( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal is preferred by the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 442 of 1986, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Guntur. ( 2 ) THE suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein (since died and represented by his legal representatives i. e. respondents 5 and 6) for a declaration that the appellant herein is not the hereditary trustee of sri Sitaramaswamy Vari Temple, Muttupalli, and for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant and the Temple authorities, from holding any enquiry against the 1st respondent. Relief of injunction was also sought against the authorities of the endowments Department, respondents 3 and 4 herein, from allowing the appellant from functioning as hereditary trustee, orto initiate disciplinary proceedings, against the 1st respondent, in respect of his archakatvam services. Through its judgment dated 16-4-1993, the trial court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a. S. No. 91 of 1993, on the file of the iii. Additional District Judge, Guntur. The appeal was dismissed on 2-9-2000. Hence, the Second Appeal. ( 3 ) SRI M. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the disputes in relation to the hereditary trustee etc. , at the relevant point of time, were required to be adjudicated under Section 77 of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (Act 17 of 1966, for short the Old Act ). He submits that the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (30 of 1987, for short the New Act ) has replaced the Old Act, and that an analogous provision, being section 87, was incorporated in it for resolution of such disputes. He submits that in both the enactments, the filing of suits in relation to such matters was barred, and despite the same, the courts below have entertained the suit and granted the relief. He submits that on merits also, the rights of the appellant and his father were recognized in the proceedings before the civil Courts as well as through entries in the registers maintained, under the relevant provisions of both the Acts. Learned counsel further points out that the 1st respondent did not claim the right of hereditary trusteeship and in that view of the matter, the very relief in the suit was unfounded. Learned counsel further points out that the 1st respondent did not claim the right of hereditary trusteeship and in that view of the matter, the very relief in the suit was unfounded. He contends that the only purpose, for which the suit was filed, was to prevent the enquiry into the acts of indiscipline against the 1st respondent. ( 4 ) SRI N. Gurugopal, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, submits that the suit was not maintainable in law and he broadly supports the contentions, advanced on behalf of the appellant. ( 5 ) THERE is no representation for respondents 5 and 6. ( 6 ) THE 1st respondent was an archaka of the Temple with 1/8th share. He disputed the status of the appellant as the hereditary trustee of the Temple. He relied upon certain proceedings before the Courts and authorities, and contended that the appellant cannot be recognized as the hereditary trustee. The appellant, on the other hand, resisted the suit and pleaded that, through various judgments of the civil Courts as well as proceedings of the authorities of the endowment Department, his father late Butchi ramanujacharyulu was recognized as the hereditary trustee and after the death of his father, he has been administering the affairs of the Temple with the permission and approval of the concerned authorities. ( 7 ) THE trial Court framed necessary issues. To prove his case, the 1st respondent examined himself as P. W. 1 and no other witnesses were examined. He filed Exs. A-1 to A-18. The appellant deposed as D. W. 1 and filed Exs. B-1 to B-9. The trial Court had undertaken extensive discussion with reference to the evidence of the parties and recorded a finding to the effect that the appellant is not the hereditary trustee, and decreed the suit as prayed for. The lower appellate Court confirmed the same. ( 8 ) IT is not in dispute that, under Section 77 of the Old Act, the Deputy Commissioner of endowments is conferred with the power and jurisdiction to decide the questions and disputes in relation to various matters, including the hereditary trusteeship. The 1st respondent made a reference to Section 77 of the Old Act in his plaint to contend that there does not exist any order published under sub-section (3) thereof, in favour of the appellant. The 1st respondent made a reference to Section 77 of the Old Act in his plaint to contend that there does not exist any order published under sub-section (3) thereof, in favour of the appellant. Therefore, he is supposed to be aware of the purport of Section 77 of the Old act. Sub-section (3) requires that a decision or the order of the Deputy Commissioner rendered underthat section shall be published in the prescribed manner. When no proceedings were initiated by him or others under sub-section (1), the question of there being an order under sub-section (3) does not arise. The 1st respondent ought to have availed the remedy under that provision, if he doubted the status of the appellant as the hereditary trustee. Section 105 of that Act barred the jurisdiction of the civil Courts in relation to such matters. Unfortunately, neither the trial Court nor the lower appellate court have taken notice of this vital aspect and proceeded to adjudicate the matter. ( 9 ) THE suit was filed at a time when the old Act was in force. During the pendency of the suit, the New Act was enacted. Section 87 of the New Act provided for similar mechanism as the one, in Section 77 of the old Act. Even this was not taken into account. The bar under Section 151 of the New Act is far wider in the nature of filing of suits in respect of administration or management of an institution or endowment or any other matters of dispute, for determining or deciding, which, provision is made, under that Act. At least, this ought to have been taken into account. The appellant is to blame to a large extent, for this state of affairs. He ought to have pleaded and urged these grounds before the Courts below. ( 10 ) ON merits also, this Court finds that the 1st respondent himself did not claim any hereditary trusteeship and the only context, in which he claimed the relief, was the disciplinary proceedings contemplated against him. The Courts below have ignored the voluminous record that recognized the father of the appellant as hereditary trustee and the fact that, no other person claimed succession to him, except the appellant. The Courts below have ignored the voluminous record that recognized the father of the appellant as hereditary trustee and the fact that, no other person claimed succession to him, except the appellant. ( 11 ) FOR the fore going reasons, the Second appeal is allowed and the judgments of the courts below are set aside and the suit shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.