THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 27062 of 2010 O r d e r: Assailing the order dated 24.09.2010, passed by A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein, in Memo in CFR. 259/2010 in O.A. No. 80 of 2002, transposing the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad, respondent No.3 in the O.A., as petitioner No.2 in the O.A., the petitioners filed the present writ petition. Originally, respondent No.3 herein filed O.A. No. 80 of 2002 under Section 87(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Endowments Act’) on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, to declare that the property in question bearing Nos.14- 11-1048 to 14-11-1054 and 14-11-1066 to 1084 (Old Nos. 2195 to 2222), situated at Birbanbagh, Shahinyath Ganj, Hyderabad, belongs to Sri Mahadev Temple, Birbanbagh, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Temple’). While so, the petitioners stating that the property in question is their private property and that it does not belong to the Temple, and that respondent No.3, having filed the O.A., did not lead any evidence, they filed application in I.A. No. 82 of 2004, praying to dismiss the O.A. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, vide orders dated 11.11.2005, dismissed the said application, holding that notwithstanding respondent No.3 did not adduce any evidence, burden is on the petitioners to prove that the property in question is not an endowed one, by adducing necessary oral and documentary evidence. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed revision in R.P. No. 27 of 2005 on the file of Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, who by order dated 06.07.2006 rejected the same and directed the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, to proceed with the trial of the O.A. on merits by giving due opportunity to the petitioners and respondent No.3. Questioning the said order the petitioners filed writ petition in W.P. No. 16626 of 2006, and this Court by order dated 09.08.2006, dismissed the same, holding that the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, shall determine the claim of respondent No.3, based on the evidence let in by him, and he ought not to have called upon the petitioners to lead evidence to disprove a claim that is not established by respondent No.3. While the matters stood thus, for exercising the powers of the Deputy Commissioner and other endowment authorities, the Endowments Tribunal, came to be constituted, and the O.A. filed by respondent No.3 was transferred to the Endowments Tribunal. During the course of enquiry of the O.A., respondent No.2 herein, namely the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, filed a Memo praying to transpose him as petitioner No.2. The petitioners filed their objections stating that the Memo is not maintainable in law. The Endowments Tribunal, vide orders dated 24.09.2010, allowed the Memo and transposed respondent No.2 herein, namely the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, as petitioner No.2. Questioning the said order of the Endowments Tribunal, the petitioners filed the present O.A. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments Department. As respondent No. 3 herein, having filed the O.A., is not contesting the same, and having regard to the fact that this Court by order dated 09.08.2006 passed in W.P. No. 16626 of 2006 had held that the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad (now Endowments Tribunal) shall determine the claim of respondent No.3, based on the evidence to be let in by him, it is the contention of the petitioners that the Endowments Tribunal, committed a grave error in passing the impugned order, allowing the Memo filed by respondent No.2 herein, namely the Assistant Commissioner, Hyderabad, for his transposition as petitioner No.2 in the O.A. I am unable to agree with this contention of the petitioners. Admittedly, respondent No.3 herein filed O.A. to declare that the property in question belongs to the Temple. In the O.A., respondent No.3 herein arrayed the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, as respondent No.3. For the reasons best known to respondent No.3 herein, he is not contesting the O.A., and no doubt, if he does not contest the O.A., it can be dismissed for default, but the fact remains, in the instant case, respondent No. herein, namely the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, who is arrayed as respondent No.3 in the O.A., wants to protect the interest of the Temple, and as respondent No.3 herein was not prosecuting the O.A. in which event, the interest of the Temple would be jeopardized, he wanted to be transposed as petitioner No.2 in the O.A. As respondent No.3, having filed the O.A., abandoned its prosecution, the Endowments Tribunal, considering the request of respondent No.2 herein, namely the Assistant Commissioner, and having regard to the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 1-A and Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that in the event the plaintiff who files the suit and abandons, a defendant, if claims to have substantial interest in the property, can be transposed as plaintiff, passed the impugned order, allowing the Memo filed by respondent No.2 herein and transposed him as petitioner No.2 in the O.A., and no interference is called for therewith, particularly when in the O.A., respondent No.3 though claimed that Temple is the owner, yet did not array it as party- respondent, and instead merely arrayed the Trustee as a party- respondent. Though the petitioner, placing reliance on the compromise decree dated 27.02.1989 in O.S. No. 1227 of 1981 on the fie of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad; judgment and decree dated 17.04.2009 in O.S. No. 1820 of 1999, which is re-numbered as O.S. No. 890 of 2007 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, in which the Endowments Department, is a party-defendant, contends that as the property in question was declared as private property, and the said finding having attained finality, nothing would subsist for consideration in the O.A. by the Tribunal, the fact remains, the said suits are suits for permanent injunction and not declaration of title. Though the Endowments Department is shown as party-defendant in the said suits, the Temple, which claims to be the owner of the property in question is not arrayed as party-defendant. Be that as it may, the judgments and decree, relied on by the petitioners being merely with respect to perpetual injunction and not declaration of title, and it not being their case that they perfected their title to the property by way of adverse possession, and having regard to the rival claims put up by the parties, the question as to who is the owner of the property in question, is a question that has to be decided by the Endowments Tribunal in the O.A. Therefore, based on the judgments and decree, relied upon by the petitioners, it cannot be conclusively said that they are owners of the property in question, and if according to the petitioners, the property in question is their private property, it is for them to disprove the claim of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, who is transposed as petitioner No.2 that it is Temple property. For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Endowments Tribunal, transposing respondent No.2 as petitioner No.2 in the O.A. The writ petition is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 30th December, 2010 IBL