ORDER: 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987, in short referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 20-9-2006 made by the VI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam in A.S.No.60/2006 confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada dated 25-10-2005. 2. This Court, while admitting the Civil Revision Petition on 8-12-2006 in C.R.P.M.P.No.8521/2006 granted interim suspension. 3. The petitioner filed O.A.No.35/2004 under Section 87 of the Act to declare him as founder trustee/founder family member of Sri Sitaramaswamy Temple @ Sri Sitaramanjaneya Swamy Temple, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District by setting aside the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department in Rc.A1/86/1993 dated 4-1-1993 declaring the same as arbitrary, capricious, illegal and also to exempt the constitution of Hereditary Trust Board to the said Temple and for other appropriate reliefs. The learned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, on appreciation of the Chief-Examination affidavit filed by the petitioner and also Exs.A-1 to A-6 which had been marked and further referring to the report of the Assistant Commissioner and the book styled as "Mallelavari Charitra" came to the conclusion that the family of the petitioner cannot be said to be founders of the Temple in question and certain members of Agnikula Kshatriya in fact had constructed the said Temple and accordingly negatived the relief. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter by way of Appeal A.S.No.60/2006 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam and the appellate Court having framed the Points for consideration at para-11 proceeded to discuss the relevant provisions of the Act i.e., Sections 17 and 87 and also further discussed certain of the findings which had been recorded by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada and ultimately came to the conclusion that there is no irregularity or illegality in the order made by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada in negativing the reliefs and ultimately dismissed the Appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition had been preferred by the unsuccessful petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition had been preferred by the unsuccessful petitioner. 4. C.R.P.M.P.No.3332/2007 is filed praying for reception of additional evidence and the undernoted relevant documents produced before this Court to be received as additional evidence: (a) Copy of village map of Jupudi Village in which properties of the petitioner's family and properties donated by the petitioner's forefathers are shown. (b) Copy of the Settlement Register of Jupudi Village for the year 1902, wherein the lands donated by the petitioner's forefathers were shown. (c) Copy of the letter addressed by the petitioner to the Assistant Commissioner for sanction of budget for the year 2005-06. (d) Copy of the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments vide D.Dis.No.A1/26-12-2006 dated 31-3-2006 for the sanction of the amount for development of the temple in the year 2005-06. (e) Certified copy of proceedings of Assistant Commissioner dated 3-4-2006 (f) Copy of Statement of Income return for the year 2004-05 (g) Copy of Budget Statement 'A' credits for the year 2005-06 (h) Copy of Budget Statement 'B' Expenses for the year 2005-06 (i) Copy of Statement of Demand Collection Balance statement for the year 2004- 05 (j) Copy of statement of investments for the year 2004-05 (k) Copy of statement of salaries for the year 2005-06 (l) Copy of Valuation Certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, Endowments for construction and development of the temple vide Rc.No.D1/796/2006 dated 13-9-2006 (m) Copy of Pattadar Pass Books issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in favour of the deity temple in which the name of the petitioner is shown (n) Copy of receipts of payment of contribution by the hereditary trustee for the years 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1998-99, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04. (o) Copy of proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments vide R.C.No.A1/2655/06 dated 23-4-2006 (p) Copy of letter dated -9-2006 addressed by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Endowments Department, Kakinada to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Vijayawada (q) Copy of pamphlet of performance of Temple's Vigraha Punah Prathishta (r) Copy of the sale deed executed in favour of late M.Venkata Subbaiah Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of to the said application and it was stated that in the interest of justice these documents also may be considered while deciding the matter. 5. 5. Sri Krishna Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner had taken this Court through Sections 87, 88 and 91 of the Act and would maintain that in the light of the clear language employed in Section 91 of the Act, this being an order made by the learned District Judge under Section 88 of the Act, the Civil Revision Petition under Section 91 of the Act is perfectly maintainable. The learned Counsel also further would maintain that it is unfortunate that when the chief-examination affidavit was filed and when documents Exs.A-1 to A-6 had been relied upon by the petitioner, the concerned learned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, even without affording opportunity to explain the stand of the petitioner in relation to the report, relied upon some booklet and also the report and totally ignored the evidence available on record and negatived the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner and this approach adopted by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada is definitely illegal. Further, the learned Counsel would maintain that it is pertinent to note that the chief-examination affidavit of the petitioner had not been controverted at all and absolutely there was no cross- examination and even otherwise assuming for a moment that there is some element of doubt that Agnikula kshtriya were the founders of this Temple, none concerned with Temple had been examined. When that being so, to ignore the unchallenged testimony of the petitioner also is illegal. The learned Counsel also would further explain that to further strengthen and substantiate the case of the petitioner, additional documents are being relied upon and these are being produced before this Court in C.R.P.M.P.No.3332/2007. The Counsel also would maintain that the grand-father of the petitioner by name Mallela Venkata Subbaiah constructed the temple in his own land and with his own funds and he had not received any donations or collected any amounts from the public for the purpose of construction of the temple. The Counsel also would maintain that the grand-father of the petitioner by name Mallela Venkata Subbaiah constructed the temple in his own land and with his own funds and he had not received any donations or collected any amounts from the public for the purpose of construction of the temple. The Counsel also would maintain that both the learned Deputy Commissioner concerned and also the learned VI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam failed to see that the grand-father of the petitioner and his children donated an extent of 20 acres of agricultural land under registered document for the purpose of maintenance of the said temple from the income derived from the said land and also for the purpose of performing nitya-naivedyam, poojas etc., in the temple. The learned Counsel also would maintain that after the death of the grand-father of the petitioner, the petitioner's father by name Kondaiah succeeded and continued to manage the affairs of the temple and this aspect also would amply establish that the family of the petitioner is the founder family member. The Counsel also explained in detail Exs.A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6 and further explained how these documents would clearly establish that the petitioner's family is the founder members of the temple. While concluding, the learned Counsel would maintain that the appellate Court had not appreciated the evidence available on record in proper perspective, but was simply carried away by certain of the observations made by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada in relation to appropriation of amounts of the subject temple and this approach adopted by the appellate Court also is improper. At any rate, the learned Counsel would conclude that in the light of the facts and circumstances, it is a fit case where the question involved requires reconsideration. 6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration had pointed out to the remarks in L.Dis.No.552/04,dated 29-10-2004 of the Assistant Commissioner and also the booklet on Mallelavari Charithra and the reasons in detail which had been recorded by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada. The learned Counsel would maintain that when Narahari and his father of Agnikula Kshatriya, residents of Ibrahimpatnam had constructed the subject temple, at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the petitioner-family is in any way concerned with the said temple. The learned Counsel would maintain that when Narahari and his father of Agnikula Kshatriya, residents of Ibrahimpatnam had constructed the subject temple, at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the petitioner-family is in any way concerned with the said temple. Even otherwise, the conduct of the petitioner also had been taken into consideration apart from the report and the other records available and in view of the fact that the learned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada and also the learned VI Additional District Judge recorded concurrent findings negativing the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner, the Civil Revision Petition deserves a dismissal. The Counsel also would maintain that it is not as though several of the documents relied upon by the petitioner were not available with the petitioner at the appropriate time and at a belated stage this application C.R.P.M.P.No.3332/2007 under Order XL1 Rule 27 of the Code aforesaid cannot be maintained in a Civil Revision Petition of this nature and hence the said application also is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard the Counsel on record and perused the findings recorded by the Primary Athority - learned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada and also the Appellate Authority - the learned VI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. 8. In the light of the rival contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner Sri G.Krishna Murthy and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration representing the respondent, the following Points arise for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition : 1. Whether the findings recorded by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada and also by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam are to be confirmed or liable to be disturbed in any way in the facts and circumstances of the case ? 2. Whether the application C.R.P.M.P.No.3332/2007 filed under order XLI Rule 27 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be allowed or to be dismissed in the facts and circumstances of the case ? 3. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to ? 9. Point No.1: The facts in brief already had been narrated above. Whether the application C.R.P.M.P.No.3332/2007 filed under order XLI Rule 27 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be allowed or to be dismissed in the facts and circumstances of the case ? 3. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to ? 9. Point No.1: The facts in brief already had been narrated above. The petitioner filed O.A.No.35/2004 under Section 87 of the Act to declare him as the founder trustee or the founder family member of Sri Seetharamaswamy Temple @ Seetharamanjaneya Swamy Temple, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District and no doubt certain other reliefs also had been prayed for. The case of the petitioner is that Sri Seetharamaswamy Temple @ Seetharamanjaneya Swamy Temple in Ibrahimpatnam was constructed in the site donated by his grand father late Sri Mallela Venkata Subbaiah and he also constructed the said temple with his own amounts and had not received any gifts or donations. It was also stated and details also had been furnished how certain properties had been donated and how the Temple is being managed by the family members in succession. Further it is stated that on 20-2-1993, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department served proceedings in R.C.No.A.1/86/93 dated 4-1-1993 proposing to constitute non-hereditary Trust Board purporting to exercise the powers under Section 15 of the Act and thereupon the petitioner filed W.P.No.2138/93 on the file of this Court and this Court by order dated 25-3-2004 directed the petitioner to make an application to the competent authority praying for appropriate relief within a period of two weeks and hence this O.A. was filed praying for declaration aforesaid. The petitioner filed Chief-Examination affidavit and also relied upon Exs.A-1 to A-6. Ex.A-1 is a certified copy of the relevant pages, pages 72 and 73 from the Family History book. Ex.A-2 is the Deed of exchange dated 17-6- 1926, Ex.A-3 is the Settlement Register, Ex.A-4 is a copy of Registration extract of the Gift Deed dated 28-5-1928. Ex.A-5 is a copy of the Sale Deed dated 15-7-1916 and Ex.A-6 are the photographs. As against this evidence, there is no other evidence contra and further there is no cross- examination as well. Ex.A-5 is a copy of the Sale Deed dated 15-7-1916 and Ex.A-6 are the photographs. As against this evidence, there is no other evidence contra and further there is no cross- examination as well. However, relying upon the report made by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department and also some Book-let styled as "Mallelavari Charitra", findings had been recorded by the Primary Authority - learned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada that this family has nothing to do with the Temple and one Narahari and his father of Agnikula Kshatriya, r/o. Ibrahimpatnam in fact had constructed the said Temple. No doubt certain other further findings also had been recorded relating to the conduct and ultimately negatived the reliefs. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried by way of Appeal A.S.No.60/2006 as aforesaid. The appellate Court at para-11 framed the following Point for consideration : 1. Whether the appellant/petitioner comes within the purview of Section 17(1) of the Endowments Act, as member of the founder family under the provisions of Endowment Act 30/87 and amended Act 27/2002 and if so, the petitioner is entitled for declaration as a member of the founder family ? 2. Whether this court interference warrants to set aside the order in O.A.No.35/2004 by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Kakinada ? The appellate Court proceeded to discuss the findings recorded by the Primary Authority - learned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada at paras 12 to 24 and ultimately dismissed the Appeal confirming the order made in O.A.No.35/2004 aforesaid. 10. It is pertinent to note that under Section 87 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department concerned having jurisdiction to decide disputes specified therein is expected to follow the procedure as specified by the provisions of Section 87 of the Act aforesaid. When a report is relied upon, especially an adverse report to the interests of the petitioner, the petitioner to be given due opportunity and further explanation of the petitioner to be received and such report to be considered. Even otherwise, here is a case where no contra evidence had been placed and there is no rival claim putforth claiming that certain others also are putting forth the claim to be recognized as the founder members of the Temple in question. Even otherwise, here is a case where no contra evidence had been placed and there is no rival claim putforth claiming that certain others also are putting forth the claim to be recognized as the founder members of the Temple in question. When that being so, relying upon a Book-let and recording a finding that certain Agnikula Kshatriya persons had constructed the Temple in question, in the considered opinion of this Court, may not be just and proper. May be that the concerned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department may record appropriate findings if such parties are coming before the Court and putting forth their claims as well. Except making this observation in relation thereto, nothing further or nothing beyond to be observed by this Court. 11. On a careful analysis of the findings recorded both by the Primary Authority - Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada and also the appellate Court - the learned VI Additional District Judge, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that neither the Primary Authority nor the Appellate Authority had appreciated the material in proper perspective in accordance with the provisions of Sections 87 and 88 of the Act. It is also no doubt true that except the evidence of P.W.1, no other evidence had been placed by the Revision Petitioner, may be for the reason that this witness was not cross-examination and affidavit relating to Chief-Examination in fact had not been controverted. Further, certain documents also had been relied upon. However, the petitioner should have been more careful and cautious in adducing further evidence as well to substantiate his stand. Viewed from any angle, since the findings recorded both by the Primary Authority and the Appellate Court being not in accordance with law, this Court is inclined to set aside the said findings. 12. Point No.2: It is no doubt true that an application was filed i.e., C.R.P.M.P.No.3332/2007 under Order XLI Rule 27 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reception of additional evidence. Inasmuch as the findings recorded by both the Primary Authority and the Appellate Court being not satisfactory and such findings are being disturbed and inasmuch as in a Civil Revision Petition this application is being made, this Court is not inclined to allow the said application. But however, liberty is given to the petitioner to place reliance on these documents before the Primary Authority i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department. But however, liberty is given to the petitioner to place reliance on these documents before the Primary Authority i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department. Accordingly, C.R.P.M.P.No.3332/2007 is disposed of. 13. Point No.3: In the light of the findings recorded above, the order impugned in the Civil Revision Petition made in A.S.No.60/2006 by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam and the order made in O.A.No.35/2004 by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Primary Authority i.e., the learned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada and let the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada give opportunity to all the parties concerned to let in further evidence on all the aspects and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. It is needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to rely on the documents which had been produced before this Court and any other documents if available with the petitioner. It is also needless to say that the other parties also are at liberty to produce such oral and documentary evidence which may be available with them. Inasmuch as an order of remand is made, let the learned Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada expedite the hearing of the matter. 14. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.