S MOHAN SINGH Vs. BHAIRAVI MATHA TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Trustee of Bhairavi Matha Temple, the 1st respondent herein filed OA no. 101 of 2001 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowment, Hyderabad, against the appellant, under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short the Act) for eviction from the schedule property. It was alleged that the temple is situated in an extent of 632 sq. mts in T. S. No. 60, Ward No. 45, Block L, Goshamahal, Hyderabad and that the appellant had encroached premises bearing No. 14-3-68 in an extent of 133. 3 sq. yards, with structures thereon. The appellant contested that OA and he pleaded that the premises under his occupation are those with house no. 14-3-67 and that they have been purchased by his wife through a sale deed dated 31. 9. 1992 from one Sri Subhas Tiwari. The said Tiwari in turn is alleged to have purchased it from Ram Singh in the year 1988 and latter, from Rani bai in the year 1955. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowment, Hyderabad, allowed the OA and the order of eviction became final.

(2.) THE appellant filed OS No. 87 of 2003 in the Court of XII Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Fast Track Court)under Sub Section 2 of Section 84 of the Act for a declaration to the effect that the 1st respondent has no right, title or possession over the plaint schedule premises bearing No. 14-3-67. He pleaded that the property was purchased by his wife and traced the origin of the title. It was mentioned that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in OA No. 101 of 2001 is erroneous and contrary to the facts. The first respondent filed a written statement opposing the suit. It was pleaded that it is a temple registered under Section 6 ( c ) 2 of the Act and that the suit schedule property is the one which is the subject matter of the OA No. 101 of 2001. The trial Court dismissed the suit through its judgment dated 22. 3. 2007. Hence this appeal.

(3.) SRI C. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court deviated from the core issues and did not insist on the respondent, to prove its title. He submits that there is a serious dispute as to the identity of the property and when the respondent did not lay claim for the property in the premises bearing No. 14-3-67 there was no basis for dismissal of the suit.