JAMPANI TRILOKESWARI Vs. DHARMADAYA TOPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants filed O.S.No. 219 of 1995 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, challenging the order, dated 22.09.1995 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Ongole, Prakasam District, the 2nd respondent herein, appointing a Fit Person for the 1st respondent, on the assumption that it is a charitable institution. The appellants pleaded that an extent of Acs.2.52 cents of land was endowed subject to certain conditions, viz., that it would be available for public as long as tamarind trees thereon exist; and that they were entrusted with the duty to maintain it. According to them, the tamarind trees disappeared. It was stated that when suo moto proceedings were initiated by the Inams Deputy Tahasildar of the area, they have put forward their case, and taking the same into account, the Deputy Tahasildar held that the land does not belong to any charitable institution. It was their case in the plaint that over the period, they have purchased the shares of different persons and became absolute owners. Their plea was that the 2nd respondent does not have the jurisdiction to appoint a Fit Person, vis--vis a private property.

(2.) The suit was contested by the 2nd respondent. He pleaded that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, in view of the bar contained in Section 151 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act'). It was further pleaded that the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 2, would invalidate or extinguish any pattas or declarations of rights of ownership vis--vis the properties of a charitable institution or endowment. The trial Court decreed the suit, through judgment dated 29.03.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent filed A.S.No. 12 of 2004 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki. The appeal was allowed on 28.10.2009. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) Sri M. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the lower Appellate Court has taken an incorrect view as to the maintainability of the suit. He contends that as long as there was no alternative forum, in which the order appointment made by the 2nd respondent can be challenged, the jurisdiction of the civil Court remains intact. He further submits that even if the lower Appellate Court was of the view that the suit is not maintainable, it could have left the parties to work out their remedies before the proper forum, but expressed its opinion on merits, as regards the orders passed by the Inams Deputy Tahasildar, marked as Ex.A.1. Other contentions are also urged.