IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2761 of 2010 Between: Veerabrahmam Matam, Kandikayalapalli, Kadapa District. … Petitioner And Matam Ashok Kumar & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri L.J. Veera Reddy Counsel for respondents 1&2: Sri P. Veera Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2761 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 26.03.2010 in I.A.No.145 of 2007 in O.S.No.6 of 2004 on the file of V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kurnool at Nandyal. The petitioner is defendant No.2 in the abovementioned suit. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the said suit for declaration of their title and permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property. On the basis of the respective pleadings of the parties, the Court below has framed the issues, which include the one relating to the maintainability of the suit. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner – defendant No.2 that the scheduled property is an endowment property belonging to respondent No.2 Matam and that therefore the suit is barred under Section 151 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. After the trial was commenced, the petitioner filed I.A.No.145 of 2007 under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This application was rejected by the lower Court. At the hearing, Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the face of the pleading of the petitioner that the suit scheduled property is an endowment property belonging to respondent No.2, it is obligatory on the part of the Court below to decide the said issue as a preliminary issue. Under Rule 2 of Order XIV, where the Court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law, it may try that issue first, if that issue relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. Whether an issue shall be decided as a preliminary issue or not depends upon the facts and pleadings of each case. In the instant case, there is a serious dispute regarding the nature of the property. While respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs pleaded that the property is a private property belonging to their ancestors, the petitioner has pleaded that the property belongs to it, which is a registered endowment. Thus, this is not a case where a pure question of law has arisen for being decided as a preliminary issue because the issue is one of mixed question of law and fact. The Court below cannot decide the dispute raised by the parties on the nature of the property, unless it receives evidence adduced by both the parties and it is only after it comes to the conclusion on appreciation of evidence that the property belongs to the petitioner that the suit can be dismissed as not maintainable. Before arriving at this conclusion, it is necessary for the Court below to consider the evidence to be adduced by both the parties. In this view of the matter, the Court below is justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the revision petition, CRPMP.No.3703 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.08.2010. ES