THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA SECOND APPEAL NO. 1029 OF 2005

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the judgment of the First Appellate Court passed in A.S.No.5 of 2003 dated 22.02.2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Sangareddy at Medak, in which the judgment of the trial Court was partly allowed to an extent of injunction and the relief for declaration was dismissed, O.S.No.340 of 1998 is filed by Lakshmanachary (alias) Bandachary against District Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer.

2. In the appeal it is mainly contended that the suit is filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule land bearing Survey No.223 admeasuring Ac.5.14 guntas situated at Chelmeda Kalan Village of Munipally Mandal for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents etc., from interfering with the suit land and for a direction to the defendants to effect the name of the plaintiff as pattedar in respect of the suit land in the pahani patrikas. It is further contended that the father of the plaintiff Manik Prabhu Ramakrishna Chary S/o Shankar Bhatt was the owner and pattedar of the suit land since 1943 and was cultivating the same without interference from anybody. Subsequent to the death of his father, the plaintiff is cultivating the suit land and his name is recorded in the revenue records as cultivator. As the father of the plaintiff was called Manik Prabhu alias Ramakrishna Chary and the plaintiff is called as Laxmana Chary alias Banda Chari. Defendant No.2 in collusion with the interested person made entries as “Manik Prabhu” only. The past record Setwar for the year 1333 Fasli reveals the name of the plaintiff’s father as “Manik Prabhu” as pattedar. Defendant No.2 sent a report to Defendant No.1 stating that the suit land belongs to the Government which is in the name of “Sri Manik Prabhu” of Manik Nagar Samsthan. In fact the plaintiff inherited the suit land from his late fore-fathers and the defendants have no authority to assign patta unless it is acquired for public purpose. The plaintiff is the bonafide pattedar and in possession of the suit land.

3. In appeal it is further contended that defendant No.2 filed written statement in which it is stated that the suit land is the property held by Sri Manik Prabhu temple of Chelmada Kalan Village. The suit land is the endowment property under Section 376(1) of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, any patta granted or deemed to have been granted to any person shall be deemed to have granted to the temple and the person cultivating the land shall be deemed as encroacher. The plaintiff is the encroacher though he is cultivating the suit land. He has no title or right of his own. The plaintiff or his father has been cultivating on behalf of the temple as Poojaries and they have no exclusive title over the suit land. The suit is hit by the Provisions of the Section 151 of the Endowment Act. It is further stated that plaintiff has wrongly shown his father’s name as ‘Manik Prabhu/Krishna Chary’ instead of ‘Ramakrishna Chary’. The entire record shows the name of the father of the plaintiff as ‘Ramakrishna Chary’. The father of the plaintiff was never called with two names as Manik Prabhu @ Ramakrishna Chary. The word ‘Manik Prabhu’ shall mean and include the temple Manik Prabhu and not the father of the plaintiff. The patta was recorded in the name of the temple and as such the question of granting patta again does not arise. The Commissioner of Endowments, A.P., is the proper and necessary party to the suit since the suit land is the property of Sri Manik Prabhu temple of Chelmeda Kalan village. The plaintiff taking undue advantage of irregular entries in the revenue records is trying to claim title over the suit land. The other land of the plaintiff and his father were recorded only in the name of Rama Kistaiah and Laxmana Chari but whereas with regard to the suit land it is recorded