002, dated 03.04.2002.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

5. The parties herein are referred as ‘applicants’ and ‘respondents’ as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

6. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are absolute owners and pattedars of the O.A. schedule land to an extent of Ac. 32.31 guntas in Sy. No. 47 situated at Ammapally Village, Shamshabad Mandal. Out of the above stated Ac. 32.31 guntas of land, they purchased an extent of Ac. 08.20 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 14.09.2000 and an extent of Ac. 6.00 under a registered sale deed dated 14.09.2000 from M/s. Keerthi Warehousers and Traders and Ac. 10.11 guntas of land under a registered sale deed dated 27.12.2000 from M/s. Swarnandhra Developers and an extent of Ac. 08.00 of land under a registered sale deed dated 12.04.2001 from one Sathi Raju. Since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of the O.A. schedule land.

7. The OA schedule land originally belonged to one Mr. Salahuddin Abbas Tayabji and he sold it out to Mr. Mirza Anwar Ali Baig in the year 1957. He in turn sold the same to Mr. Deva Priyam B.Kurut under a registered sale deed dated 23.04.1976. Mr. Deva Priyam B.Kurut sold the same to Satpal Singh and Chanchal Devi on 30.04.1984. These two purchasers subsequently sold away the OA schedule land to different persons, under different sale deeds with different extents. The said Satpal Singh and Chanchal Devi sold an extent of Ac. 08.00 of land to Smt.K.Suguna Devi W/o K.S.N. Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 24.09.1997 and that Suguna Devi in turn sold that Ac. 08.00 of land under a registered sale deed dated 14.09.2000 to one Sathi Raju and Sathi Raju sold the land to applicants. The said Satpal Singh and Chanchal Devi sold away an extent of Ac. 08.20 guntas of land under a registered sale deed, dated 24.09.1997 to M/s. Keerthi Warehousers and Traders and on the same day they sold an extent of Ac. 16.11 guntas of land to the said M/s. Keerthi Warehousers and Traders under another sale deed. The said M/s. Keerthi warehousers and Traders in turn sold an extent of Ac. 06.00 of land and an extent of Ac. 08.20 guntas of land to applicants under two (02) different sale deeds on 14.09.2000. Further, the said M/s. Keerthi Warehousers and Traders have sold an extent of Ac. 10.11 guntas of land to M/s. Swarnandhra Developers and that M/s.Swarnandhra Developers sold away that Ac. 10.11 guntas of land to them under a registered sale deed. That, in the above said manner, they became owners of the OA schedule land, they do real estate business and they sold away almost half of the OA schedule land to various persons by registering the plots in their names.

8. On 03.04.2002, respondent No. 1 vide Rc. No. C/985/2002, addressed to respondent No. 3 that the land covered by Sy. No. 47 along with the lands covered by Sy. Nos. 1 to 5, 7, 8, 10 to 18, 20 to 34, 36 to 43, 35 to 47 are the lands of respondent No. 2 temple and they were leased out to various persons for a nominal rent. In that proceeding, a request was made not to en