HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.22081 of 2011 Date : 28-11-2011 Between: Smt. G. Sadhana .. Petitioner And The Chief Accounts Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupati, Chittoor District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri M. Vidyasagar Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 : Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri M. Venkateswara Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: The exclusive privilege conferred on respondent No.3 by respondent No.4 under Clause 5 of Agreement for Donation of Cottage/Tenament at Tirumala, entered into by the mother of the petitioner and respondent No.3, is the subject matter of dispute in the present Writ Petition. The petitioner and respondent No.3 are siblings being the children of late Smt. B. Indira. During her lifetime, the said Smt. B. Indira, donated Rs.5 lakhs to respondent No.4 and entered into an agreement. Clause 5 of the said agreement reads as under : “The donor shall have the privilege and right of staying in the said building for not more than 60 (sixty) days not exceeding 10 days at a time in a calendar year by payment of service charges only. Any of the relations of the Donor shall be accompanied on the written requisition of the Donor and such period of occupation by the relations shall also be deducted from the said 60 days. These privileges shall be in force and effective during the lifetime of the donor, during the lifetime of the donor’s spouse and the lifetime of the first legal heir of the Donor in case of individual donor and in case of Joint donor Company/Firm the privilege of stay shall be in force and effective during 20(twenty) years only.” The petitioner, who is the daughter of late Smt. Indira, questioned the entitlement of respondent No.3 to enjoy exclusively the right of using the cottage for 60 days. It is the case of the petitioner that after the death of her mother, she has filed O.S.No.36/2009 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Ranga Reddy for partition and that the same is pending. The petitioner has questioned the right of respondent No.3 to exclusively enjoy the above mentioned privilege. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4-the Executive Officer of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), it is inter alia stated that while they are not aware of the pendency of the civil dispute, the same has no relevance because the petitioner’s mother has offered Rs.5 lakhs as donation in the year 1996 for construction of residency-cum- choultry under a Scheme and that an agreement was entered into on 31-1-1997 whereunder the eldest legal heir is agreed to be the person who will enjoy the privilege of the donor/donor’s spouse of using the Cottage for 60 days in a year. It is further stated that after the death of the donor, a request was made by respondent No.3 for transfer of privileges attached to the cottage and for issue of donor’s coupons; that along with the said request, respondent No.3 submitted an affidavit of his father furnishing details of the family members, attested by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate; that respondent No.3 also submitted ‘no objection’ from his younger brother and also of his father; that the father of the petitioner and respondent No.3 also submitted a notarized affidavit stating that he cannot lookafter the affairs of the cottage; that all the privileges attached to the cottage may be transferred in the name of respondent No.3 and that after receiving the same, respondent No.4 has issued proceedings dated 7-9- 2009 recognising respondent No.3 as the eligible legal heir for transferring the privileges of the cottage. After hearing Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the TTD and Sri N. Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3, I am of the opinion that unless the petitioner establishes her right to succeed her mother in respect of the privilege covered by the agreement in question, she cannot seek invalidation of the transfer made in favour of respondent No.3. As pleaded by respondent No.4, the transfer was effected on the basis of Clause 5 of the Agreement entered into between the donor and respondent No.4 and also on the ‘no objection’ given by the father of the petitioner and respondent No.3, who is the spouse of the donor. If the petitioner disputes the right of respondent No.3 to exclusively enjoy the privilege, she is entitled to avail appropriate remedy for the said relief. Respondent No.4 is bound by the agreement entered into between it and the donor. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 has violated the terms of the agreement. So long as such violation does not take place, the action of respondent No.4 complained of in this Writ Petition cannot be termed as either illegal or arbitrary. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy for getting her rights declared before the competent Court of law. As a sequel, WPMP Nos.26903, 28336 and 38667 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 28-11-2011 AM