IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5941 OF 2009 Between: Vasireddy Jayadutt …Petitioner A n d Sri Prapathi Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Rep. by its Executive Officer and two others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5941 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 11.08.2009 in A.S.No.284 of 2008, on the file of the IV-Additional District Judge, Guntur, wherein the said appeal filed by the 1st respondent herein was allowed, setting aside the order dated 16.08.2008 in O.A.No.2 of 2008, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur and directing the parties to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur by 18.08.2009. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed O.A.No.2 of 2008 under Section 87(i)(h) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) against the respondents seeking declaration that he is a member belonging to the founders family of the 1st respondent temple. According to the petitioner, the temple was established by his forefathers with their own funds and it was managed by them during their lifetime as hereditary managing trustees and the petitioner’s grandfather Vasireddy Subbaiah was declared as hereditary trustee of the temple by the Deputy Commissioner by orders dated 19.02.1957 and after the death of the said Vasireddy Subbaiah, his son Seetharamaiah, father of petitioner, was recognized as hereditary trustee and after his death on 19.05.2007, the petitioner is entitled to be recognized as a hereditary trustee. 4. The respondents filed a counter opposing the claim of the petitioner. During enquiry before the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P-1 to P-5 were marked. The Executive Officer of the 1st respondent-temple was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Deputy Commissioner held that Varireddy Subbaiah was recognized as the hereditary trustee of the temple and he was managing the same and subsequently his son Seetharamaiah was in hereditary management till an Executive Officer was appointed by the department. The learned Deputy Commissioner, therefore, held that the petitioner, being a member of the founder family, is declared as such. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16.08.2008, the 1st respondent- temple filed an appeal A.S.No.284 of 2008 before the District Judge, Guntur. During the pendency of the appeal, I.A.No.2001 of 2009 was filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking to produce the property register of the temple by way of additional evidence for the purpose of determination as to whether the temple was constructed by the ancestors of the petitioner without collecting any donations. The learned Additional District Judge held that the Deputy Commissioner should consider the question as to whether the petitioner can be declared as member of the founder family in view of the amended provisions of the Act and in the light of additional evidence sought to be adduced. The matter was, therefore, remitted to the learned Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 88 of the Act, in view of the Amendment Act 33 of 2007. 6. It is not disputed that previously the petitioner filed O.A.No.11 of 2008 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur for a similar relief that he be recognized as member of the founder family of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri. By order dated 16.08.2008, the Deputy Commissioner declared the petitioner to be a member of the founder family of the temple and aggrieved by the same, the temple filed A.S.No.287 of 2008 and the learned Additional District Judge, by order dated 11.08.2009 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and thereupon the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.5942 of 2009. This Court in the order dated 04.08.2010 observed that before the Act was amended by Act 33 of 2007, which came into force on 03.01.2008, an appeal was provided to the District Court against the order of the Deputy Commissioner and after the amendment, a different mechanism has come into place and an Endowment Tribunal is constituted under Section 87 of the Act which was conferred with the powers to adjudicate all the disputes, including those which are within the purview of the Deputy Commissioner. But, however, under sub-Section (5) of Section 87, the power of Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate the matters was kept in tact till the effective functioning of the Tribunal. It was, therefore, held that the District Court does not figure in the scheme of adjudication of the disputes under the Act after 03.01.2008. C.R.P.No.5924 of 2009 was accordingly allowed, holding that by the time the said appeal was presented, the amendment came into force and the jurisdiction of the District Court was taken away. The order of the Appellate Court was set aside, leaving it open to the temple to pursue its remedies in accordance with law. 7. This Court in C.R.P.No.3932 of 2007, by order dated 06.08.2010, while dealing with similar issue held that pending constitution of the Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner is only exercising all such powers in lieu of the powers conferred on the Endowments Tribunal and remedy of appeal is provided to the High Court but not to the District Court, irrespective of whether the order is passed by the Tribunal or the Deputy Commissioner. The civil revision petition was accordingly allowed, setting aside the order dated 15.02.2007 in C.M.A.No.30 of 2004, on the file of the District Judge, Srikakulam, as being without jurisdiction. No doubt, the Tribunal has subsequently become functional, but admittedly the Tribunal was not constituted at the relevant point of time. 8. In view of the orders passed by this Court in the above civil revision petitions, which squarely cover the present case as well, it must be held that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is unsustainable for lack of jurisdiction and the same is accordingly set aside. It is open to the 1st respondent- temple to avail the remedies available under the provisions of the amended Act to assail the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in O.A.No.2 of 2008. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Interim suspension granted earlier by this Court stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY 20th September, 2011 Lrkm