ENDREDDY RAMI REDDY Vs. NOONE MAHABALESWARARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by Endreddi Rami Reddi, a third party to the suit, with the leave of this court. The plaintiff, Noone Mahaba- leswara Rao, contends that the appeal is not maintainable at the instance of Endreddi Rami Reddi, and the leave granted to him by the court should be cancelled. Hence, I heard it as a preliminary question and I am pronouncing this order.

(2.) Noone Mahabaleswara Rao filed O.S.No. 7/1970 in the court of the District Judge, Guntur for a declaration that the B schedule properties are his private properties, and are not a public trust or an endowment within the meaning of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1966 for setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner for Endowments, Vijayawada in O.A. No. 82/1968 dated 14th March, 1969, and for an injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with the B schedule properties: and for costs. According to the plaintiff, himself ana defendants 4 to 11 are the owners and are in possession of the plaint A schedule properties consisting of lands and a house in Pirangipuram village in Sattenapalli Taluk, Guntur District. In the partition that took place between the plaintiff and those defendants, the B schedule properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff. While so, seme villagers, including the 3rd defendant, Patalam Ramaiah, and lndreddi Rami Reddi the third party to the suit, filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments stating that the suit schedule properties were endowed to the Choultry at Pirangipuram, and it was a Public Choultry used by the travellers for taking rest. Thereupon, the Assistant Commissioner (2nd defendant) for Endowments Department, Guntur, issued notices to the Plaintiff and the defendants 4 to 11 to produce account books and get the Choultry registered under Sec. 38 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1966, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Since they did not furnish information, the 2nd defendant appointed the 3rd defendant as a fit person on 25th April, 1968, and framed charges against the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 11. The plaintiff and the 4th defendant preferred revision before the Commissioner of Endowmentsi but it was dismissed for default. Meanwhile, the plaintiff and the 4th defendant filed a petition O.A.No 82/1968 under section 77(1) (a) of the Act, before the 1st defendant, the Deputy Commissioner for Endowments Department Vijayawada for a declaration that the suit house did not constitute a charitable institution and the other properties were not endowed to the said Institution. The 1st defendant dismissed that petition on 14th March, 1969. Questioning that order, the plaintiff filed the suit. According to him, the 1st defendant did not hold an enquiry in his presence and, therefore, his order was arbitrary and opposed to the principles of natural justice. He also contended that it was not a public Choultry endowed to the public and no properties were endowed to the Choultry and, therefore,' there was no public trust or endowment so as to attract the provisions of the Act.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 3 have filed a wrtiten statement, on behalf of defendants 1 & 2, three witnesses were examined. DW. 1 is the 3rd defendant and P.W. 2 is the present appellant. During the course, of the trial, the counsel appearing for the 3rd defendant reported no instructions on 6th September 1974. Then the 3rd defendant was called and was set ex-parte as he was absent. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was closed on 17th October 1974, and on behalf of the defendants on 6th March 1975. The suit was posted for arguments to 17th March, 1975. On 14th March, 1975, just three days before the adjournment date, the present appellant filed two applications (I.A. Nos. 367 and 368/1975) the first petition to reopen the suit for adducing further evidence, and the second petition to add him as a supplemental 12th defendant and to permit him to file a written statement in the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of those petitions he has stated that he is a resident of the suit village and is one of the beneficiaries of the trust and that he is interested in the maintenance and proper up keep of the trust property. He has given evidence in the suit He was given to understand that neither the defendants 1 to 3 nor the other defendants are taking any interest in the conduct of the suit or in the suit property. He came to know that there are number of material documents which go to prove that the suit properties are trust properties, which are either deliberately or inadvertantly not produced into court. He is in possession of some of the material documents which are to be filed into court. Therefore, he prayed that the suit might be reopend and he might be impleaded as a supplemental 12th defendant in the suit and permit him to contest the suit on merits. Those applications were contested by the plaintiff.