JUDGMENT : This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 30.10.2008, in O.S. No.229 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondent herein is the defendant in the said Suit. 2. The Appellant/Plaintiff filed the above said suit for declaration of title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its officials and men from ever interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession. 3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.229 of 2005, are as under: i) The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. Originally the plaint schedule property belonged to Smt Kandukuri Ramamma alias Ravamma, W/o. Venkata Subbayya of Denduluru village. On 19.09.2001 the said Ravamma executed a registered gift deed in favour of the plaintiff giving Ac.1.84 cents of wet land covered by R.S.No. 167/2 and Ac.3.16 cents of wet land covered by R.S.No.12 of Malkapuram village and delivered possession of the same to him. He accepted the gift and took possession of the land and ever since he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and raising crops and paying land revenue to Government. The Government also issued pattadar passbook and title deed to him. But, to his surprise, the defendant got issued a legal notice dt.25.08.2004 claiming that the suit schedule property belongs to it. It was alleged in the notice that Sri Kandukuri Adamma settled wet land of Ac.1.84 cents in R.S.No.167/2 and dry land of Ac.3.16 cents covered by R.S.No.12 of Malkapuram village in favour of the defendant. Kandukuri Ravamma settled an extent of Ac.1.00 cents of land covered by R.S.No.46 of Kovvali village in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff is the sister's son of Kandukuri Ravamma. It is falsely alleged in the legal notice that the plaintiff is in management of the properties of the temple after the demise of Kandukuri Ravamma. In fact he was never in management of the properties of the temple. If the temple is under the Endowments Department it should have been registered as the public temple as per the provisions of Endowments Act. In fact he was never in management of the properties of the temple. If the temple is under the Endowments Department it should have been registered as the public temple as per the provisions of Endowments Act. But the notice issued by the defendant is silent about the same. It was further alleged in the said notice that the plaintiff mismanaged the temple affairs and its properties and a Single Trustee was appointed for effective management of the temple and the plaintiff is accountable for the income and expenditure of the temple. Since he never managed the temple he is not liable to render accounts. ii) On 04.09.2004, he got issued a reply notice to the defendant informing that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and his source of title. The defendant received the reply and got lodged a Caveat on 23.06.2005 before Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Eluru. The defendant is contemplating to conduct auction of leasehold rights of plaint schedule property on 11.07.2005 as if the property belongs to it. The defendant has nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 5. The defendant filed a written statement by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: - i) This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions contained in A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The defendant temple is situated in Denduluru village of Denduluru Mandal. The temple was registered on 16.11.1950 under Section 38 of Endowments Act and ever since the temple is under the supervision of Endowments Department. The defendant has got wet land of Ac.1.84 cents in R.S.No.167/2 and Ac.3.16 cents in R.S.No.12, total Ac.5.00 cents of land is situated in Malkapuram village alias Palagudem village. ii) On 03.05.2003 public auction was conducted by Trustee Kandukuri Ravamma in the presence of Inspector of Endowments, Eluru. The plaintiff attended the auction and in token of the same he signed in the auction proceedings. The Trustee Kandukuri Ravamma expired on 01.06.2003. The plaintiff who is the sister's son of Ravamma filed an application on 01.08.2003 enclosing a will dated 05.10.1996 said to have been executed by Kandukuri Ravamma before Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Eluru to appoint him as a founder family member. The Trustee Kandukuri Ravamma expired on 01.06.2003. The plaintiff who is the sister's son of Ravamma filed an application on 01.08.2003 enclosing a will dated 05.10.1996 said to have been executed by Kandukuri Ravamma before Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Eluru to appoint him as a founder family member. After full-fledged enquiry that application was dismissed on 08.07.2004 as the plaintiff is a member of the founder's family. Against the said order, the plaintiff preferred O.A.No.51 of 2004 on 29.08.2004 before Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada to set aside the order dated 08.07.2004 and to declare him as a founder family member. Later the plaintiff filed a memo on 15.03.2005 withdrawing the appeal. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff obtained the pattadar passbook and title deeds, with regard to schedule property, by managing the concerned officials. The correspondence made in between the plaintiff and defendant do testify the oblique motive of the plaintiff to appropriate the property of the temple for his personal gain. Hence the defendant filed a caveat before the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Eluru on 23.06.2005 and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential permanent injunction? (iii) Whether this Court has no inherent jurisdiction to try this suit as contended in the written statement? 7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A26 were marked. On behalf of the Defendant DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X6 were marked. 8. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment, dated 30.10.2008, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. 9. Heard Smt Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff and Smt Pulipati Radhika, learned counsel for respondent/defendant. 10. 9. Heard Smt Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff and Smt Pulipati Radhika, learned counsel for respondent/defendant. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would contend that the finding of the trial Court that "under Ex.A1, the settlor has no right to transfer the right and title in the plaint schedule property and that the plaintiff is not having any right and title in the plaint schedule property" is contrary to law and she would further contend that under Ex.A1, the plaintiff has got valid title and the appeal may be allowed. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant would contend that on appreciation of entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the suit and the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is sustainable under law and the appeal may be dismissed. 12. Having regard to the pleadings in the Suit and the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this court, the following points would arise for determination: I. Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction? II. Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit? III. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? 13. Point No.1: Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction? It is the case of the plaintiff that originally the plaint schedule property belongs to Smt Kandukuri Ramamma @ Ravamma and she executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff on 19.09.2001 by giving Ac.1.84 cents of wet land covered by R.S.No.167/2 and Ac.3.16 cents of dry land covered by R.S.No.12 of Malkapuram village to the plaintiff and delivered the possession of the same to him and he accepted the said gift deed and took possession of the said land and ever since the date of said gift deed the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land by raising crops and paying land revenue to the government. In the plaint it was further alleged by the appellant/ plaintiff that the pattadar pass book and title deed were also issued in his favour subsequent to execution of gift deed in his favour by the Ravamma, but to his surprise, he received a legal notice dated 25.08.2004 got sent by the defendant through his advocate claiming that the suit schedule property belongs to the defendant and he got issued a suitable reply dated 04.09.2004 informing that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule and he learnt that the defendant is contemplating to conduct auction of leasehold rights of the plaint schedule property and that he is constrained to file the present suit. 14. The law is well settled that in a suit for declaration of right and title in the plaint schedule property, the burden is always on the plaintiff, it is also settled law that the plaintiff in such a circumstances cannot rely on the weaknesses in the case set up by the defendant. The appellant herein has been attempting to derive his right and interest in the suit land in terms of Ex.A1 settlement deed against the defendant. When there is a serious denial of such transaction by the defendant, the burden is on the appellant to establish and prove the said fact. 15. The sole appellant reiterated the contents of the plaint in his evidence affidavit as PW1. In cross examination when elicited he admits that Kandukuri Venkata Subbaiah during his life time constructed Sri Sitarama Swamy Temple at Dendulur village and his wife is Kandukuri Ravamma and he is the son of her husband's younger brother. In cross examination, he pleaded ignorance about the alleged will said to have been executed by Subbaiah by appointing his wife Ravamma as a trustee of the temple. He further admits that during her life time Ravamma managed the defendant temple and he also pleaded ignorance that Ravamma held public auction for the leasehold rights of the temple land and he did not try to obtain any certified copy of the will said to have been executed by Subbaiah alleged in the written statement. 16. As stated supra, the claim of the plaintiff is based on the Ex.A1 settlement deed. Therefore, the burden is heavily rests on the plaintiff to prove the alleged Ex.A1 settlement deed. 16. As stated supra, the claim of the plaintiff is based on the Ex.A1 settlement deed. Therefore, the burden is heavily rests on the plaintiff to prove the alleged Ex.A1 settlement deed. To prove the Ex.A1 settlement deed, the first attestor in Ex.A1 is examined as PW5, the scribe of Ex.A1 is examined as PW6. The defendant is seriously disputing the title of settlor in Ex.A1, therefore, the burden heavily rests on the plaintiff to prove that the settlor in Ex.A1 is having valid right and title in the plaint schedule property. The contention of the defendant is that the suit schedule property is the defendant's temple property. In the plaint, there is no whisper that how the settlor got title to the plaint schedule property. On the other hand, the contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff herein filed an application dated 01.08.2003 enclosing a will dated 05.10.1996 said to have been executed by Kandukuri Ravamma before Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to appoint him as a founder family member to the defendant temple. Ex.B1 is the copy of the said application. In Ex.B1 it was clearly recited that the late Venkata Subbaiah constructed the temple in the year 1916 and he gifted Ac.1.84 cents of land situated in R.S.No.167/2 and Ac.3.16 cents of land situated in R.S.No.12 of Malkapuram village for the maintenance of the temple and appointed his wife Kandukuri Ravamma as a trustee and the said Ravamma executed a will on 05.10.1996 to appoint the plaintiff as a successor trustee for the temple and the said Ravamma died on 01.06.2003. Another important circumstance is that the plaintiff did not deny his signature on Ex.B1. During the course of enquiry, the endowments authorities recorded the statement of plaintiff which is marked as Ex.B2. In Ex.B2, the plaintiff clearly stated that Sri Kandukuri Venkata Subbaiah got constructed the defendant temple with his own funds and the said Kandukuri Venkata Subbaiah executed a will on 27.08.1933 and the suit land Ac.1.84 cents in R.S.No.167/3 and Ac.3.16 cents in R.S.No.12 of Malkapuram village, total Ac.5.00 cents was given to the temple for maintenance, since Venkata Subbaiah and his wife had no issues and the said Kandukuri Ravamma acted as a trustee from 1935 to 2003, the said Ravamma executed a will dated 05.10.1996 appointing the plaintiff as a trustee of the temple. Ex.B3 is the copy of application made by Sobhanadri Narasimhacharyulu, the Archaka of the temple and he mentioned in Ex.B3 that his age is 89 years by the date of Ex.B3 and he mentioned that the temple was constructed and the idols were installed in the year 1916 and Kandukuri Ravamma, who is second wife of Kandukuri Subbaiah, acted as a trustee of the temple till her death in the year 2003 and the said Subbaiah gave his Ac.5.00 cents of land to the temple and as per the will executed by Ravamma, the plaintiff has been acting as a founder trustee. 17. The defendant relied on enquiry proceedings conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, after full fledged enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments passed a detailed order by rejecting the claim of the plaintiff and Ex.B4 is the copy of the proceedings issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments dated 08.07.2004 holding that the plaintiff is neither son nor founder nor the grandson of founder and he is not having the same 'gotram' i.e., agnate of the founder, as such he is not eligible for declaration as a founder family member. Ex.B5 clearly goes to show that aggrieved against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, the plaintiff moved an application before Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada to set aside the order passed under Ex.B4 by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. Further more, the material on record reveals that the plaintiff counsel filed a memo before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments by not-pressing O.A.No.51 of 2004, Ex.B6 proves the same. 18. Ex.B7 is the auction proceedings dated 03.05.2003 along with covering letter addressed by the Inspector of Endowments, Eluru. In the pamphlet enclosed to Ex.B7, it was got published by Kandukuri Ravamma as a trustee, made it clear that the lands covered by survey No.167/2 consists of Ac.1.84 cents and Ac.3.16 cents in survey No.12 of Malkapur village belongs to the temple. Another important circumstance to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff herein also signed on the auction proceedings at serial No.3, further more the highest bidder is none other than the son-in-law of the plaintiff by name B.Ramachandra Rao and the plaintiff having accepted the title of the defendant and participated in the auction, now he cannot turn back and plead that the suit lands are his own properties. When the plaintiff approached the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and filed an application under Ex.B1 and also challenged the said order before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in the year 2003-2004, in those proceedings, the alleged gift deed relates to the year 2001 is not at all mentioned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff suppressed the aforesaid entire facts and he has taken different plea in the plaint itself. It is settled law that when a person approached the Civil Court for claiming relief of declaration of title, he has to approach the Court with clean hands. The facts and circumstances reveals that he approached the Court with in-correct pleadings and suppressed the truth. Therefore, in such a case, the plaintiff is not entitled the relief of declaration of title. 19. Ex.B7 auction proceedings are relates to the year 2003, whereas the suit is instituted in the year 2005, Ex.A1 alleged gift settlement deed is dated 19.09.2001, if at all Ex.A1 is genuine and acted upon, the plaintiff would have objected to conduct auction of suit schedule lands, and further more himself and his son-in-law would not have participated in the auction. Ex.B7 falsify the case of the plaintiff. The defendant also relied on Ex.B8 copy of budget estimation of defendant temple for the period 2002-2003, wherein it was mentioned, the temple is having Ac.5.00 cents of land. Ex.B9 is the register maintained under Section 38 of Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act. Ex.B9 was prepared way back i.e., on 20.06.1950. Ex.B10 is the copy of letter dated 16.11.2004 addressed by Sri Ramachandra Rao to Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Eluru, surrendering the possession of the lands and for refund of Rs.7,000/- deposited by him. Ex.B11 is the copy of order dated 06.05.2008 in O.A.No.118 of 2005 passed by the Depute Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada. Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 negatives the plea taken by the plaintiff in the plaint, on the other hand Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 supports the case of the defendant. Ex.B11 is the copy of order dated 06.05.2008 in O.A.No.118 of 2005 passed by the Depute Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada. Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 negatives the plea taken by the plaintiff in the plaint, on the other hand Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 supports the case of the defendant. In order to prove the right and title of the Ravamma, the plaintiff failed to produce any documentary evidence and so also oral evidence, therefore, undoubtedly it is clear that the plaintiff could not succeed any right and title from Ravamma under alleged Ex.A1, more over as stated supra, the plaint schedule lands absolutely belongs to the defendant temple and the said schedule lands are the temple property, if at all Ex.A1 is true, no right will accrued to the plaintiff, because the said Ravamma has no right and title in the plaint schedule property by the date of alleged Ex.A1. The testimony of DW1 stands in consonance with the contents of Ex.B1 to Ex.B11. 20. The plaintiff in order to prove his possession relied on Ex.A2 to Ex.A18. It is in the evidence of PW2 and PW3 that they learned that Smt Kandukuri Ravamma gifted the plaint schedule property in the year 2001, since 2001 the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same as owner. In cross examination when elicited, PW2 admits that he do not know where from the plaintiff is getting that money to spend for the temple and he also do not know in how many items the plaint schedule property is situated and he also pleaded ignorance about the conducting public auction for leasehold rights of the plaint schedule property by Ravamma in the presence of Endowments Inspector, Eluru. In cross examination PW3 clearly admits that he do not know in how many items the suit schedule property is situated and he do not know who cultivated the land in the year wise. PW4 is Village Revenue Officer. In his evidence, in cross examination, he admits that for issuance of certified copies of land revenue records, the applicants has to, necessarily, mention for what purpose the document is brought up, and if the registered owner gives his property to another person, his name and photo will be struck off. PW4 is Village Revenue Officer. In his evidence, in cross examination, he admits that for issuance of certified copies of land revenue records, the applicants has to, necessarily, mention for what purpose the document is brought up, and if the registered owner gives his property to another person, his name and photo will be struck off. He further admits that in Ex.X1 1B register the photo of the plaintiff i.e., Namamula Lakshmaiah is affixed in between the second and third column and he was not the Village Revenue Officer at the time of such affix the photo in revenue records. He further admits that as per the adangal for fasli 1411 i.e., on 19.09.2001 the name of the plaintiff i.e., Lakshmaiah is entered on the basis of registered settlement deed and he came to know the plaintiff obtained the certified copies of No.3 adangal regarding faslis prior to 1411 i.e., prior to the year 2001. Ex.A2 to Ex.A17 fail to establish that the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the suit. Admittedly, the possession of the plaintiff is not noted in No.3 adangal in respect of plaint schedule property for the years 2001 to 2005. Admittedly, the suit is filed in the year 2005. 21. Per contra, the defendant relied on the evidence of DW2. As per his evidence, the defendant temple is situated in Denduluru village under the administrative control of A.P. Endowments Department, Eluru and he was retired on 17.08.2007 as Village Revenue Officer and he used to collect land revenue till 2001 from one Kandukuri Ravamma and passed receipts as the said land belongs to the defendant temple and the said land is Ac.5.00 cents and it is the defendant's temple property, the same is mentioned in the 10(1) adangal. As stated supra, the plaintiff relied on Ex.A2 to Ex.A17. The law is well settled that the entries in the revenue records does not confer title on the plaintiff. As stated supra, the claim of the plaintiff is that he got the alleged right and title under Ex.A1 registered settlement deed dated 19.09.2001 said to have been executed by Kandukuri Ravamma. As stated supra the said Ravamma has no right and title in the plaint schedule property to transfer the right under Ex.A1. As stated supra, the claim of the plaintiff is that he got the alleged right and title under Ex.A1 registered settlement deed dated 19.09.2001 said to have been executed by Kandukuri Ravamma. As stated supra the said Ravamma has no right and title in the plaint schedule property to transfer the right under Ex.A1. Admittedly, no revenue record is filed by the plaintiff to show that the Ex.A1 is acted upon and to prove his possession from the year 2001 to 2005 no single document is filed by the plaintiff. As stated supra, the plaintiff failed to prove his donor Ravamma got absolute title to the plaint schedule property, therefore, no importance will be given to Ex.A2 to Ex.A4 because the donor is not having any right to transfer the plaint schedule property under Ex.A1 to the plaintiff. Ex.A1 to Ex.A26 are no way support the case of the plaintiff to prove his right and title in the plaint schedule property, more so, Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 strengthenly support the contention of the defendant that the defendant temple is having valid right and title in the plaint schedule property. For the reasons stated above, the plaintiff is not entitled the main relief of declaration of title in the plaint schedule property. Since the plaintiff is not entitled main relief of declaration of title, question of granting consequential relief of permanent injunction does not arise. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered against the appellant. 22. Point Nos.2 and 3: Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit? Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? In view of my findings on point No.1, I do not find any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and the decree and judgment passed by the trail Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. 23. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the decree and Judgment dated 30.10.2008, in O.S.No.229 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.