JUDGMENT The petitioner is a member of founder’s family of Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Narasipatnam Village and Mandal, Viaskhapatnam District. He has filed this Writ Petition questioning the orders of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, the 1st respondent herein, in proceedings D.Dis.No.B3/10588/2003, dated 11.03.2003, authorizing the Executive Officer to permit devotees to perform annual Kalyanam and other sevas by paying Rusum (fees) of Rs.300/- along with the family of Chairman and Founder Trustee of the subject temple. The case of the petitioner is that Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple was founded by his ancestor during 1902 and after the lifetime of the founder, the temple came under the management of his sons and grandsons. The petitioner pleads that ever since the temple had been founded there has been a practice and usage to perform “Kalyana Mahotsavam” by the members of Thatikonda family during the celebration of annual Brahmotsavam by reciting the gotram and name of the member of the founder’s family. In view of the practice and custom, according to him, nobody else except the petitioner is entitled to perform Kalyana Mahotsavam. Therefore, the impugned order, which has permitted the devotees to perform the Kalyanam, is not legal and valid. Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Visakhapatnam, the 2nd respondent herein, has filed counter affidavit. Though it is not disputed that the temple was founded by Thatikonda family, the counter states that members of the family did not evince any interest in maintaining the temple. The temple became dilapidated requiring renovation. A committee was therefore constituted vide proceedings of the Commissioner of Endowments, dated 08.09.1972 for the said purpose. Amounts were raised from various sources including TTD, Government Common Good Fund, Sri Jaganmohini Kesavaswamy Devasthanam Ryali, Pithapuram Choultry Samsthanam, Andhra Bank and several other philanthropic persons in addition to the donations given by the general public. With the amounts raised from these sources, the temple was renovated and later Kalyana Mandapam was constructed on the Southern side of the temple by the Viswa Hindu Parishad. After the renovation, Trust Board was created by the competent authority in the year 1975 for managing the affairs of the temple and since then the temple is being managed under the administrative control of the Trust Board. After the renovation, Trust Board was created by the competent authority in the year 1975 for managing the affairs of the temple and since then the temple is being managed under the administrative control of the Trust Board. The counter further states that participation of devotees during the time of Annual Kalyana Mahotsavam is being performed at Kalyana Mandapam of Sri Swamy Rama Utsava Vigraham within the compound of the temple premises, but not at the “Garbhalaya or Sanctum Sanctorum”. The founder trustee along with family will sit before the Utsava Vigrahams along with Archaka on the stage at the time of Kalyanam and the devotees will be allowed to sit in the hall. As regards the alleged practice, custom and usage, the counter states that the subject temple was registered under Section 38 of the repealed Endowments Act 17/66 by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department as per the prescribed procedure and orders were issued in Rc.Dis.No.A3, dated 08.03.1982. The said registration discloses that there is no practice, custom or usage exclusively giving rights to the petitioner to perform the Kalyana Mahotsavam. The petitioner is not vested with any right in this regard and his claim is unfounded. Thus, according to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is not entitled to prevent devotees from performing Kalyana Mahotsavam as per the impugned order. Heard Sri K. Govind, Advocate representing Sri P. Yadgir Rao appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and Sri M. Bala Subrahmanyam for respondents 4 to 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order contending that it has been the practice and custom of the temple for over 100 years to perform Annual Kalyana Mahotsavam exclusively by the member of the founder’s family. The practice and custom in this regard has attained statutory force. Therefore, the same cannot be breached by permitting the devotees to participate in the said ceremony. Reliance is placed on the provision of section 13 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, “the 1987 Act”). It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that there is no such practice in the subject temple. Therefore, the same cannot be breached by permitting the devotees to participate in the said ceremony. Reliance is placed on the provision of section 13 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, “the 1987 Act”). It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that there is no such practice in the subject temple. The institution was registered under Section 38 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1966 (Repealed Act), which is the register containing origin and the history of the institution including the practice, custom and usage. It was categorically found that no such practice or custom is in existence conferring privilege on the petitioner to perform Annual Brahmotsavam. I have considered the aforesaid contentions with reference to the material. Petitioner has set up his right to exclusively perform the Annual Brahmotsavam basing on the alleged practice, custom and usage. It may be true that if there is a practice, custom and usage, the same will have to be duly respected. The existence of practice, custom and usage is a condition precedent for claiming the privilege. Therefore, before such privilege is claimed, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to establish the same by means of some material. Mere ipsidixit statement of the petitioner, however strong it might be, cannot be treated as proof of existence of practice, custom and usage. In the instant case, the petitioner has not submitted any material in support of his claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, seeks to rely on the representation dated 07.02.2003, which is said to have been made by the general public to show the existence of practice. This Court does not comprehend how a representation of general public would be construed as an instrument recognizing the privilege. Furthermore, a perusal of the representation merely shows that there is disappointment among the devotees for not permitting them to participate in the Kalyana Mahotsavam so far. The said representation, under no circumstances, could be treated as recognition of the practice and custom. On the other hand, admittedly, the institution was registered under Section 38 of the Repealed Act. The said registration is a statutory instrument, which discloses the origin and history of the institution including the special attributes. The said representation, under no circumstances, could be treated as recognition of the practice and custom. On the other hand, admittedly, the institution was registered under Section 38 of the Repealed Act. The said registration is a statutory instrument, which discloses the origin and history of the institution including the special attributes. Column 11 relates to the particulars regarding rights of special nature if any, the names of the holders thereof and the custom, usages and practices in force in connection therewith. Against the said column ‘Nil’ is noted indicating that there are no rights of special nature including custom, usages and practices. This instrument, which was registered in the year 1982, completely rules out the claim of the petitioner as to the existence of practice, usage and custom. It may be noted that the said instrument has not been disputed by the petitioner. It may be true that the said document does not bear the signature of the petitioner. Nonetheless, it does not render the registration non-est and if the said instrument does not reflect true and correct facts, the petitioner could have challenged the same invoking remedy under Section 40 of the Repealed Endowments Act. Thus, there is no substance in the contention that the petitioner should have exclusive privilege to perform the annual ceremony. As already noticed, there is no such practice, custom or usage conferring any privilege. The petitioner is not entitled to claim the same even in his capacity as a Member of the founder’s family, as being hereditary, since all such rights of the office of hereditary Trustee stood abolished under Section 16 of the 1987 Act. At the most he will be one of the trustees of the Board of Trustees; and perhaps its Chairman, whenever a Board is constituted under Section 17 of the 1987 Act. Furthermore, what all has been done under the impugned order is that the devotees also are permitted to perform the ceremony sitting in the hall. Neither the petitioner nor his family has been denied to perform the ceremony. For the aforesaid reasons, it must be held that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. There are no merits in the Writ Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.19643 of 2003 and WVMP.No.781 of 2004 are closed as unnecessary. For the aforesaid reasons, it must be held that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. There are no merits in the Writ Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.19643 of 2003 and WVMP.No.781 of 2004 are closed as unnecessary. No order as to costs.