IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 715 of 2002 Between: Dandamudi Satyanarayana, S/o Janardan Rao, R/o Gundigunta (V), Vuyyuru Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND Sri Seetha Ramanjaneya Temple, Rep. by its Trustees Y.Rama Seshayya, S/o Satyanarayana, R/o Gandidunta, Vuyyueu Mandal, Krishna District & others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 715 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in seeking to transfer its property in favour of third party without following due process of law as illegal. The petitioner, who claims to be interested in the aﬀairs of respondent No.1-temple, seeks interference of this Court in protecting the building belonging to respondent No.1-temple without being sold by it in favour of respondent No.2-Gram Panchayat. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled by the petitioner, he stated that respondent No.2 passed resolution Nos.61 and 62 dated 11-12-1995 resolving to handover possession of the building to respondent No.1 after obtaining appropriate orders from respondent No.3. The said resolutions were subject matter of the civil suit viz., O.S.No.182 of 1995 on the ﬁle of Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram, by some of the villagers, wherein the said resolutions were questioned. Respondents 5 to 7 are stated to have ﬁled O.S.No.177 of 2000 in the said Court to restrain respondents 2 and 3 from handing over the building to respondent No.1 and to declare resolution Nos.61 and 62 as illegal and invalid. When respondents 5 to 7 started interfering with the possession of respondent No.1, the latter ﬁled O.S.No.491 of 2001 against respondents 5 to 7 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram, for interim injunction and that the said Court granted interim injunction against respondents 5 to 7. The petitioner averred that respondent No.2 on 04-01-2002 held a meeting and resolved to take the approval from respondent No.3 to claim the property from respondent No.1, having categorically admitted the claim of respondent No.1 in O.S.Nos.182 of 1995 and 177 of 2000. He also alleged that respondent No.1 having yielded to pressure of respondents 5 to 7 and respondent No.2 agreed for transfer of property in favour of respondent No.2 and withdrawal of O.S.No.491 of 2001 Neither the respondents have ﬁled counter nor their counsel rendered any assistance to this Court. The facts stated by the petitioner, as noted above, disclosed that respondent No.1 ﬁled civil suit viz. O.S.No.491 of 2001 to protect its property. Though the petitioner alleged that respondent No.1 yielded to pressure of respondent 5 to 7 and respondent No.2, he failed to produce any material in support of the said contention. If the petitioner was really interested in the protection of the property of respondent No.1, he ought to have got himself impleaded in O.S.No.491 of 2001 instead of multiplying the litigation by ﬁling the present writ petition. From the fact that respondent No.1 has ﬁled civil suit, it is reasonable to presume that it has been evincing the necessary interest in protecting its own property and there is no need for this Court to intervene at the instance of the petitioner and grant the relief as prayed for by him in this writ petition. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.799 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:16-10-2008 usd