MALLELA ANANTHA PADMANABHA RAO Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner under section 91 of A. P. Charitable and Hindu religious Institutions and Endowments act 1987, in short referred to as "act" for the purpose of convenience, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 20. 9. 2006 made by the VI Additional District Judge, krishna at Machilipatnam in A. S. No. 60/ 2006 confirming the order of the Deputy commissioner, Endowments Department, kakinada dated 25. 10. 2005.

(2.) THIS Court, while admitting the civil revision petition on 8. 12. 2006 in CRP MP no. 8521/2006 granted interim suspension.

(3.) THE petitioner filed OA No. 35/2004 under Section 87 of the Act to declare him as founder trustee/founder family member of Sri Sitaramaswamy Temple @ sri Sitaramanjaneya Swamy Temple, ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District by setting aside the proceedings of the Assistant commissioner, Endowments Department in rc. A1/86/1993 dated 4. 1. 1993 declaring the same as arbitrary, capricious, illegal and also to exempt the constitution of Hereditary Trust board to the said Temple and for other appropriate reliefs. The learned Deputy commissioner, Endowments Department, kakinada, on appreciation of the Chief-Examination affidavit filed by the petitioner and also Exs. A. 1 to A. 6 which had been marked and further referring to the report of the Assistant Commissioner and the book styled as "mallelavari Charitra" came to the conclusion that the family of the petitioner cannot be said to be founders of the Temple in question and certain members of Agnikula Kshatriya in fact had constructed the said Temple and accordingly negatived the relief. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter by way of Appeal A. S. No. 60/2006 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, krishna at Machilipatnam and the appellate court having framed the Points for consideration at para-11 proceeded to discuss the relevant provisions of the Act i. e. , sections 17 and 87 and also further discussed certain of the findings which had been recorded by the learned Deputy commissioner, Endowments Department, kakinada and ultimately came to the conclusion that there is no irregularity or illegality in the order made by the learned deputy Commissioner, Endowments department, Kakinada in negativing the reliefs and ultimately dismissed the Appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition had been preferred by the unsuccessful petitioner.