JUDGMENT : As the issue involved in these appeals is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Judgment. 2. The facts in these appeals are similar and identical, therefore C.M.A.No.245 of 2023 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein are referred to for convenience. 3. The impugned application in O.A No.303 of 2012 was filed by the petitioners/respondents herein under Section 83 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 (for short “the Act”), against the respondent/appellant herein declaring that the respondent as an encroacher and also directing him to deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule property, failing which liberty may be given to the 2nd applicant temple to take possession of the same, beside costs. The appellant herein is the respondent and the appellants are the petitioners in O.A.No.303 of 2012 on the file of the A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Pedakakani (for short “The Tribunal”). 4. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed in O.A No.303 of 2012 on the file of the Tribunal. 5. The 2nd petitioner temple Sri Vinayaka Swamy Temple, Ponnaguru village, is a religious institution and governed by the Act and it was published under Section 6(c)(ii) of A.P. Act 30/1987. As per the approved property register, OA schedule shop rooms are shown as property of the 2nd petitioner temple. The Endowments department appointed M. Veeramani as trustee to the 2nd petitioner temple to manage the same. So, one P.R.T. Rajamanikyam purchased an extent of 400 square yards of land in S.No.11/11 of Ponnaguru village, Mallanur Post, Kuppam Mandal by virtue of registered sale deed dated 4.11.1959. Consequent upon his demise, his son Ganapathi orally donated the said site to the then Trustee of 2nd petitioner temple. So, one P.R.T. Rajamanikyam purchased an extent of 400 square yards of land in S.No.11/11 of Ponnaguru village, Mallanur Post, Kuppam Mandal by virtue of registered sale deed dated 4.11.1959. Consequent upon his demise, his son Ganapathi orally donated the said site to the then Trustee of 2nd petitioner temple. The said Ganapathi was also executed settlement deed dated 21.01.2012 in favour of 2nd petitioner temple on requisite stamp duty of Rs.10,780/- and registration fee of Rs.1,000/- was also paid by the 2nd petitioner temple, but the same was not yet registered, The Committee of 2nd petitioner temple formed by the villagers of Ponnaguru village leased out the O.A schedule shop rooms to the respondent on payment of Rs.250/- to Rs.400/- per month for a period of 11 months in the year 2005 and the said lease was not approved by the competent authority and it was expired in the year 2006. But the respondent is continuing therein without any valid lease, which amounts towards damages for use and occupation of the said rooms sine around two years, preceding the date of filing of the petition. The OA schedule shop rooms would fetch not less than Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1500/- per month, if they are put to public auction in regular course and therefore the respondents are liable to pay damages for use and occupation from the date of demand/receipt of legal notices, besides arrears of damages. Since the respondents are continuing in the petition schedule premises belongs to the 2nd petitioner temple without any valid extension of lease, which amounts to encroachment, as contemplated under Section 83 of Act 30/1987, the respondents herein filed O.A No303 of 2012 before the Tribunal. 6. Per contra, the respondent/appellant filed counter and denied all the allegations made in the petition. It is submitted that the in the year 1959 one Sri P.R.T. Rajamanikyam had orally gifted an extent of Ac.0.8 ½ cents of land to their elders and also to some other persons and their elders in turn constructed shops with asbestos sheets and they ae in peaceful possession and enjoyment of O.A schedule properties for the past 52 years. In the year 1959 their elders alone constructed Sri Vinayaka Swamy temple with their own funds. It is further contended that they have been eking out their livelihood by running the present shops since 1980. In the year 1959 their elders alone constructed Sri Vinayaka Swamy temple with their own funds. It is further contended that they have been eking out their livelihood by running the present shops since 1980. No notices were received by them before registration of the 2nd petitioner and therefore Act 30/1987 does not apply to the 2nd petitioner. Moreover the shops are located far away from the temple and therefore the 2nd petitioner temple is nothing to do with the said shop rooms. The said trustee must have colluded with the 1st petitioner for registering the temple under endowments. Donating the property orally by Ganaptathi, in favour of 2nd petitioner temple is false and consequently leasing out of the said shop rooms to the respondents for a period of 11 months is absurd and there was no lease at all between the respondents and the 2nd petitioner. it is also stated that the respondents are having lease with Ganapathi, who is the absolute owner of the land in S.No.11/11 to an extent of Ac 0.08 ½ cents and the respondents are paying monthly rents to the said Ganapathi without fail and he has been renewing the lease in their favour. Therefore, the 2nd petitioner/2nd respondent temple has no right to claim as if it is the absolute owner of the property and consequently the petition filed for eviction is not maintainable and hence prayed to dismiss the same. 7. Basing on rival contentions of both parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal : (i) Whether the 2nd petitioner temple is owner of petition schedule property and the respondent is in possession as an encroacher under Section 83 of the Act and liable to be evicted? (ii) To what relief? 8. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, the Trustee of the 2nd petitioner temple was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 and RW.2 were examined and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B5. 9. (ii) To what relief? 8. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, the Trustee of the 2nd petitioner temple was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 and RW.2 were examined and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B5. 9. After careful examination of the material available on record and recording the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has allowed the applications with costs and directed the respondent to deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms to the 2nd petitioner temple within one month and shall also pay damages for use and occupation @ Rs.1,000/- per month preceding three years by the date of filing of the petition till eviction/delivery of the property. Challenging the same, the present appeals came to be filed. 10. The pleadings which are cited by the appellants in CMA No.245 of 2023, the same are adopted by the other appellants in other civil miscellaneous appeals i.e., CMA Nos.245, 259, 261, 262, 325, 330, 334, 376, 389 and 422 of 2023. 11. This Court vide order dated 19.07.2023 in CMA No.245 of 2023 while issuing Notice before admission, granted interim stay of operation of the decree and order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.303 of 2012, dated 18.1.2023 subject to condition that the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.1000/- per month towards damages for use and occupation of schedule property from the date of filing the petition till eviction/delivery of the property together with costs as per decree passed by the Tribunal within a period of four weeks, failing which the interim order stands vacated automatically. 12. Thereafter, when the matter was listed on 16.8.2023, this Court found that, in pursuance of the above order dated 19.7.2023, the petitioner/appellant has not complied with the order of this Court and hence the interim order granted on 19.07.2023 was vacated. 13. Heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri T.V. S Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 14. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the orders of the learned Tribunal in allowing the applications are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the cases. 13. Heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri T.V. S Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 14. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the orders of the learned Tribunal in allowing the applications are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the cases. He further submits that the Tribunal failed to consider that even as per the 43 Register submitted by the temple before the Tribunal shows that only the measurements were mentioned in the schedule without there being mentioned the Sy.No. and the land situated in which village. He further submits that the tribunal also failed to consider that the appellant already purchased the said land from original owner of the land without considering the documents filed by the appellant which were marked under Ex.P1 to Ex.P5Therefore, the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that once the property sold by the executants in the year 1959 before commencement of the Act 30 of 1987 and the question of claiming of the property after lapse of 30 years is impermissible. He further submits that once Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987 the limitation operates from 1959 and prayer to any tile is vested by any person or his predecessors, in the instant case the property belong to M.P Manikyam subsequently it was purchased by the appellant herein. as such the question of filing OA claiming the property, as illegal and arbitrary and hence requests this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned orders. 15. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Balaji Singh Versus Diwakar Cole & others, [http://Indiankanoon.org/doc/105560256], wherein the Apex Court held that : In view of foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore that of the first Appellate Court with modification as mentioned in para 22. 33. Liberty is granted to the defendants to file in rebuttal any additional evidence before the Trial Court in support of their case. 33. Liberty is granted to the defendants to file in rebuttal any additional evidence before the Trial Court in support of their case. The Trial Court will allow the parties to lead oral evidence to prove additional documentary evidence and then decide the suit afresh on merits strictly on the basis of evidence in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made by the first Appellate Court, the High Court and this Court in their respective orders passed in these proceedings. 34. The Trial Court shall ensure disposal of the suit, as directed, within six months as an outer limit. Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 01.05.2017 to enable the Trial Court to decide the suit as directed above. 16. On a perusal of the above citation, this Court observed that, the appeal was filed against the suit for declaration and sought for permanent injunction and the finding was that the trial Court will allow the parties to lead oral evidence to prove additional documentary evidence and then decide the suit afresh on merits strictly on the basis of evidence. But in the instant case, it is not a case of permanent injunction; it is only for delivering the vacant possession. The tribunal has examined both petitioners and respondents and has given sufficient opportunity for filing their documentary evidence and both the parties have filed their respective documentary evidence before the tribunal. Thereafter, the tribunal, after examining all the material evidence filed by both the parties, has allowed the applications, while appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, the facts of the above case are not applicable to the present facts of the cases. 17. As seen from the impugned order, it is observed that, admittedly, the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Chittoor registered the 2nd respondent temple under Section 43 of Act 30/1987 vide Certificate No.1160 in R.Dis No.B5/5100/2009 Gnl. Dated 30.01.2010. The Endowments Department appointed one M. Veeramani as trustee to the 2nd respondent temple to manage the same and consequent upon his demise, his son Ganapathi orally donated the said site to 2nd respondent temple on 15.09.1983 and executed a settlement deed dated 21.01.2012 on paying requisite stamp duty of Rs.10,780/- and registration fee of Rs1,000/- was also paid by the 2nd respondent temple. The temple Committee formed by the villagers of Ponnaguru villae leased out the O.A schedule shop rooms to the appellant on payment of Rs.250/- to Rs.400/- per month for a period of 11 months in the year 2005 but the said lease was not approved by the competent authority and it was expired in the year 2006. But the appellant is continuing therein without any valid lease which amounts to illegal possession and enjoyment. It is also observed that the appellant stopped paying any amount towards damages for use and occupation of the said shop rooms since around two years, preceding the date of filing of the petition. The OA schedule shop rooms would fetch not less than Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/- per month, if they are put to public auction in regular course and therefore respondents are liable to pay damages for use and occupation from the date of demand/receipt of legal notices, besides arrears of damages. 18. It is true that Gift of Immovable property shall be by a registered instrument and no title would pass on unless it is duly registered as per Sections 122 and 123 of Transfer of Property Act. But here is a case where it is the dispute between the third party and the temple to which the Gift of property is said to have been given orally with delivery of possession. The donor, who said to have gifted the property to the temple orally, also conceded about execution of settlement deed on proper stamps, of course, it is not yet registered. To prove the said oral gift was acted upon, the respondents have filed the copy of Section 43 Register as Ex.P1 Column NO.8 of Section 43 Register shows the list of all the shop rooms with measurements and so also, the rent for which they were leased out. Of course, it is also observed that it did not contain any entry that how the temple got the said property. 19. It is necessary to look into the cross examination of RW.1 with regard to oral gift said to have been given in favour of their elders. She categorically deposited that she did not file any document to show that Sri P.R.T. Raja Manikyam gifted the property to their elders. She also deposed that she cannot file any document to show that the OA schedule property belongs to her. 20. She categorically deposited that she did not file any document to show that Sri P.R.T. Raja Manikyam gifted the property to their elders. She also deposed that she cannot file any document to show that the OA schedule property belongs to her. 20. This Court further observed from the impugned order that, the appellant has taken five stands i.e., the entire extent of land of which the petition schedule property is the part was said to have been gifted by Sri P.R.T. Raja Manikyam to the elders of the respondents; (2) that the said Raja Manikyam leased out the same to their elders; 3) the son of Raja Manikyam by name Ganapathi has let out the shops to them and he collecting the rents; 4) the said Ganapathi sold the said property to them and that an agreement of sale was executed in favour of each of them and the sale deed is not yet registered and 5) they are only the absolute owners of the property, since they are paying taxes to the Gram Panchayat, having got mutated their names. 21. It is also observed from the impugned order that, as seen from the evidence of RW.1, during his cross examination, he categorically admitted about execution of settlement deed at a later point of time i.e., on 21.01.2012 in favour of the 2nd respondent temple, i.e., confirming the earlier oral gift and the registration fee was also said to have been paid by the 2nd respondent temple, but somehow it was not registered. 22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court found no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the Tribunal and warrants no interference by this Court. 23. Finding no merit in the instant civil miscellaneous appeals and devoid of merits, the same are liable to be dismissed. 24. Accordingly, all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. Further, the respondent in all the appeals is directed to deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms to the 2nd respondent temple within ONE month and shall also pay damages for use and occupation @ Rs.1,000/- per month preceding three years by the date of filing of the petition till eviction/delivery of property. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.