Appeal Under Section_____against ordersof the Order and Decree DT. 26-02-2019 in O.A.No. 447 of 2012 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani pending disposal of the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Order and Decree Dt. 26.02.2019 in O.A.NO. 447 of 2012 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani pending disposal of the above CMA and pass

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent under Section 84(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 challenging the order dated 26.02.2019 passed in O.A.No.447 of 2012 by the Member, A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, whereby, the Tribunal allowed the petition directing appellant/respondent to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the petition scheduled property.

For the sake of convenience, the parties to the appeal will hereinafter be referred as petitiones and respondent, as arrayed before the Tribunal in O.A.No.447 of 2012.

It is the case of the petitioners that the petition schedule property belongs to one Sikhakolli Kodanda Ramaiah’s family and the same was being used for the service of lord Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy temple; the said property to an extent of 20½ gadies was gifted to the 2nd petitioner by Sikhakolli Durgmba and her sons by way of a registered gift deed bearing document No.153/1964, dated 12.03.1964; ever since, the 2nd petitioner’s temple has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The respondent started encroaching the said land from April, 2012 by digging trenches for foundation for construction as if it is his own site. Hence, the petitioners filed a petition before the Tribunal seeking eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property.

The respondent contested the said application by filing a counter affidavit stating that originally, Sikhakolli Kodanda Ramaiah’s family owns the property to an extent of 46 gadies of land and on 06.11.1914, vide document No.1527/1914, the said Sikhakolli Kodanda Ramiah and his father Addenna partitioned the said land and secured 23 gadies each. After the death of Addenna, Kodanda Ramaiah and his mother Smt. Kotamma jointly sold an extent of 10 gadies situated towards northern side of the respondent’s property to one Kormala Subbaiah. Vide document NO.1533/1914, Kodanda Ramaiah purchased an extent of 51 gadies in the same Sy.No.997 in his individual capacity and in the year 1923, he got his property mortgaged vide document No.369/1923 to Matta Subbaraidu, Venkata Subbaiah. After the death of Kodanda Ramaiah, the property admeasuring 69 gadies was registered in favour of Matta Subbaraidu, Venkata Subbaiah in the year 1936. Matta Venkata Subbaiah sold 38 gadies to the father of the respondent, 12 gadies to Appala Balaiah and 19 gadies to Munada Chanaiah. Subsequently, the father of the respondent is said to have purchased 19 gadies from Munada Chanaiah vide document No.1325/1970 and has constructed a small shed with compound wall, wherein, the respondent’s family has been residing since 1971. Hence requested the Tribunal to dismiss the application.

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1) Whether the 2nd applicant is owner of petition scheduled property and if so the respondent is liable for eviction as encroacher U/s 83 of the Act 30/1987?

2) To what result?

During the course of trial, the Chairman of the 2nd petitioner was examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The respondent himself was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R6 in support of his case.

The Tribunal, relying on the documentary evidence produced by either side, came