APHC010094352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 523 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order dated 11.11.2024 passed in CMA. No. 19 of 2017 by the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, in allowing the appeal by setting aside and dismissing the order and decree passed in CMA 19/17 by the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni in the file of Senior Civil Judge Adoni. BETWEEN: Y. Mallanna Goud, S/o. Mare Goud, aged about 80 years, R/o. Chagi Village Adoni Mandalam Kurnool District. ...Petitioner/1®* Respondent/3'^‘' Defendant AND 1. Jeeru Gullappa, S/o. Mokappa, aged about 80 years, R/o. Chagi village, Adoni Mandalam Kurnool District. ...1®^ Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff 2. Sri Anjaneya Swamy Trust, Chagi Village, Adoni Mandalam, Kurnool District. Rep. by its President. 3. Devadasi Eranna, S/o. Eramma, aged about 85 years, R/o. Chagi Village, Adoni Mandalam, Kurnool District. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments department, Kurnool. 5. The Inspector, Endowments department, Adoni. 6. The State of AP, Rep. by it's District Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool. 7. M Eranna, S/o. Chnna Nagappa, aged about 75 years, R/o. Chagi Village, Adoni Mandalam, Kurnool District. ...Respondents No.2 ti 7 /Respondents No.1,2, 4 to 7 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to grant STAY of all further proceedings pursuant to order dated 11.11.2024 passed in CMA.No.19 of 2017 by the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:- SRI. J.V.PHANIDUTH Counsel for the Respondent(S):- SRI. K. SITA RAM The Court made the following; B' APHC010094352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Wednesday, the seventh day of May, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.523 of 2025 Between: Y. Mallanna Goud ...Petitioner and Jeeru Gullappa and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: I.J.V.Phaniduth Counsel for the respondents: 1. K. Sita Ram The Court made the following: 2 BSB,J C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 ItfS ORDER: The civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 11.11.2024, allowing the appeal in C.M.A.No.19 of 2017 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, filed assailing the order and decreetal order dated 09.07.2013 allowing I.A.No.1378 of 2012 in O.S.No.74 of 2009, filed under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) and section 151 of C.P.C. on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, seeking rejection of plaint for want of jurisdiction. 1. 2. The case of the revision petitioner is briefly as follows; The 1®^ respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.74 of 2009. The suit was filed seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants etc., from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit land i.e., ac.4.75 cents in Survey No.75 and ac.4.52 cents in Survey No.77 of Chagi Village, Adoni Taluk within the sub-registration district of Adoni and registration district of Kurnool, claiming himself to be the absolute owner of it and that he and his predecessors have been enjoying the same over a decade in their own right as absolute owners. The plaintiff claims that passbook for this property was given in his name and that since the plaintiff is archaka of the temple, the name of the temple was incidentally mentioned indicating the occupation of the plaintiff as archaka. The 1st defendant now headed by Sri Adi Gouda, the Managing Trustee, who has personal grudge agaist the plaintiff and managed to get this land auctioned for lease in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants in a mock bid. Hence, the suit was filed. 3 BSB,J C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 The revision petitioner herein is the 3'^^ defendant in the suit. The revision petitioner filed I.A.No.1378 of 2012 for rejection of the plaint for want of jurisdiction on the ground that since the schedule property belongs to the temple / 1st defendant i.e., Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple, Chagi, and the temple is endowed and included in the list of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions. 3. The 1®* respondent / plaintiff filed a counter stating that the petition is bad in law, false on facts and not maintainable. On the date of filing of the suit i.e., 01.06.2009, the Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (in short 'the Act') had not been even constituted as it came into existence through G.O.Ms.No.837, dated 13.08.2009. Hence, the trial Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 4. 5. Notice was not served on the other respondents as the relief sought by the petitioner / defendant No.3 affects only the respondent No.1. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on either side. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court allowed the petition, not rejecting, but returning the plaint to the plaintiff under Order VII, Rule 10 of C.P.C. for presentation of the same before the appropriate forum. The trial Court observed that as per Section 151 of the Act, if there is a provision in the Act for determining or deciding any matter of dispute, no suit or legal proceedings shall be instituted in any Court of law; and that before establishment of Endowments Tribunal w.e.f. 13.08.2009 (after amendment of Section 87 substituting “Endowments Tribunal” for “Deputy Commissioner” w.e.f. 03.01.2008), Deputy Commissioner, by virtue of Section 87(5) of the Act, is competent to decide the question under Section 87(1 )(c) of the Act whether any property is an endowment 6. 4 BSB,J C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 not. The trial Court did not accept the argument that the question of title (or recovery of possession) is within the cognizance of civil Court and not the adjudicatory authority under the Act as held with regard to Section 77 of the previous Act, 1966 (equal to Section 87 of the Act, 1987) in cases Estate Sree Laxmanjl Maharaj Vs., A. Narsing Rao, 1989 (1) APLJ 593, V. Subba Rao Vs., Karyasiddeswara Swamivari Temple, 1990 (1) An.W.R. 313 and Mahaboob Khan Vs.. Mohd. Khaja and others, 2005 (2) ALT 308, as they did not deal with the Act, 1987. or Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed appeal in C.M.A.No.19 of 2017 before the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. The appellant / 1®* respondent herein / plaintiff mainly contended that as the Tribunal was constituted long after filing of the suit, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit; and that Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to decide the nature of the dispute in this case as held in the cited cases which still hold good, though they relate to Section 77 of the Act, 1966 as both Sections 77 of the Act, 1966 and Section 87 of the Act, 1987 are in pari materia. 7. After hearing both the sides and taking into consideration various decisions of the High Courts, the appellate Court allowed the appeal agreeing with the appellant, basing on the decision of this High Court in the cases of (1) Executive Officer, Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple Vs. Sai Krupa Homes and others, 2010 (6) ALD 207 in which the Court upheld the jurisdiction of civil Court regarding question of title with reference to Section 77 of the Act, 1966 and Section 87 of the Act, 1987 basing on decision of the Division Bench of this High Court in 8. P. Jaggayya and another Vs. The Diety of 5 BSBJ C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 Seetharama Swamy Varu and others, 1987 (1) ALT 18 (D.B.) which in turn was based on decision of the Supreme Court; and (2) Estate Shri Laxmanji Maharaj Vs. A. Narsing Rao, 1989 (1) APLJ 593, wherein, basing on the decision in P. Jaggayya (supra) Court upheld the jurisdiction of civil Court in a suit for recovery of possession as it touches the question of title. The appellate Court noted that in the decision of a coordinate Bench in a subsequent case in Jampani Trilokeswari and another Vs. Dharmadaya Tope and others, 2012 (1) ALD 464 on the contrary view, the previous decision in the cases of Executive Officer, Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple (supra) and Estate Shri Laxmanji Maharaj (supra) on the same question on maintainability of suit had not been referred. lA 4 A j j 9. Aggrieved by the decision, this revision petition was filed on the grounds mainly as follows: i. The appellate Court allowed the appeal by misconception of law. ii. The appellate Court ought to have seen that, on a conjoint reading of Sections 87 (1), 151 and 162 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder the Tribunal alone has all the traits of the civil Court and can go into and determine any title dispute, but not the civil Court. 1 j iii. The appellate Court ought to have seen that every proceeding conducted by the Tribunal is judicial proceeding; the Tribunal shall be deemed to be civil Court; and the Chairman of the Tribunal shall be a judicial officer not below the rank of a District Judge and therefore, the appellate Court ought not to have allowed the appeal. ".f ■ {I • 6 BSBJ C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 iv. The appellate Court erred in not considering the ratio laid down by the apex Court that the Tribunal, by legal fiction, is deemed as civil Court. V. The lower appellate Court ought to have observed that the Endowments Tribunal alone has got jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising from the religious institutions. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that a civil Court has no jurisdiction in respect of administration or management of an institution or endowment or any other matter of dispute in relation to which a provision is made in the Act, 1987 by virtue of Section 151 of the same Act and therefore in the present case, the suit is not maintainable as there is provision under Section 87(1) of the Act for deciding the dispute in the suit, however the appellate Court erroneously placed reliance on decisions which are not applicable in the context after constitution of the Tribunal headed by a Judicial Officer, unlike in the past when the Tribunal was headed by Deputy Commissioner, a non-judicial officer. He further submitted that most of the provisions of the Act, 1987, now endowed the Tribunal with jurisdiction on par with a civil Court to decide even the matter of declaration of title and several Rules also support the authority of the Tribunal on par with a civil Court and therefore, it is the Tribunal under the Act, 1987 alone which has the jurisdiction in present matter. Nextiy, he submitted that though the Tribunal was constituted w.e.f. 13.08.2009 after the filing of the suit on 01.06.2009, there is a provision made to deal with the matters covered by the amended provision of Section 87 w.e.f. 03.01.2008 by Deputy Commissioneras per Section 87(5) of the Act, 1987 and therefore, the finding that the civil Court has jurisdiction in 10. .1. 7 BSBJ C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 the absence of the creation of Tribunal is erroneous. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1 St respondent / plaintiff completely supported the findings of the appellate Court and submitted that it does not require any interference in the revision. 11. As per section 9 of C.P.C., the general principle is that every matter of civil nature shall be presented before a civil Court unless expressly or impliedly its jurisdiction is ousted. Section 151 of the Act, 1987 which expressly barred civil Court’s jurisdiction in respect of the matters covered therein, reads as follows: “151.Bar of Jurisdiction No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of administration or management of an institution or endowment or any other matters of dispute for determining or deciding for which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of Law expect under and in conformity with the provisions of this Act. The bar of jurisdiction under this Section is not limited to subjects stated in it, but also the other matters for which there is provision in that Act. Therefore, this Section shall be read in the context of Section 87 of the Act, 1987 which reads as follows: “87.Power of Endowments Tribunal to decide certain disputes and matters:- (1) The Endowments 'h Tribunal having jurisdiction shall have the power, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the ■ $ person concerned, to enquire into and decide any dispute as to ■'s the question- 8 BSB,J C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 (a)... (b)... (c) whether any property is an endowment, if so whether it is a charitable endowment or a religious endowment: (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the above sub sections, the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction shall continue to enquire into and decide the disputes referred to in sub-section (1) until the constitution of the Endowments Tribunal.” Section 162 (4) of the Act, 1987 reads as follows: 162.Constitution of Endowments Tribunal :- (1)... (2)... (3)... (4) The Chairman shall be a person who is or has been a judicial officer not below the rank of a District Judge and a member shall be a person, who holds or has held a post not below the rank of Additional Commissioner of Endowments.” The Supreme Court, in I.T.I. Limited Vs., Siemens Public Communications Network Limited, (2002) 5 SCC 510, held that there is a strong presumption in favour of the jurisdiction of the civil Court to decide all questions of civil nature and when there is any doubt, a Court has to lean in favour of the existence of jurisdiction. The paragraph No. 11 of the decision reads as follows: 12. 9 BSBJ C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 “11. It has been held by this Court in more than one case that the jurisdiction of the civil court to which a right to decide a lis between the parties has been conferred can only be taken by a statute in specific terms and such exclusion of right cannot be easily inferred because there is always a strong presumption that the civil courts have the jurisdiction to decide all questions of civil nature, therefore, if at all there has to be an inference the same should be in favour of the jurisdiction of the court rather than the exclusion of such jurisdiction and there being such exclusion of the Code in specific terms except to the extent stated in Section 37(2), we cannot draw inference that merely because the Act has not provided C.P.C. to be applicable, by inference it should be held that the Code is inapplicable. This general principle apart, this issue is now settled by the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Bhatia International V. Bulk Trading S.A. [(2002) 4 SCC 105] wherein while dealing with a similar argument arising out of the present Act, this Court held: (SCC p. 116, para 15) “While examining a particular provision of a statute to find out whether the jurisdiction of a court is ousted or not, the principle of universal application is that ordinarily the jurisdiction may not be ousted unless the very statutory provision explicitly indicates or even by inferential conclusion the court arrives at the same when such a conclusion is the only conclusion.” no an 10 BSB,J C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 S’ 13. The important question is whether, as on the date of filing of the suit, a suit for declaration of title can be filed before a civil Court or not. A plain reading of Section 87(1) (c) of the Act, 1987 indicates that such a question is within its scope. But, in view of understanding that a Tribunal is not competent to decide a question of title as per the previous decisions, there came divergence of opinion about competence of a Tribunal to decide question of title. The history of the Act, 1987 is required to have a comparative study of the scope of the provisions impacting the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as against civil Court. Before separation of Andhra State from Madras State, the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (Act- 11 of 1927), enacted as a successor to the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 and other Acts, was repealed by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Act No.19 of 1951). Then, the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act, 1966 (Act No. 17 of 1966) repealed the A.P. (A.A.) Hindu Religious and Charitable Institution and Endowments Act, 1951, (rechristened on separation of Andhra State from Madras State) (and A.P. (T.A.) Wakf Regulation, 1349 Fasli), consolidating and amending the law relating to the administration and governance of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments in the State of Andhra Pradesh which by then was formed. Repealing the A.P.C.H.R.I.E. Act, 1966, the Act, 1987 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the administration and governance of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Even after separation of States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana w.e.f. 02.06.2014, the Act, 1987 governs this State of Andhra Pradesh. 14. 11 BSBJ C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 The relevant provisions in the Act, 1926, the Act, 1951, the Act, 1966, the Act, 1987, and after the amendment in 2008 need a reference for clarity. 15. Section 84 of the Act, 1926 read as: "84. (1) If any dispute arises as to whether an institution is a math or temple as defined in this Act or whether a temple is an excepted temple, such dispute shall be decided by the Board. (2) Any person affected by a decision under Sub-section (1) may, within one year, apply to the Court to modify or set aside such decisions; but, subject to the result of such application, the order of the Board shall be final. Relevant parts of Sections 57. 62 and 93 of the Act, 1951 read as: 57. Deputy Commissioner to decide certain disputes and matters;- - Subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter provided, the Deputy Commissioner shall have power to inquire into and decide the following disputes and matters- (a)... ; (b)... ; (c) whether any property or money is a religious endowment; (d) whether any property or money is a specific endowment: (e)... : 12 BSB,J C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 (f) whether ; and whether any property or money has been given wholly or partly for religious or secular uses; and (g) where any property or money has been given for the support of an institution ... as to what portion of such property or money shall be allocated to religious uses. 62. Suits and appeals:- (1) Any party aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner - (i) under section 61, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), and relating to any of the matters specified in section 57, section 58 or section 60; or (ii) under section 57, section 58 or section 60 read with sub-section (1) (a), (2) or 4 (a) of section 19 may, within ninety days ..., institute a suit in the Court against such order; and the Court may ... pending the disposal of the suit. (2) Any party aggrieved by a decree of the Court under sub section (1) may, within ninety days from the date of the decree, appeal to the High Court. (3)... “93. Bar of suits in respect of Administration or Management of Religious institutions etc:- - No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter or dispute for determining or deciding 13 BSBJ C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of Law, except under, and in conformity with, the provisions of this Act.” Sections 77 and 78 of the Act, 1966 Act: - “77. Power of Deputy Commissioner to decide certain disputes and matters;- (1) The Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction shall have the power, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned, to enquire into and decide any dispute as to the question- (a)... ;(b)... ; (c)... ; (d) whether any property is an endowment, if so, whether it is a charitable endowment or a religious endowment; (e)... : to (k)... (2)... : (3) Every decision or order of the Deputy Com- missioner under this section shall be published in the prescribed manner. (4)... “78. Right of suit against the decision of the Deputy Commissioner under section 77:- Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Commissioner under section 77 may, within one year from the date of publication of the decision, institute a suit in the District Court.” - 14 BSBJ C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 Section 87 of 1987 Act, before its amendment in 2008 reads the same as in the Act, 1966 with the differences in Sub-section (1) by rearranging Clause (d) of the previous one as Clause (c) due to omission of Clause (c) in the previous Act and the other changes are omission of other Clauses (g) to (i) of Sub-section (1). Sub-sections (2) to (4) remained the same. Further, Sub-sections (5) and (61 were added as - “(5) Any decision or order of the Deputy Commissioner deciding whether an institution or endowment is not a public institution or endowment shall not take effect unless such decision or order is confirmed by an order of the Commissioner. (6) The presumption in respect of matters covered by clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) in sub-section (1) is that the institution or the endowment is public one and that the burden of proof in all such cases shall lie on the person claiming the institution or the endowment to be private or the property or money to be other than that of a religious endowment or specific endowment as the case may be." Section 87 as amended in 2008 was excerpted above in paragraph No. 10. The changes brought about have significance in the present context. In view of substituting the adjudicatory authority “Endowments Tribunal” for “Deputy Commissioner” in Section 87(1), Sub-section (5) of Section 87 was substituted making an arrangement for 15 BSBJ C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 adjudication by the Deputy Commissioner before establishment of Endowments Tribunal. Sub-section (6) was omitted. The other notable changes brought in the course of history of legislations mentioned above have bearing on the contentious issue. With regard to jurisdiction for adjudication of the disputes, Section 93 of the Act, 1951 expressly barred civil Court’s jurisdiction. “93. Bar of suits in respect of Administration or Management of Religious institutions etc.:- - No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter or dispute for determining or deciding which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of Law, except under, and in conformity with, the provisions of this Act.” There was no provision in the Act, 1966 similar to Section 93 of the Act, 1951 which is in pari materia to Section 151 of the Act, 1987 (except the words ‘endowment or’ after ‘religious institution or’ in the Act, 1987) excluding jurisdiction of civil Court even in respect of the matters covered by the Act as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in P.Jaggaiah,(supra). On the other hand, there was a provision under Section 78 in the Act, 1966 to file a suit challenging the order passed by Deputy Commissioner. Thus, the authority of the 16 BSBJ C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 Tribunal under the Act, 1966 may not be equated with that of the Tribunal under the Act, 1987. 16. In PJaggayya (supra), a Division Bench of this High Court, while dealing with the previous law of endowments under sections 2(21), 2(24), 77, 78 and 110 of the Act, 1966, held that there is no corresponding provision to Section 93 of the Act, 1951 in the Act, 1966 barring jurisdiction of civil Court in respect of disputes required to be determined by the authorities and that Section 77 also did not oust jurisdiction of civil Court nor was finality attributed to the order passed thereunder. The Bench opined that these factors support the contention of the plaintiff, however as this provision was construed broadly by the same Court ousting the jurisdiction of civil Court, the Bench expressed that it did not want to depart from the view of such ouster. In view of the decisions in the other cases cited wherein a view was expressed that the civil court’s jurisdiction was not ousted, but postponed till the relief under Section 78 is sought before a civil Court, the Bench further held that instead of creating dichotomy and a concurrent jurisdiction for both civil Court and the authority under Section 77, it would be consistent with the provisions of that Act to hold that the jurisdiction of civil Court is barred, if any dispute comes under Section 77. Then, the Bench dealt with the dispute in that case governed by Section 77(1 )(d) and (e) whether the endowment in question is a religious endowment or a specific endowment and hence civil Court’s jurisdiction is barred and concluded that when a question raised is one of title claiming the endowment as belonging to a particular institution, it touches the question of title and the question of title is clearly outside the purview of Section 77 of the Act, 1966 and consequently the relief of possession and accounting are outside the purview of Section 77. Noting that 17 BSBJ C.R.P,No.523 of 2025 Section 77 of the Act, 1966 corresponds to Section 57 of the Act 19 of 1951 (its predecessor Act) which in turn corresponds to Section 84 of its predecessor Act, 1926, the Bench relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramaraghava Reddy Vs. Seshu Reddy, 1996 SCC Online SC 112, wherein it was held that declaration of title sought in the suit filed by the temple was outside the purview of Section 84(2) of the Act, 1927 which otherwise allows aggrieved person to apply to Court to modify or set aside the decision of the Board under Section 84(1) of that Act on the dispute whether an institution is a math or temple ... or whether a temple is an exempted temple. Thus, the Bench finally opined that if a suit raises a question of title, the same is not barred under Section 77 of the Act even though such suit involves determination of the question whether the suit property constitutes a religious endowment or a special endowment. 17. In the case of Executive Officer, Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple (supra), while dealing with sections 87 and 151 of the Act, 1987 which are analogous to Sections 77 and 78 of the Act, 1966, by following the decision in P.Jaggayya (supra), single judge Bench of this High Court held that suit for declaration of title does not fall within the bar of jurisdiction of civil Court within the parameters of section 151 of the Act, 1987. The suit in this case was instituted long before the amendment brought to Section 87 of the Act, 1987 w.e.f. 03.01.2008. By then, a judicial officer was not adjudicating the disputes and the Deputy Commissioner was deciding the disputes. Therefore, the decisions rendered with reference to an adjudicatory authority headed by a non-judicial officer without having powers like a civil Court were applicable to that case. A Tribunal headed by a senior judicial officer cannot be equated with a Tribunal headed by a non-judicial officer. 18 BSBJ C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 18. The appellate Court, in the case on hand, followed the decision in of a single judge Bench in Executive Officer, Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple (supra), in which the decision of the Division Bench irjP. Jaggayya (supra) which was rendered by following the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramaraghava Reddy (supra). The appellate Court has not followed the subsequent contrary decision of the Single Bench in Jampani Trilokeswari, (supra), (a decision relied on by the challenging defendant), by application of the doctrine of per incurium as the earlier decision of the Single Bench in Executive Officer, Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple (supra) not followed by Single Bench in the case of Jampani Trilokeswari (supra). was 19. Even then, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended, by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and another Vs. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association and another, AIR 2013 SC 107, that when a Tribunal is endowed with authority on par with a civil Court in performing its functions, a Tribunal shall be regarded akin to a civil Court and therefore the Endowments Tribunal under the Act, 1987 shall be regarded akin to a civil Court and consequently even a dispute of title can be decided by the Endowments Tribunal. In the case before the Supreme Court, while examining the authority of a Tribunal under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, the following observations were made by referring to various provisions under the said Act as follows: “31.4. The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, has been enacted to regulate, and to make better provision for the administration of public religious and charitable trusts in 19 BSBJ C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 the State of Bombay, which also extends to the State of Gujarat. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 84 of the said Act, the Government of Bombay has framed the Bombay Public Trusts (Gujarat) Rules, 1961. Section 51 of the Act provides for consent of the Charity Commissioner for the institution of a suit. Sub section (2) of Section 51 says that if the Charity Commissioner refuses his consent for the institution of a suit under sub-section (1) of Section 51, the person concerned may file an appeal to the Tribunal. References made to the Tribunal have been dealt with in Chapter XI of the Act. Section 71 deals with appeals to the Tribunal, and provides that an appeal to the Tribunal under sub section (2) of Section 51, against the decision of the Charity Commissioner, refusing consent for the institution of a suit, shall be filed within 60 days from the date of such decision, in such form and shall be accompanied by such fee, as may be prescribed, and that the decision of the Tribunal shall be final and conclusive. Section 74 provides that all inquiries and appeals shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193, 219 and 228 I.P.C. Section 76 provides that, save, insofar as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in the Act, the provisions of C.P.C. will apply to all proceedings before the court under this Act. Section 80 deals with bar of jurisdiction of the civil courts, as it provides that no civil court can deal with any question which is by, or under the Act, to be decided or dealt with, by any officer or authority under the Act in respect of 20 BSB, J C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 order of such officer or authority which, the decision or has been made final and conclusive. 13(1) of the 1957 Act provides that i conferred upon the Tribunal ti in 31.5. Section exercising the jurisdiction shall have all the powers of a civil court as the Tribunal . enumerated therein and shall be deemed to be a civil of Sections 195, 480 and 482 court for the purposes Cr.P.C., and that its proceedings shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings 219 and 228 l.P.C. within the meaning of Sections 193, observations made by the High 32. The aforesaid Court, taking into consideration various statutes dealing matters, but also covering other with not only the revenue subjects, make it crystal clear that the Tribunal does not deal only with matters provided under revenue also been conferred appellate/ Schedule I, but has revisional powers under various other statutes. Most of those statutes provide that the Tribunal, while dealing with appeals, references, revisions would act giving strict adherence to the procedure prescribed in C.P.C., for followed by the civil court and deciding a matter as also been conferred upon it, as certain powers have provided in Cr.P.C. and l.P.C. Thus, we do not have any hesitation in concurring with the finding recorded by the akin to a court and High Court that the Tribunal is performs similar functions.” Public Trust Act, 1950 is akin to 1987 (dealing with exclusion of civil Courts Section 80 of the Bombay Section 151 of the Act, 20. 21 BSB, J C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 jurisdiction) and Section 13 (1) referred therein is akin to Section 162 of the Act, 1987 (dealing with the constitution of the Tribunal with a judicial officer) and Rule 26 of the A.P Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Tribunal Rules, 2010. 21. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner referred to the decision of the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in V.Laxminarasamma Vs. A.Yadaiah (dead) and others, 2009 AIR sew 2304, wherein it was held that a Tribunal under the A.P Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 has jurisdiction to decide title and possession in dispute and thus the Tribunal is entitled to determine the complicated questions of title and being a Court, the provisions of the Evidence Act would also be applicable. 22. Nextiy, he referred to a decision of the single Judge of this Court in Jampani Trilokeswari,(supra) wherein it was held that to decide the disputes pertaining to the claims relating to properties, the Act 1987 provided a perfect mechanism under Section 87 and that earlier the power to resolve such disputes was conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments of the concerned area and as such after establishment of an independent Tribunal constituted for that very purpose under Section 162 of the Act, 1987, a suit instituted challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments is barred by section 151 of the Act, 1987. He has also placed reliance on decision of the Single Judge of this High Court in another case in S.Anjana Reddy and another Vs. Palvoi Ranga Reddy and others, 2017 (3) ALD 260, where in it was held that Section 87 of the Act, 1987 enables the remedy to claim 23. as 22 BSB, J C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 private property or to question ORC by approaching the Endowments Tribunal and not by filing a civil suit. The learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff contended that this Court is bound by the previous decision of Single Bench of this High Court in Executive Officer, Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple (supra), by following the principles of the precedent and that the subsequent decision by a single Judge of this Courtin Jampani Trilokeswari (supra) rendered without following the prior decision is not binding on this Court.In this regard he referred to the decision of Supreme Court in Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 2014 SC 1745 wherein, at paragraph No.15, held follows; 24. as “15. It cannot be over-emphasised that the discipline demanded by a precedent or the disqualification or diminution of a decision on the application of the per incuriam rule is of great importance, since without it, certainty of law, consistency of rulings and comity of courts would become a costly casualty. A decision judgment can be per incuriam any provision in a statute, rule or regulation, which was not brought to the notice of the court. A decision or judgment can also be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a co-equal or larger Bench; or if the decision of a High Court is not in consonance with the views of this Court. It must immediately be clarified that the per incuriam rule is strictly and correctly applicable to the ratio decidendi and or 23 BSB,J C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 not to obiter dicta. It is often encountered in High Courts that two or more mutually irreconcilable decisions of the Supreme Court are cited at the Bar. We think that the inviolable recourse is to apply the earliest view as the succeeding ones would fall in the category of per incuriam." After citing the decisions referred by both parties and narrating the history of legislating the Act, 1987, the appellate Court examined the question whether a suit filed by a third party plaintiff to declare his title over the specific landed property which is entered in the list of endowment properties in the name of the temple falls within the scope of the section 87 of the Act, 1987 and answered that a suit for declaration of title does not fall within the purview of the said section by following the decisions of the single judge Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Executive Officer, Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple (supra), in which the decision of the Division Bench in PJaggaiah, (supra) was followed and another decision in Estate Shri Laxmanji Maharaj, (supra). 25. 26. Though the Endowments Tribunal was created by virtue of the amendment as on the date of filing the suit, it was not constituted by then. However, the Deputy Commissioner continued to have jurisdiction and decide the matters as per the Section 87(5) of the Act, 1987. Then the question is whether the Deputy Commissioner holds the same capacity as before the amendment or the Deputy Commissioner exercises the jurisdiction in a different capacity. The appellate Court has not gone into the question whether, in the absence of establishment of the Endowment Tribunal under Section 162 of the Act, 1987 after 24 BSB,J C.R.P.No.523 of 2025 03.01.2008, by virtue of Section 87(5), whether Deputy Commissioner holds jurisdiction or not, before creation of the Endowment Tribunal under G.O.Ms.No.837, dated 13.08.2009. Therefore, there is no scope of revising the decision of the appellate Court on that crucial aspect. Therefore, the matter needs to be remanded to the appellate Court to decide the matter afresh after hearing both sides and pass appropriate order. Accordingly, the impugned order needs to be set aside with the above said direction. 27. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order, dated 11.11.2024, in the appeal in C.M.A.No.19 of 2017 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, is set aside with a direction to the appellate Court to decide the matter afresh after hearing both sides and pass appropriate order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. 2. The Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Adoni. 3. One CC to SRI. J.V.PHANIDUTH, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI. K. SITA RAM, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two C.D Copies. Ssl nm HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 ORDER CRP.No.523 OF 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWED.