APHC010558122023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 490/2023 Between: 1. SAMBHANI BASHA, S/O AMANULLA, R/O D.NO. 8-2-191, SCOOTER REPAIR SHED, OPP TO SRI RAGHAVA KALAYANMANDAPAM, RANGANAYAKULAPETA, NELLORE CITY. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. SMT VEMAGUNTA BUJJAMMA SATRAM, COLLOQUIALLY CALLED AS SRI BUJJAMMA SATRAM, RANGANAYAKULAPETA, NELLORE TOWN, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, REP. IT'S EXECUTIVE OFFICER ... ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____against ordersbegs to present this Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Order and decree dated 28.06.2023 passed in O.A No 528 of 2017 on the file of A.P Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, for the following grounds among other IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone delay of 9 days in preferring the appeal in the interests of justice and pass 2 IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the order dated 28.06.2023 passed in O.A.No.528 of 2017 on the file of the court of the A.P Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani, pending disposal of the main C.M.A., and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. shaik omer qaiyum Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ARBITRATION 2. DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE SC For Endowments The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 490 OF 2023 JUDGMENT: The present Appeal is filed under Section 84 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) assailing the order dated 28.06.2023 passed in O.A.No.527 of 2017 on the file of A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravathi at Pedakakani. 2. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the issue involved in this Appeal is squarely covered by the Judgment dated 15.10.2025 passed by this Court in C.M.A.No.489 of 2023 and requested to pass a similar order in this Appeal also. 4. For better understanding the paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the said judgment reads as follows: “…8. The institution claims to be owner of the subject property. The respondent has been alleged to be in occupation of the same without any right or authority, therefore, proceedings came to be initiated to declare him as encroacher and also claimed damages for unauthorized usage. Section 83 of the Act contemplates initiation of such proceedings. To support the case of institution besides examining its Executive Officer as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R3 came to be marked. Since it is the case of the institution that subject property belongs to it, burden of proof lies on it to demonstrate such right. Ex.P4 is the copy of register 4 maintained under Section 43 of the Act and Exs.P5 to P7 are the registered lease deeds executed by institution granting subject property on lease. The tribunal, by referring to aforesaid evidence, in particular Ex.P4, has come to conclusion that subject property belongs to the institution. Section 43 of the Act contemplates that any property belonging to endowments or temples should be registered as provided therein and once the properties are entered in such register, there lies a presumption that the same belongs to the endowments/temples, unless contrary is proved. The tribunal, on appreciation of aforesaid evidence, has rightly come to conclusion that the institution has discharged its official burden of proof that subject property belongs to the temple. 9. Per contra, as the respondent has disputed the title of institution besides claiming that the subject property is a private property. That in support thereof, except for marking Ex.R3, which is a copy of 1B and ROR issued in favour of one Mr.Pasupelleti Seenaiah, no other evidence was let in. As burden of proving above got shifted to the respondent, the evidence brought on record was found to be insufficient, rightly so. The respondent has also taken a stand that the subject property, which is sought to be vacated, is different from the one claimed by institution. When such a dispute is raised by the respondent, it is for him to establish and demonstrate that there is a dispute of identity of the property. The tribunal dealing with the said issue has clearly recorded finding that in the absence of any steps forth coming seeking survey of the land to ascertain as to whether the property which respondents claim to be in possession and the subject O.A. property to be not one and the same, as such, plea has been set up by the respondent, the said contention deserved rejection. This Court is also in agreement with the reasoning and finding of the tribunal. When the respondent has taken a specific plea regarding the identity of property, it was for him to seek for survey and establish the said factum. This Court is also required 5 to take judicial notice of the fact that the respondent has already vacated the subject property, in view of noncompliance with the interim directions granted. Though the same by itself would not disentitle him to canvass the appeal on merits, but definitely the intervening developments would have bearing on the issues on hand while deciding the present appeal. The tribunal, on overall appreciation of evidence on record, has rendered definite findings on all the issues that have been canvassed, including that of the title and possession and right of respondent to continue in the subject property, which are supported by sound reasoning. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such finding of facts. Unless the findings are shown to be clearly erroneous and shockingly perverse, normally, the appellate court should not substitute its views. In view of the same, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.” 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents does not refute the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Considering the same, this Court is of the view that the present Appeal can be dismissed, following the identical lines as in C.M.A.No.489 of 2023, dated 15.10.2025. 7. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed in terms of the judgment dated 15.10.2025 passed by this Court in C.M.A.No.489 of 2023. 8. Registry is directed to attach a copy of the judgment passed by this Court in C.M.A.No.489 of 2023, dated 15.10.2025, to this order. No costs. 6 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date:29.10.2025 BSP 7 203 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL.NO.490 OF 2023 DATED:29.10.2025 BSP