Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred under Section 151 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, for disputes regarding whether property is a private or endowment property, as Section 87 provides a specific forum for such adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J.

The present Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dated 29.03.2007 passed in O.S.No.1496 of 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned judgment’) on the file of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), whereby the suit instituted by the appellant No.1/plaintiff herein against the respondents/defendants seeking declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule properties coupled with mandatory injunction directing respondent No.2/defendant No.2 seeking to delete the entry relating to the suit properties from the relevant records maintained by it and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellant No.1/plaintiff over the suit schedule properties, was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

3. The brief facts of the case as borne out from the record, are that the property admeasuring Ac.3-13 guntas in Survey Nos.139 and 140, situated at Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, shown as Item No.1 of the plaint schedule, originally belonged to the plaintiff’s maternal uncle, Srikishan Agarwal. The plaintiff’s great-grandfather, late Eknath, had constructed Sri Hanuman Temple at premises No.9-4-85, Nanalnagar X Roads, Hyderabad, which is Item No.2 of the plaint schedule, and the same is claimed to be a private family temple.

4. It is stated that Srikishan Agarwal executed a registered Will dated 23.02.1977, bequeathing the said properties in favour of the plaintiff. Upon demise of the testator on 20.04.1996, the plaintiff claims to have been in possession and enjoyment of the properties and has been performing poojas in the temple. According to him, one Gopalgir, claiming to be the poojari of the temple, asserted that the temple was a Mutt. The plaintiff, however, maintains that the temple was constructed more than 120 years ago by his family out of their personal funds and not out of any charitable or public contributions, and therefore, it does not partake the character of a public or endowed institution. However, at the instance of the said poojari claiming it to be a mutt, the officials of defendant No.2 allegedly attempted to interfere with the suit scheduled property. It is alleged that the officials visited the temple on 28.05.1996 under the pretext of inspection, threatened the plaintiff to vacate the premises, and attempted to dispossess him. It is under these circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the present suit.

5. In reply to the plaint averments, the defendant No.2 filed a written statement inter-alia denying the claim of the plaintiff. It is contended that the land and temple in question are endowed properties and constitute a public institution, and that the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the temple was constructed by his ancestors out of their personal funds. It is further contended that Srikishan Agarwal was only functioning as a poojari of the temple and had no absolute right over the property, and that the temple cannot be treated as the private or family temple of the plaintiff or his ancestors. It is also stated that neither the plaintiff nor his ancestors ever approached the authorities seeking a declaration that the temple