THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.308 of 2005 JUDGMENT: Sri Venugopala and Sri Seetarama Swami Varla Temple, 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.134 of 1990 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram against the appellant and the 2nd respondent for recovery of possession of an extent of 80 square yards in Survey No.535. It was stated that the appellant herein had established a bunk in the property unauthorizedly and refused to vacate the same, in spite of repeated demands. The appellant and the 2nd respondent filed separate counter affidavits. According to them, the 1st respondent has no right over the suit schedule property and that they have independently established a coffee hotel and that the land belongs to one Mr.Dalayya. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through its judgment, dated 03.04.1996. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent filed A.S.No.30 of 1996 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. The appeal was allowed through judgment, dated 05.10.2004. Hence, this second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when there is a serious dispute as to the title to the property, a mere suit for a direction for removal of the bunk and for consequential injunction was not maintainable. He further states that the trial Court examined the matter in detail with reference to the oral and documentary evidence and there was absolutely no justification for the lower appellate Court in reversing the decree. Learned counsel further submits that fresh evidence was taken at the stage of appeal contrary to the prescribed procedure. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent on the other hand submits that the suit schedule property belongs to the Temple and the appellant and the 2nd respondent have trespassed into the property, without any basis. He further contends that the lower appellate Court has taken into account the pleadings, evidence on record and in particular, the report submitted by the Commissioner and has decreed the suit. The suit was for the relief of recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction. There was a serious opposition to the suit by raising the question of title. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. whether the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction as prayed for? 2. whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession as prayed for? 3. whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction as prayed for? 4. whether the defendants are entitled to exemplary and compensatory costs? 5. whether the suit valuation is not correct? On behalf of the 1st respondent, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 were filed. On behalf of the appellant and the 2nd respondent, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.8 were filed. The report of the Commissioner appointed by the Court and the work memo were taken on record as Exs.C.1 and C.2. On dismissal of the suit, the 1st respondent filed A.S.No.30 of 1996. The lower appellate Court framed only one issue for its consideration viz., whether the 1st respondent is entitled for the relief claimed by it. The appeal was allowed. Extensive submissions are made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. This Court however finds a serious flaw in the entire proceedings. The 1st respondent is a religious institution covered by the provisions of the A.P. Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (for short ‘the Act’). Section 151 thereof prohibits filing of suits in relation to any disputes pertaining to the institutions. Further, any religious institution is conferred with the right to institute proceedings under Section 83 of the Act for recovery of possession of properties. In case, there exists any dispute as to the title, mechanism is provided under Section 87 thereof. Earlier, the Deputy Commissioner of the area was conferred with the power to adjudicate such disputes and at present, a Tribunal was constituted. When this is the legal position, the very filing of the suit by the 1st respondent was ill advised. In a way, it was barred under law. Even now, the 1st respondent can take steps in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the second appeal is allowed and the decree passed by the lower appellate Court is set aside. It is left open to the 1st respondent to institute proceedings under the relevant provisions of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 08.11.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.308 of 2005 Date: 08.11.2011 JSU