WRIT PETITION 9 of 2003 on 26 April 1983

1. Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur.

2. Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur.

3. The Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad.

4. The Manager, Sri Bapathu Chenna Reddy Dharma Satram, PrathipaduGuntur District.pGuntur District.p

5. Mule Narayana Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy, 56 years, R/o. Prathipadu,Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District.Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District.

6. Chinnappa Reddy Rosi Reddy, S/o. Srinivasa Reddy,Hindu, Agedabout40years,R/o.12-11-246,Brahmanbaste,NamalagudaSecunderabad.about40years,R/o.12-11-246,Brahmanbaste,NamalagudaSecunderabad.

(Respondent Nos.5 & 6 are dismissed for default vide Court Orderdated: 17-07-2007)

...Respondents/Appellants/Defendants

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M Radhakrishna Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Sri T S Rayalu, GP for Endowments Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri V T M Prasad The Court made the following APHC010092932003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3494]

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIFTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO: 9 OF

Between:

G.Chennareddy

.AND

Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Guntur &Five Ors

...APPELLANT

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Appellant:

I.Mr.M RADHAKRISHNA

Counsel for the Respondent:

I.Mr.VTM PRASAD

2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (Per njs,J)

ThePresentLettersPatent Appealispreferredagainstthejudgment in AS.No.4 of 1987, dated 27.11.2001, whereby[a]learnedJudge of the erstwhile High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad[set][ aside][ the]judgment and decree in O.S.No.337 of'1984, dated 30.09.1986[on][ the][ file]of the Court of the Principal Subordinate. Judge, Guntur.

2) Heard Mr. M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant andMr.T.S.RayalulearnedGovernmentPleader,representingtherespondents 1 to 3.O.S.No.337of 1987isfiledfor declaration and consequential3)permanent injunction.In the plaintit is inter alia[averred][ that][ the][ suit]schedulepropertyissituatedinthevillagesofPrattipaduandYanamadala and item No.1is the Choultry with the appurtenant[vacant]site.thatallthethreeitemsoriginallybelongtooneBapathuChennareddy, who had only five daughters and no sons,[that][ in][ 1939][ or]1940 the said Chennareddy constructed a choultry in[the][ western][ portion]of Door No.380/A on the extent of Ac.1-88 cents, shown[as][ item][ No.1,]that for the maintenance and upkeep of such choultry,[he][ endowed][ Items]2 and3, and another item in the village of Kotivanipalem,hamlet ofBodipalem and then executed a settlement deed dt.20.08.1940inhisfavour as Trustee of Sri Bapathu Chenna Reddy Dharma[Satram and][ also]provided therein that after his death, three persons[by][ name](1) the

plaintiff (2) Mule Ramireddy, the father of the secondplaintiff and(3)ChinnapareddyRosireddy,thegrandfatherofthe1defendantastrustees etc., that the said choultry is a private[Trust][ and][ the][ plaintiffs][ and]thedefendant are Trustees of the same and they have been managingthe saidproperty properlyall these years and the[choultry][ was]notregistered with the Endowments Department, being private[Trust][ does][ not]comeunderthepurviewoftheHinduReligiousandCharitableEndowments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).It wasfurtheraverred that in 1980 some persons due to village politics[filed][ petitions]before the Assistant Commissioner i.e., 2""^ defendant, pursuant to whicha show cause notice dated 26.04.1983 was issued and[thereafter][ the][ 4^*^]defendantpassedanorderdated06.09.1983,appointingthedefendant as Manager to take chargeof the suit choultryfromtheplaintiffs.It was stated that the1®' plaintiff filed[W.RNo.8862][ of][ 1983]ndchallenging the consequential order dated 06.10.1983[passed][ by][ the][ 2]defendant pursuant to the order dated 06.09.1983, that[the]said WritPetition was dismissed without deciding the issue as[to][ whether][ the][ suit]Trust is public one or not and whether the said Act[gets][ attracted][ or][ not]etc., and that the Writ Appeal No.264 of 1984 filed[against][ the orders][ in]Writ Petition was dismissed and thereupon a show causenotice wasissued to the plaintiffs as to why the 5**^ defendant[should][ not][ be][ given][ a]certificate to take possession of the suit choultry[etc.]Further that the suit Trust is a private one and the defendants 2 to 5 have no jurisdiction todeal with the same as it is not governed by the provisions of the Actandtherefore the suit for declaration that the suit choultry is a private Trustand for a consequential permanent injunctionrestraining the defendants 2to 5 from interfering with their management is instituted.4)Thedefendant remainedex parte.Only the 2"'" defendant filedwritten statement inter alia, stating that the plaintiff has no locus standi tofilethesuit,thatBapathuChennareddiDharmaSatramanditsendowment is not a private Trust or a private property; that it is a publicCharifable Trust Institution and endowment created for its benefit, that thesaid institution is a public charitable one falling within the provisions of theAct and that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. A plea wasalso taken that the judgment in W.RNo.'8862 of 1983 operatesasresjudicata, that the alleged Trustees of Dharma Satramwere mismanagingthe Trust, its properties and misappropriating the funds of the Trust, apartfrom alienating the Trust properties illegally and unauthorizedly.Thenddefendant Nos.3 and 4 adopted the written statementfiled by the 2defendant. The 5**^ defendant fileda separate written statement inter alia,denying the averments inter alia that the suit choultry is a private Trust,that the provisions of the Act have no application to the suit scheduleproperty and the defendants 2 and 3 are without any manner of righttrying to interfere with the plaintiff’s management.A plea that the suit is '

barred by res judicata was also taken.Learned Trial[Court][ formulated][ the]following issues for trial:

1) Whether theplaintiffs are entitledto get the declaration[and]injunctionprayed for?prayed for?

2) Whether the suit is barred by res judicate as stated[in][ the][ written][ statement?]3)To what relief the parties are entitled to?3)To what relief the parties are entitled to?

5) Before the Trial Court, the plaintiffs examined PWs1to 6 and gotmarked Ex.A1to A6.On behalf of the defendants, DW1to6 wereexamined and Exs. B1 to B24 are marked.

6) The learned Trial Judge after considering the oral[and][ documentary]evidence, answered the issues1 and 2 in favour of[the][ plaintiffs][ holding]inter alia that the choultry in question is a private[one.]After discussingthe oral evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs[at][ length] and[ after]examining Ex.A1i.e.. Deed of Trust dated 28.09.1940,[the][ learned][ Judge]recorded conclusionsin para No.21of the judgment[which]reads asfollows; ‘21.From the evidence on recordit has emerged that the[suit]choultry is a private trust created by an individual[with][ his][ own][ funds]under a deed of settlement wherein thereis a provisionforthemembers of the family of the trustees to demand accounts[regarding]the income and expehdttdre of the properties from the[trustees.”]

7) In so far as the contention With regard to res judicata[raised][ by][ the]defendants 2 to5, the learned trial Judge rejected[the][ same]inthefollowing terms:

23. Last but not least,I would like to point out that in the writ petitionor the writ appeal referred to above, there was no finding on meritsregarding the nature of the tTUsX' as such,in my opinion, the saiddecisions passed in the writ petition or writ appeal do not operate asres judicata. Being a private trust the suit choultry does not fall withinthe mischief of A.R Charitable and Hindu ReligiousInstitution andEndowments Act.As such the Civil Court hasgot jurisdictiontodecide the nature of the trust. ..'

8) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the TrialCourt, thedefendants 2 to 4 filed A.S.No.4 of 198^! wherein it was mainly contendedthat the finding recorded by the trial Court that the suit is not barred by theprinciple of res judicata is erroneous and as such, the same is liable to besetaside.The said argument was opposed by therespondents/plaintiffs. The learned Judge after referring to the contentionsformulateda question as to “Whether the finding recorded by the learned singleJudge operates as res judicata in the suiVfiled by the plaintiffs?” and whileanswering the same in favour of the appellants before himset aside thefinding recorded by the trial Court on Issue No.2 that the writ petitionorder did not operate as res judicata.In view of the said finding, thelearned Judge opined that it is not necessary to examine the other aspectwhether the institution is a Charitable Institution or a private Trust and notgoverned by the provisions of the ActAccordingly, the learned Judgeallowed the appeal, against which the present LPA has been preferred.9)Mr. M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the appellants inter aliacontends that the lower appellate court being the final court of the fact isdefendants 2 to 4 filed A.S.No.4 of 198^! wherein it was mainly contendedthat the finding recorded by the trial Court that the suit is not barred by theprinciple of res judicata is erroneous and as such, the same is liable to besetaside.The said argument was opposed by therespondents/plaintiffs. The learned Judge after referring to the contentionsformulateda question as to “Whether the finding recorded by the learned singleJudge operates as res judicata in the suiVfiled by the plaintiffs?” and whileanswering the same in favour of the appellants before himset aside thefinding recorded by the trial Court on Issue No.2 that the writ petitionorder did not operate as res judicata.In view of the said finding, thelearned Judge opined that it is not necessary to examine the other aspectwhether the institution is a Charitable Institution or a private Trust and notgoverned by the provisions of the ActAccordingly, the learned Judgeallowed the appeal, against which the present LPA has been preferred.9)Mr. M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the appellants inter aliacontends that the lower appellate court being the final court of the fact is not justified in reversing the well considered and well reasoned judgmentof the trial Court.He submits that the order under appealis liable to beset aside as the same was passed without adhering to the mandatoryprovision of Order 41Rule 31 of CPC and without framing appropriatepointsfor determinationinthe appeal.Itishiscontentionthatitismandatory on the part of the 1®'Appellate Court to[formulate][ the][ issues][ /]pointsforconsiderationseparatelyandindependentlyassesstheevidence adduced on behalf of the parties, which is lacking in the presentcase.While contending that the order under challenge[is][ liable][ to][ be][ set]aside and the matter has to be remanded for adjudication[in][ accordance]with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC, the[learned][ counsel][ in]support of his contentions placed reliance on the following[decisions:]

i)United Engineers and Contractors v Secretary to[Government][ of]A.P. and Ors.,^A.P. and Ors.,^

ii)Malluru Mallappa(Dead) throughLRs.,v KuruvathappaandOrs.,^Ors.,^

iii)Madina Begum and Another v Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey[and]Ors./Ors./

iv)Madhukar and Ors., v Sangram and Ors.,'*v)Vinod Kumar v Gangadhar^v)Vinod Kumar v Gangadhar^

10) On the other hand, Mr. T.S.Rayalu, learned Government[Pleader]contended that the order under challenge contains cogent reasons, thatcontended that the order under challenge contains cogent reasons, that ^2014) 16 see 109^ (2020) 4 see 313^(2016) 15 see 322^ (2020) 4 see 313^(2016) 15 see 322

"(2001) 4 see 756

^ (2015) 1 see 391

the learned Judge had examined the matter meticulously[and]consideredthe legal principle of res judicata, thus^ allowed the appeal filed bytherespondent authorities and thereare no merits warranting interferencewith the impugned order.Making the said submissions he urgesfordismissal of the appeal.

11) Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on bothsides and perused the material on record.sides and perused the material on record.

12) At the outset,it may be pertinent to mention that the argumentswere advanced by the learned counsel' for the appellant on the legalaspects with reference to the above cited judgmentsof theHon’bleSupreme court of India. Therefore, this Court deemsit not necessarydelve much on the factual aspects Indetail. Sufficeto state that thecircumstances whichled to filing of the suit, the stand taken by thedefendants therein and the decision of the learned trial Court are set out,in brief, in the preceding paras.

13) As noted earlier, before the learned Trial Court the parties adducedevidence both oral and documentary and while discussing the same, thelearned Trial Court answered the issues extracted above and answeredthe same in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants that they are entitled to adecree for Declaration andInjunctionin respect of thesuit scheduleproperties.It also rejected the contention advanced onbehalf of thedefendants / respondents that the suit is-barred by the principle of res judicata.In the appeal filed before this Court, by[the][ respondents][ herein,]the learned Judge considered the matter only with reference[to][ the][ plea]raised by them that the suitis not maintainable on[the][ ground][ of][ res]judicata and allowed the appeal for the said reason.Assailing that thesaid approach of the learned Judge and disposal of the appeal withoutformulating the pointsfor consideration, muchless by discussing theevidence on record, the learned counsel for the appellants[states][ that][ the]order under appealis not in accordance with the mandatory requirementof Law.Therefore, the only point that falls for consideration by this Courtis “Whether the Judgment of the learned single Judgeisliabletobeinterfered with, in the light of the legal position?’14)InUnited EngineersandContractorscase(1Supra),theHon’ble Supreme Court of India was dealing with the appeal filed againstthe judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, whereina similar situation arose.The appellant before the Apex Court filed a suitfor damages against the respondent Government and the[same]wasdecreed.On appeal, the High Court set aside the same,which wascarried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.One[of][ the][ contentions]advanced was that the High Court committed an error while deciding theFirst Appealin a cursory manner without meeting the requirement ofOrder 41Rule 31 CPC, thus the sameis not sustainable.The Hon’bleSupreme Court of India referred its earlier decision in H. Siddiqui v A.

Ramalingam" wherein it was /nter a//a opined that “it is mandatory for theappellate court to independently assess the evidence of the parties andconsider the relevant points which arise for adjudication and the bearingof the evidence on those points.Being the final Court of fact, the firstappellate court must not record mere general expression[of]concurrencewith the trial court judgment, rather it must give reasons for its decisionson each point independently to that of the trial Court.Thus, the entireevidence must be considered and discussed in detail.Such exerciseshould be done after formulating the point for consideration in terms ofthe said provisions and the Court must proceedin adherencetotherequirements of the said statutory provisions.The Hon’ble SupremeCourt of India held that the High Court decided the appealwithoutfollowing the procedure required undef^rder 41 Rule 31 CPC, set asidethe order and remanded the matter tO||he. High Court[to][ decide][ the][ First]Appeal, in accordance with law.

15) In the said judgment reference was.also made to the decision ofthe Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in B..VNagesh v[H..VSreenivasa]Murthy^ vjhere'in it was inter alia at para No.4 held[as][ follows;]

‘4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findingsof the trial court. The first appeaf is a valuable right of the parties andunless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearingboth on questions of fact and law' The judgment of the appellatecourt must, therefore,reflectits conscious applicationof mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising alongwith the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decisionof the appellate court. Sitting as a court of appeal,it was the duty ofthe High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by theparties before recordingits findings. The first appealisa valuableright and the parties haye a right to be heard both on questions of lawand on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must addressitselfto all the issues of law and fact and decideit by givingreasonsinsupport of the findings.”

16) In Malluru Mallappa (Dead) (2 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme[Court]of India interfered with the order passed by the High Court on the premisethat while deciding the First Appeal, the requirements of Order 41Rule31 of CPC were not complied with.Pointing out the distinction betweenthe First Appeal under Sections §6 and Second Appeal under Section 100of CPC and referring to the earlier legal precedents, apart from Order 41Rule 31 CPC, which provides the guidelines to the Appellate Court, theHon’ble Supreme Court of India held that “the judgmentoftheFirstAppellate Court hasto set out pointsfor determination,recordthedecision thereon and give its own reasons. Even when the First AppellateCourt affirms the judgment of the trial Court it is required to comply withthe requirement of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC and non-observance of thisrequirement leads to infirmity in the judgment of the First Appellant Court.”However,it opined that “when the Appellate Court agrees with the viewsof the trial Court on evidence,it need not restate effect of evidence orreiterate reasons given by the trial Court and that expression of generalof India interfered with the order passed by the High Court on the premisethat while deciding the First Appeal, the requirements of Order 41Rule31 of CPC were not complied with.Pointing out the distinction betweenthe First Appeal under Sections §6 and Second Appeal under Section 100of CPC and referring to the earlier legal precedents, apart from Order 41Rule 31 CPC, which provides the guidelines to the Appellate Court, theHon’ble Supreme Court of India held that “the judgmentoftheFirstAppellate Court hasto set out pointsfor determination,recordthedecision thereon and give its own reasons. Even when the First AppellateCourt affirms the judgment of the trial Court it is required to comply withthe requirement of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC and non-observance of thisrequirement leads to infirmity in the judgment of the First Appellant Court.”However,it opined that “when the Appellate Court agrees with the viewsof the trial Court on evidence,it need not restate effect of evidence orreiterate reasons given by the trial Court and that expression of general agreement with the reasons given by thetrial Court would ordinarilysuffice”.

17) In Madina Begum case (3 supra), one of the questions[that][ fell][ for]consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India[was][ whether][ the]High Court ought to have decided theFirst Appeal not only onthepreliminary issue of limitation but also on all other issues.Referring to thedecisionin Vinod Kumar case (5 supra) and the earlier three JudgeBench in Madhukar case (4 supra) whereinit was held that “sitting as aCourt of First Appealit is the duty of the High Court[to][ deal][ with][ all][ the]issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findingsthe Hon’ble Supreme Court of India alldwed the appeal opining that theHighCourt hadonly consideredtheissueoflimitationanddidnotconsider the other issues in the appear and that it was impermissible.

18) In Vinod Kumar case (5 supraj the Hon’ble Supreme[Court][ of]India was inclined to interfere with the orders of the High Court inter aliaopining as follows:

“9. Being the first appellate court,it was the duty[of][ the][ High Court][ to]have decided the first appeal keeping in view the scope and powersconferred onit under Section 96 read with Order 41Rule 31 CPCmentioned above.It was unfortunately not done, thereby, resulting incausing prejudice to the appellant whose valuable right[to][ prosecute]in the first appeal on facts and law was adversely[affected][ which,]inturn, deprived him of a hearing in the appeal in accordance[with][ law.]It is for this reason, we are unable, to uphold the impugned judgment.”

19) in the present case, as is evident from the order under challengethe learned Judge had examined the matter only with[reference][ to][ issue]of res judicata and had not undertaken any exercise as required underOrder 41Rule 31of CPC, which according to the law declared by theHon’ble Supreme Court of India,is mandatory.ThoughthelearnedGovernment Pleader sought to impress upon this Court[that][ the][ learned]single Judge considered the matter in detail, in the light of the expressionof the Hon’ble Apex Court and ’the conclusion recorded by this Court, hissubmissions merits no acceptance.The same are accordingly rejectedand the contentions of the learned counselfor the appellant are upheld.The order of the learned single Judge is liable to[be][ interfered][ with][ in][ view]of the clear legal position.Point is answered accordingly.

20) In the result, the Appealis allowed.The impugned Judgment andDecree dated 27.11.2001are set aside.A.S.No.4 of 1987is remandedfor consideration afresh, in accordance with Law. No[costs.]

■1

21) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending,if any, shall stand closed.

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SD/- S.V.S.R.MURTHYJOINT REGISTRAR

SECTIFICER

1. The Principal Subordinate Judge; Guntur, Guntur[District.]

2. One CC to Sri M Radhakrishna Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri V T M Prasad Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra[Pradesh][ [OUT]]

5. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 25/04/2025

JUDGMENTLPA.No.9 of 2003

2 i» JUN 2025 jgV^Ns^jurrentSectigji^^

ALLOWING THE LETTER PATENT APPEAL