Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 50451 (AP)

SRI KANYAKA PARAMESWARI AMMAVARI DEVASTHANAM, GUNTUR v. DARAKSHARAM SIVARAMA KRISHNAIAH, GUNTUR DIST & 2 OTHERS

CRP/1877/2017 · 2025-12-19

Harinath N

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010259072017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] SATURDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1877/2017 Between: 1. SRI KANYAKA PARAMESWARI AMMAVARI DEVASTHANAM, GUNTUR, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, YETUKURU ROAD, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. DARAKSHARAM SIVARAMA KRISHNAIAH GUNTUR DIST 2 OTHERS, S/O. LATE SAMBAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. YETUKURU VILLAGE, GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. DRAKSHARAM SUBBA RAO, S/O. LATE SAMBAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. YETUKURU VILLAGE, GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. DRAKSHARAM KOTESWARA RAO, S/O. LATE SAMBAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PRIVATE TAXI-DRIVER, R/O. YETUKURU VILLAGE, GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PADMAVATHI PADNAVIS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B NARASIMHA SARMA 2. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is filed, aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.482 of 2006 in O.S.No.705 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, dated 17.02.2017. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal of I.A.No.482 of 2006, which was filed under Section 87(c) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 to frame a preliminary issue and to decide the jurisdiction. 3. This Court while admitting the Civil Revision Petition granted an interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.705 of 2005. It is stated in the Civil Revision Petition that the learned Judge erred in dismissing the I.A. without considering Section 87(c) of the Act and the learned Judge also erred in considering the possession of the property and title of the petitioner over the plaint schedule property. It is submitted that once the petitioner claiming title over the property, the said property would have to be considered as property which falls for adjudication as endowment property under Section 87(c) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, appearing virtually, submits that the I.A. was filed in the year 2006 and there was no persuasion from the petitioner herein, till the year 2017, when the suit filed in the year 2005 was coming up for arguments. It is further submitted that the learned Judge trying in O.S.No.705 of 2005 has already framed an issue relating to the entitlement 4 of the vendor of the petitioner to execute the title documents. It is submitted that the parties contesting the suit have right their evidences and the matter is now for arguments. The trial Court shall decide the issue by considering the evidence adduced and the grievance of the petitioner is adequately covered by the issues already framed and pending determination by the trial Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 6. Perused the record. 7. The learned trial Judge has rightly considered the issue at hand and has observed that the petitioner, being the defendant in the suit has chosen not to adduce any evidence and the matter was posted for arguments. It is also observed that the suit for declaration of title, possession and consequential relief of permanent injunction is pending consideration and that the evidence of either side was closed. That apart, the earlier round of litigation initiated in the year 1943 had ended up against the executants of the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. On these considerations, the learned Judge has found it appropriate to dismiss the I.A. 8. Having gone through the well considered order, this Court finds no grounds to interfere and the trial Court to adjudicate the dispute after duly taking into consideration the evidence available on record. 5 9. With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date.20.12.2025 SR