THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6757 of 2008 ORDER: One Nunna Appalacharyulu and Alivelamma have brought into existence Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Vari Temple and endowed vast extents of land to the Temple. The petitioners state that Appalacharyulu and Alivelamma did not have any issues and have adopted one Sri Bhaskaracharyulu. He is said to have four sons, out of whom, only the 1st petitioner is surviving. The 2nd Petitioner and the 3rd respondent are said to be the sons of late Appalacharyulu, brother of the first petitioner, and the 3rd petitioner is said to be the grand-son of another brother, by name, late Gopalacharyulu. The 4th petitioner is the grand-son of the 1st petitioner. The 3rd respondent appears to be their agnate. The petitioners contend that their ancestors constructed the Temple in a site, belonging to them, which form part of their dwelling house, and the Temple and its properties are private in nature. Reference is made to various proceedings, that have emanated from the department of endowments, as well as O.S.No.1 of 1985 in the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge, Vizianagaram. It is stated that though the 3rd respondent was pursuing the rights of the family, the petitioners are not aware of the same, and that it is only in March, 2008, that respondents 1 and 2 started interfering with the administrative functions of the Temple. Several facts were urged, in support of the challenge to the various proceedings issued by the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioners claim rights as regards the administration of the Temple as well as its properties. It is a matter of record that the 3rd respondent filed O.S.No.1 of 1985 in the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge, Vizianagaram, questioning the appointment of the Manager to the Temple, and on dismissal of the suit, he filed A.S.No.31 of 1990 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. The appeal was also dismissed, and thereupon, he filed S.A.No.607 of 1995. At that stage, he has chosen to withdraw O.S.No.1 of 1985 itself. Permission was accorded and the suit itself was dismissed as withdrawn. The record does not disclose that the suit was filed in a representative capacity. In case the petitioners intended to work out their remedies, they have to approach the proper Forum, be it, a civil Court, or the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments. The 1st petitioner had already kept the Temple busy in defending its property. Their intention appears to be only to grab the property, than to ensure proper management of the Temple. This Court does not find any basis to grant relief to the petitioners in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open to the petitioners to work out their remedies, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:09.04.2009. GJ