Judgment : Common Judgment: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the common award in O.A. Nos.3015, 3008, 3007, 3006, 3017, 3018, 3014, 3011, 3016, 3023, 3022, 3024, 3013, 3020, 3026, 3025, 3019, 3012, 3010, 3021 of 2010 respectively dated 25-06-2012 passed by the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the respondents were held to be “encroachers” under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”). 2. The respective appellants in these appeals are the respondents, and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are applicant Nos.1 and 2 - the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Karimnagar and Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple, Challur,respectively, in the O.As. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Tribunal. However, applicant No.2, which is “Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple” will be referred to as “Temple”. 4. Since the subject matter in all these appeals is one and the same i.e., relating to the land around the Temple, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 5. The case of the Temple before the Tribunal is that the respective premises of different extents, which are under the occupation of the respondents, out of 5499 sq. ft. (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “schedule property”) situated around the compound wall of the Temple at Challur Village, Veenavanka Mandal, Karimnagar District belongs to it and that the respondents have been continuing in the schedule property unauthorisedly without any valid lease or orders of extension of the same from the competent authority and without even paying any amounts towards damages for use and occupation of the same and thus they are squatting over the schedule property and failed to vacate the same despite issuance of legal notices, as such, they are “encroachers” within the meaning of Section 83 of the Act. If the schedule property is leased out as per the Rules, it will fetch huge amounts. Therefore, the Temple sought for a direction from the Tribunal in all the O.As. for eviction of the respective respondents from the premises of the schedule property which are under their unauthorised occupation and handover vacant possession of the same to it. 6. If the schedule property is leased out as per the Rules, it will fetch huge amounts. Therefore, the Temple sought for a direction from the Tribunal in all the O.As. for eviction of the respective respondents from the premises of the schedule property which are under their unauthorised occupation and handover vacant possession of the same to it. 6. Except the case of the respondent in C.M.A. No.799 of 2012 arising out of O.A. No.3026 of 2010, the case of all other respondents is similar and on same footing. 7. All the respondents in other O.As. filed their respective counters denying the averments made in the respective applications against them including the allegation that they encroached the schedule property belonging to the Temple. Their case is that they made construction in their occupied sites (schedule property) in Abadi Grama Kantam about 20 - 25 years back with the permission of Gram Panchayat, Challur and the Gram Panchayat allotted shop numbers also to their premises and issued certificates of ownership to them. The respondents also obtained electricity connection and eking out their livelihood by doing business in the schedule property and they have been paying taxes to the Gram Panchayat. The respondents are enjoying the schedule property for the last 25 years and thus they have perfected their title by adverse possession also. It is also stated that around the Temple, compound wall was existing from 100 years back and the schedule property, which is in occupation of the respondents, is far away from the said compound wall. Thus, the question of respondents encroaching the schedule property does not arise. 8. The respondent in O.A. No.3026 of 2010 filed his counter denying the averments made in the application against him including the allegation that he encroached the site in his occupation covered by the schedule property belonging to the Temple. Thus, the question of respondents encroaching the schedule property does not arise. 8. The respondent in O.A. No.3026 of 2010 filed his counter denying the averments made in the application against him including the allegation that he encroached the site in his occupation covered by the schedule property belonging to the Temple. His case is that the site in his occupation, which is in Survey No.1005/A, was purchased by him about 22 years back under a simple sale deed from its original owner Vala Ramarao, son of Vala Laxman Rao, and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and he reconstructed the house and a tin-shed (tela) therein and running cloth (es) business in the shed with the permission of Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat allotted house number being H.No.6-89/3 and collecting tax and that he got electricity connection to the said house and paying the electricity charges. Later he also obtained registered sale deed vide document No.246/02 dated 04-02-2002 from the legal heirs of the original owner Vala Ramarao. It is also his case that when the Temple authorities interfered with his peaceful possession over the schedule property, he filed a suit in O.S. No.19 of 2007 along with an application for interim injunction in I.A. No.298 of 2007 before the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad which granted temporary injunction against the Temple and applicant No.1 restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession. Hence, his case is that the premises under his occupation of the schedule property exclusively belongs to him and it is not the Temple property. 9. Based on the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following points for consideration: .(i) “Whether the 2nd applicant Temple is owner of the premises described in the 20 applications as schedule property respectively situated around the 2nd applicant Temple out of the total extent of 5499 Sq.ft. situated at Challur(V), Veenavanka(M), Karimnagar District and the Respondents are un-authorised occupants of the same as encroachers U/s 83 of the Act,30/87 and are liable to be evicted? .(ii) To what result?” 10. To prove their case, on behalf of the Temple, one P. Prasad, Single Trustee/Manager of the Temple, was examined as PW.1 in each O.A. and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 in each O.A. except in O.A. No.3024 of 2010, wherein Exs.P-1 to P-4 alone were marked. .(ii) To what result?” 10. To prove their case, on behalf of the Temple, one P. Prasad, Single Trustee/Manager of the Temple, was examined as PW.1 in each O.A. and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 in each O.A. except in O.A. No.3024 of 2010, wherein Exs.P-1 to P-4 alone were marked. Exs.P-1 to P-7 in each O.A. are one and the same documents. On behalf of the respondents, respective respondents themselves got examined as RW.1 in each O.A. and got marked copies of the respective ownership certificates and its manuscripts, trade licences issued by the Gram Panchayat Challur, property tax receipts, and electricity bills receipts. However, on behalf of the respondents in O.A. Nos.3007, 3008, 3010, 3015 and 3024, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. 11. The Tribunal after considering the material available on record, relying on Exs.P-1 to P-7 allowed all the O.As. vide impugned award holding that the respondents are the encroachers as per Section 83 of the Act and directed them to vacate and handover the schedule property within one month from the date of service of the award by written intimation to the Temple, failing which applicant No.1 is directed to evict the respondents with the police aid. 12. Aggrieved by the impugned common award, respondents filed these appeals, inter alia, contending that they are owners of their respective premises of the schedule property and are in possession of the same for the last 20 - 25 years and they perfected their title even by adverse possession. It is also their case that the schedule property is an abadi land belonging to Challur Gram Panchayat and the same was allotted to them and they have been in possession of the same by paying taxes to the Gram Panchayat. While so, in 2007 i.e. subsequent to allottment of the schedule property to the respondents, the Temple was registered and taken over by the Endowments Department. Further, the Temple failed to establish as to who endowed the schedule property to the Temple. 13. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. 14. While so, in 2007 i.e. subsequent to allottment of the schedule property to the respondents, the Temple was registered and taken over by the Endowments Department. Further, the Temple failed to establish as to who endowed the schedule property to the Temple. 13. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. 14. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents (appellants) is that though the respective respondents proved their ownership over the schedule property by marking the relevant documents including the ownership certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Challur, the Tribunal erroneously found the respondents as tenants of the Temple and being tenants defaulted in payment of rents and thereby squatting over the property as encroachers within the meaning of Section 83 of the Act by relying on Exs.P-1 to P-7, which in any way do not disclose the ownership of the Temple. His further contention is that as the respondents are in possession of the schedule property for last 20 to 25 years without any interference, they perfected their title over the same by adverse possession also, but the Tribunal failed to appreciate the same. The Tribunal failed to see that the schedule property is an abadi Grama Kantam of Gram Panchayat, Challur having powers to give permission to the respondents for construction, allotment of house numbers and collecting tax etc., and that the same is not an abadi-II land belonging to the Temple. 15. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments and the learned counsel for the Temple supporting the impugned judgment in all respects contended that the Tribunal rightly found the respondents as encroachers squatting over the schedule property within the meaning of Section 83 of the Act as they are not paying any rents or damages for use and occupation of the same by relying on Exs.P-1 to P-7 which show that the schedule property belongs to the Temple. In support of their case, learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in AnantPrasad Lakshminiwas Ganeriwal v. State of A.P. and others ( AIR 1963 SC 853 ), Jammi Raja Rao v. Sri Anjaneyaswami Temple Valu ( AIR 1992 SC 1110 )and P. Periasami v. P. Periathambi (1995) 6 SCC 523 ). 16. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing these appeals? POINT: .17. 16. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing these appeals? POINT: .17. The case of the Temple is that the schedule property belongs to it and to substantiate the same, the single trustee/manager of the Temple was examined as PW.1. His evidence in all the cases is that the Temple is owner of the schedule property as per Exs.P-1 to P-7 documents and that the respondents were carrying on business in the respective premises of the schedule property as tenants and from 2007 onwards they are not paying the rents after enhancement of the rents in spite of repeated demands and thus they have been in unauthorised occupation of the same, as such, .they are encroachers within the meaning of Section 83 of the Act, and therefore, they are liable to be evicted. Ex.P-1 is copy of Section 43 register of the Temple and it shows that the extent of the Temple land is Acs.2-14 guntas and it also owns inam lands at Challur village i.e. in Survey No.339 Ac.1-03 guntas, Survey No.489 Ac.1-27 guntas, Survey No.490 Ac.0-20 guntas, Survey No.491 Ac.1-14 guntas, Survey No.446 Ac.1-00, Survey No.447 Ac.0-10 guntas and Survey No.398 Ac.1-10 guntas and some of which are in the occupation of archakas, bhajanthri service holders and there is a tiled house with office room, stock room and Yaga Shala and that there are 30 rooms around the Temple. Ex.P-2 is copy of the notice dated 30-06-2007 issued by the Temple to all the respondents to vacate the respective premises of the schedule property in their occupation. Ex.P-3 are copies of the postal receipt/acknowledgement. Ex.P-4 are copies of rental receipt issued by the Temple to the respondents towards payment of rents for the respective premises of the schedule property under their occupation as tenants. Ex.P-5 are copies of the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veenavanka along with revenue naksha (tounch map) and panchanama report. These certificates issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer show that the Temple land is in an extent of Acs.2-14 guntas in Challur village and the tounch map (FMB) shows that the said land is in Survey No.1005 abutting Survey Nos.1006, 1007, 1001, 1003 and 1004 on three sides and the village with road on the other side (East). These certificates issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer show that the Temple land is in an extent of Acs.2-14 guntas in Challur village and the tounch map (FMB) shows that the said land is in Survey No.1005 abutting Survey Nos.1006, 1007, 1001, 1003 and 1004 on three sides and the village with road on the other side (East). Ex.P-6 are copies of the book of Endowments Department for the years 1900-1960, which shows that the schedule property is registered in the name of the Temple. Ex.P-7 is the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Challur stating that the schedule property belongs to the Temple and the respective respondents are doing business thereat. 18. Thus, coming to the question as to whether the schedule property belongs to the Temple, the evidence of PW.1, single trustee/manager of the Temple, coupled with the documentary evidence Exs.P-1 and P-5 to P-7 referred above, clearly show that the schedule property, which is around the compound wall of the Temple, belongs to the Temple. However, the respondents rely on the certificate of ownership and its manuscript (marked in most of the O.As.) issued by the Gram Panchayat, Challur, but these documents are helpful to them to show only their possession over the respective premises of the schedule property but not their title/ownership thereto. Further, though the case of the respondents is that the schedule property belongs to the Gram Panchayat, Challur, they failed to produce any document to establish the same, as such, the Gram Panchayat is not the competent authority to issue ownership certificate or the licence to run the business in the schedule property, and therefore, these documents do not prove their ownership, therefore it can be said that they were created to grab the Temple land. Apart from the above, the same Gram Panchayat issued Ex.P-7 in favour of the Temple stating that the schedule property belongs to the Temple and the respondents doing business in respective premises of the schedule property. Apart from the above, the same Gram Panchayat issued Ex.P-7 in favour of the Temple stating that the schedule property belongs to the Temple and the respondents doing business in respective premises of the schedule property. The other documents marked on behalf of the respective respondents are trade licence fee receipts and tax receipts issued by the Gram Panchayat and also electricity receipts and relying on the same they claim ownership over the schedule property which also only establish their possession over the schedule property but not their title/ownership as found hereinabove; and that it is also not the case of the Temple that the respondents are not in possession of the schedule property but their case is that the respective respondents are squatting over the schedule property as encroachers without paying any amount towards rent or damages for use and occupation of the same after enhancement of the rents in 2007. To substantiate its case, Temple relies on Ex.P-4, which are rent receipts issued by the Temple to the respective respondents, and the same show that the respective respondents paid amount to the Temple towards rent for the premises in their occupation of the schedule property and they have not disputed the genuineness of that receipts and their signatures on them which clearly establishes that they were tenants over the schedule property belonging to the Temple but not owners of the same. Further, the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veenavanka dated 10-11-2006 attached to Ex.P-5 certificate dated 04-01-2002 issued by him shows that the Temple property belongs to the grandfathers of one M.Venkat Reddy and Madhava Reddy and they endowed the property to the Temple and got it constructed. This report also shows that there are about 30 tenants in the land of the Temple and they were paying rents to the Temple every month and the same shows that those tenants are none other than the respondents herein and some others. Thus, it is clear that the schedule property belongs to the Temple and none else. 19. As per the decision of the Apex Court in AnantPrasad Lakshminiwas Ganeriwal’s Case (Supra 1), as per Section 11 of Hyderabd Endowment Regulations (1940), the presumption is that the entries made in the book of endowments are correct unless held to be otherwise by the civil court. 19. As per the decision of the Apex Court in AnantPrasad Lakshminiwas Ganeriwal’s Case (Supra 1), as per Section 11 of Hyderabd Endowment Regulations (1940), the presumption is that the entries made in the book of endowments are correct unless held to be otherwise by the civil court. In view of the same, the entries made in Ex.P-1 copy of Section 43 register of the Temple are true and correctand according to the same, the schedule property belongs to the Temple. 20. Coming to the question as to whether the respondents perfected their title over the schedule property by adverse possession by 26-01-1997, as per the provisions of the Act, there is no provision to claim adverse possession over the endowment property, as such, they cannot claim adverse possession. Further, as held hereinabove, the respondents were found to be tenants since they did not dispute Ex.P-4 rental receipts and their signatures thereon and the same establish their actual position over the schedule property as tenants and that after enhancement of the rents in 2007, they are not paying the same and squatting over the schedule property as encroachers, as such, their plea of adverse possession is false and baseless and the same cannot be taken into consideration. 21. Further, on one occasion the respondents are claiming the schedule property as its owners and on the other as adverse possession. When the respondents claim ownership, they have to prove their title by producing relevant documents, however, since they are unable to produce the evidence and establish their ownership, they are claiming adverse possession, which falsifies their primary case itself that they are owners of the schedule property since when they claim adverse possession, it is inherently implied from the plea of adverse possession that they are not owners of the schedule property and someone else was owner of the same as held in P. Periasami’s Case (Supra 3), wherein it is held that “Whenever the plea of adverse possession is projected, inherent in the plea is that someone else was the owner of the property.” Accordingly, when once the respondents claimed ownership over the schedule property, they are estopped from taking the plea of adverse possession. Apart from that as found in the preceding paragraph as the respondents are found to be tenants primarily and thereafter encroachers over the schedule property, their plea of adverse possession is false and the same cannot be considered. 22. Coming to C.M.A. No.799 of 2012 arising out of O.A. No.3026 of 2010, the respondent’s case is that the premises in his possession is in Survey No.1005/A, which is being claimed by the Temple as its property, is a private property and was purchased by him from one Vala Ramarao through a simple sale deed and reconstructed the house with the permission of Gram Panchayat, Challur as per the approved plan dated 22-06-1988 and the Gram Panchayat also allotted H.No.6-89/3 and collecting tax from him and thereafter he obtained registered sale deed from the legal heirs of his vendor in 2002 and established a tela /shed in front of his house. It is also his case that when the Temple authorities interfered with his peaceful possession over the subject property, he filed a suit in O.S. No.19 of 2007 before the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad and obtained interim injunction vide I.A. No.298 of 2007 restraining the Temple and applicant No.1 herein. 23. On a perusal of the material on record, the Temple property seems to be in Survey No.1005 and the case of the respondent is that the premises (house and the shed) in his occupation is in Survey No.1005/A and the same is a private property and that he purchased the same from one Vala Ramarao through a simple sale deed and later got it registered through the legal heirs of his vendor in 2002. However, the revenue tounch map / naksha does not disclose about Survey No.1005/A and also its location, extent of the land as well as its boundaries. But, as seen from the impugned award, it appears that there is a Survey number being “1005/A” and there is also no dispute about the said land in Survey No.1005/A being a private property. In the order in I.A. No.298 of 2007 in O.S. No.19 of 2007 filed by the respondent herein against the Temple, its Executive Officer and applicant No.1 herein, the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad also observed that there is no dispute that the land in Survey No.1005/A is a private land. In the order in I.A. No.298 of 2007 in O.S. No.19 of 2007 filed by the respondent herein against the Temple, its Executive Officer and applicant No.1 herein, the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad also observed that there is no dispute that the land in Survey No.1005/A is a private land. Though it is averred that this respondent obtained interim injunction from the civil Court, it is not stated as to the stage/final result of the said suit and also its nature. Just obtaining interim injunction does not prove or establish his title/ownership over the premises of the schedule property in his occupation, as such, it is not helpful to his case on hand except to show his possession. But, from the above, one thing is clear that there is also a survey number being 1005/A and that the respondent filed the above suit contending that the schedule property is a private property and the same is situated in Survey No.1005/A. However, the present proceedings are with regard to Survey No.1005 and the case of the Temple is that the premises in the occupation of the respondent belongs to the Temple land and is covered by “Survey No.1005” but not “1005/A.” Ex.P-5 certificate dated 04-01-2002 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veenavanka Mandal shows that an extent of Acs.2-14 guntas of land is available for the Temple and the tounch map attached to Ex.P-5 prepared by the Mandal Surveyor in 2002 also shows that the Temple land is abadi-ii and the same is in Survey No.1005 surrounded by Survey Nos.1004, 1003, 1001, 1007, 1006 and the road. Further, the report dated 10-11-2006 attached to Ex.P-5 submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the District Collector, Karimnagar shows that on the spot inspection on the complaint of the villagers that this respondent encroached the Temple land, it came to light that the land purchased by the respondent is in Survey No.1005/A, which is adjacent to the Temple land in Survey No.1005, and that the respondent encroached the land in Survey No.1005 belonging to the Temple taking advantage of the said land being adjacent to the landed property purchased by him. Thus, it is clear that the premises of the schedule property in occupation of the respondent, which is being claimed by the Temple, is the land covered by Survey No.1005 belonging to the Temple but not the land in Survey No.1005/A as claimed by the respondent. Accordingly, this question is answered in favour of the Temple and against the respondent. 24. Thus, it is clear that the premises under the occupation of the respective respondents covered by the schedule property belong to the Temple and the respondents are squatting over the same as encroachers from 2007 onwards. 25. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the schedule property which is under the occupation of the respondents belongs to the Temple and they (respondents) are squatting over the same as encroachers without any right or title from the date of default in payment of rents from 2007 onwards within the meaning of Section 83 of the Act, as such, they are liable to be evicted as rightly held by the Tribunal. Thus, there are no grounds to allow these appeals. The point is accordingly answered. 26. However, considering the long possession of the respondents over the schedule property as tenants, they may approach the Temple authorities with a request to grant lease afresh over the schedule property in their occupation which the Temple may consider on appropriate terms and conditions, if they are so advised,. 27. With the above observations, all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed confirming the common award passed by the Tribunal in all respects. No order as to costs.