THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.690 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The appellant is a Trust. Dispute has arisen, as to its name and character, viz., ‘whether it is a public or private’. Therefore, the appellant approached the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, by filing an application under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, and the same is pending before him. The 1st respondent filed I.A.No.4 of 2008 before the Deputy Commissioner with a prayer to implead him, as a party to the O.A. He pleaded that he is authorized by one of the legal heirs of late M.Ranganatha Sai, on the basis of whose will, the Trust was created. It was also mentioned that his father worked as Manager of the Trust. It is, ultimately, pleaded that he is a proper and necessary party, and that he also acted as Manager, on the request of one Mr.Kota Laxmaiah Naidu. He urged that he intends to safeguard the interests of the Trust, and as such, he is a necessary party. The application was opposed by the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order, dated 19.07.2008, allowing the I.A. and impleading the 1st respondent as party to the O.A. The same is challenged in this C.M.A. Sri G.Dhananjai, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the limited scope of the O.A. is to decide its character and the 1st respondent has no locus standi to get himself impleaded. He further submits that the 1st respondent is neither a trustee, nor has any recognized status. Learned counsel contends that the Deputy Commissioner ought not to have allowed the I.A. Sri S.Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that his client was associated with the Trust in many ways, be it, as Manager, or the authorized person by one of the legal heirs of the founder of the Trust. He contends that no harm would be caused to the appellant, in case the 1st respondent is impleaded, as a party. The scope of the proceedings instituted before the Deputy Commissioner by the appellant, is very limited. Neither any dispute, as to management, nor any litigation, as to enjoyment of the properties, is the subject-matter thereof. The only purpose was to seek a declaration, as to the character of the Trust. Notwithstanding the limited nature of the prayer in the O.A., there would have been scope for impleading the 1st respondent in it, had he been one of the trustees, or claimed any rival interest. Admittedly, neither he is a trustee by himself, nor an authorized representative of the Trust. Even assuming that the 1st respondent and his father have worked as managers of the Trust, that fact by itself does not clothe him with any right to get impleaded. The 1st respondent did not claim any independent interest in the matter. Hence, the C.M.A. is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.4 of 2008 shall stand dismissed. It is, however, made clear that, in case, any trustee either by himself, or through a general power of attorney, intends to get impleaded, in the O.A., the Deputy Commissioner shall consider such request, on its own merits. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:10.08.2009. GJ