JUDGMENT : K. Manmadha Rao, J. As the issue involved in all these civil miscellaneous appeals is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Judgment. 2. All these appeals have been filed by the appellants aggrieved by the common order and decree dated 12.09.2023 passed in O.A No.541 of 2017 & O.A.No.497 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani (for short “the Tribunal”). 3. The appellant in CMA Nos.85 and 86 of 2024 is the petitioner in O.A No.541 of 2017 and the appellants in CMA No.311 of 2024 are the petitioners (respondents No.5 to 8 in O.A No.541 of 2017) in O.A No.497 of 2017 on the file of the Tribunal. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 5. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that the subject temple Sri Rameswara Swamy Temple is an ancient temple, which was constructed around 100 years back and the same is a ‘Parasurama Prathista’ Originally the institution was under the purview of Endowments Department, under Madras Act/HRCE Board and later it was once again registered under Act 17/1996 and presently governed by the provisions of Amended Act 30/1987 and the subject temple was notified as 6(b) temple and it is under the administrative control and supervision of the 2nd respondent. Originally the forefathers of the petitioners rendered Archakatvam service in the subject temple hereditarily from generations together including his father late Chavali Radha Krishna Murthy. Moreover, the petitioner is a Graduate and a qualified Archaka having completed the course of Archaka Pravesa and Vara with specialization in ‘Siva Agamas’. Basically the office of the Archakas in the subject temple is hereditary and five families used to function as hereditary Archakas and used to render Archakatvam service for generations together for times immemorial and even as on today the persons from hereditary Archakas only continued Archakatvam n the subject temple. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 04.05.1951 under doc No.1111/1951 S.R.O. Tenali, the Archakas are entitled to enjoy the income over the ‘Archakatvam service land’ belonging to the subject temple while rendering Archakatvam service to the deity and the same was also approved by the Commissioner of Endowments, vide proceedings in 11153/1970 dated 02.05.1970. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 04.05.1951 under doc No.1111/1951 S.R.O. Tenali, the Archakas are entitled to enjoy the income over the ‘Archakatvam service land’ belonging to the subject temple while rendering Archakatvam service to the deity and the same was also approved by the Commissioner of Endowments, vide proceedings in 11153/1970 dated 02.05.1970. By virtue of the said agreement dated 04.05.1951, the income over the said land has to be shared by 5 families. Moreover, consequent upon the death of five original Archakas, who are the signatories to the said document, their descendants continued in Archakatvam service even though hereditary Archakatvam was abolished after commencement of Act 30/1987 and endowment authorities also never raised any objection with regard to conducting of Archakatvam service by them. While so, the respondents 5 to 7 who are conducting Archakatvam service in the subject temple on rotation, filed WP No.17446 of 1999 before this Court questioning the arrangement of Hundi in the subject temple as it would affect their livelihood and subsequently the petitioner and respondents no.5 to 7 together filed a suit under CFR No.5635 of 1999 before the Senior Civil Judge, Tenali with regard to arranging of Hundi in the subject temple. The petitioner gained good reputation in the public for his service and also from the department and it has become the eyesore for the respondents No.5 to 8 and thereby 6th respondent continued to give the troubles without giving charge for the month of Sravan Masam every year and finally the petitioner was filed W.P.No.23719 of 2013, dated 19.08.2013 wherein the Manager of the subject temple was directed to take appropriate action to restore Archakatvam service to the petitioner in the subject temple, pending disposal of main writ petition. When the 6th respondent herein, who was 4th respondent in WP No.29160 of 2013 failed to comply with the directions of this Court the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, having left with no option, ordered for break open of the locks of the temple for handing over charge to the petitioner in Rc No.A8/7812/2013-2, dated 18.9.2013 and consequently the charges were also framed against the 6th respondent. The same attitude was continued by the 6th respondent even during the years 2014 to 2016, especially in the month of Sravana Masam, despite the directions/interim orders of this Court. The same attitude was continued by the 6th respondent even during the years 2014 to 2016, especially in the month of Sravana Masam, despite the directions/interim orders of this Court. Again the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments passed orders in his favour in Rc No.A8/2502/2014 directing the Manager to proceed to handover the charge to the petitioner by taking police protection even, for implementation of the orders of this Court. Thereafter, the WP No.23719 of 2013 was disposed of directing both the petitioner and 6th respondent to approach A.P. Endowments Tribunal for redressal of their grievance and thereupon they filed these two O.A Nos.497 of 2017 and 541 of 2017. 6. On the other hand, the Executive Officer of the 4th respondent/subject temple has filed counter affidavit and denied all the allegations made in the petitions. It is contended that the petitioner therein filed the O.A.No.541 of 2017 for declaration that he is entitled to perform Archakatvam service in the subject temple as per his turn of 6 months commencing from Sravana Masam to Magha Masam, except Pushya Masam as per custom and usage without any obstructions from the respondents No.5 to 8. The respondents No.5 to 8 therein filed the OA No.497 of 2017 seeking for declaration that they are only entitled to have Archakatvam under the caption of hereditary Archakas of the subject temple Sri Rameswara Swamy temple, but not the 4th respondent i.e. Chavali Hanuma Kumar. It is further contended that, even as per approved property registered u/s 43 dated 12.03.2007 approved in R.Dis.No.A2/ 13776/ 2006, there are no entries with regard to Archakas share and the names of the Archakas and only the details with regard to the landed properties are available and so also about the fact that the Archaka lands are in possession of such Archakas, who are performing the Archakatvam service. It is also contended that the reports of the Executive Officer dated 12.03.2000, 30.07.2000 and 05.10.2001 show the names of 5 to 6 Archakas as eligible for regularization of services, which includes the petitioner i.e., Chavali Hanuma Kumar i.e., being one of the hereditary Archakas for consideration in fixation of cadre strength. It is mainly stated that the petitioner Chavali Hanuma Kumar has to prove the alleged Will dated 24.03.1954 in accordance with law. 7. It is mainly stated that the petitioner Chavali Hanuma Kumar has to prove the alleged Will dated 24.03.1954 in accordance with law. 7. 8th respondent has also filed counter and the same was adopted by the respondents No.5 to 10 and contended that basically there is no cause of action at all. The very prayer made by the petition stating that the is entitled to perform Archakatvam in the subject temple for a period of 6 months every year, especially from Sravana Masam to Magha Masam, except to Pushya Masam is unknown to law, usage and custom prevailing in all the temples and therefore he is not entitled to such relief. The respondents No.5 to 10 therein have filed O.A No.541 of 2017 who are none other than the petitioners in the O.A No.497 of 2017. Initially they filed a suit in O.A No.497 of 2017 seeking to declare the proceedings in Rc.No.A8/4228/13,dated 23.08.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur as null and void and so also declare that they are only the hereditary Archaks entitled to perform Archakatvam service in the subject temple and so also declare the 4th respondent herein, who is none other than the petitioner in O.A No.541 of 2017 does not have any right or interest to render any service in the subject temple either hereditary Archaka or otherwise and so also seeking to grant permanent injunction restraining Sri Chavali Hanuma Kumar from in any way interfering with their right of rendering service in the subject temple as hereditary Archakas. 8. Per contra, the 4th respondent i.e., Chavali Hanuma Kumar filed detailed counter in O.A No.497/2017 and it is nothing but replica of the petition in O.A No.541 of 2017. 9. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for settlement : In O.A.No.541/2017 : (1) Whether the petitioner has right of Archakatvam as claimed? (2) Whether the direction sought for can be issued? (3) To what relief? In OA No.497 of 2017 : (1) Whether the orders dated 23.08.2014 of R2 are invalid? (2) Whether the petitioners have and R4 does not have the right of Archakatvam? (3) To what relief? 10. During the course of trial, in O.A No.541 of 2017 on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to PW.4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P20 so also Exs.X1 to X31 were marked. (2) Whether the petitioners have and R4 does not have the right of Archakatvam? (3) To what relief? 10. During the course of trial, in O.A No.541 of 2017 on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to PW.4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P20 so also Exs.X1 to X31 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.R1 to R30 were marked. 11. Since the subject matter is one and the same and issues to be decided in both the matters are identical and the evidence to be taken into consideration is also similar, the Tribunal has conducted common trial and recorded evidence. 12. Upon perusal of the material on record and on considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has dismissed O.A No.541 of 2017, since the petitioner i.e., Chavali Hanuma Kumar does not come under the purview and ambit of Hereditary Archaka as contemplated under Section 34(3) and is therefore, not entitled to have the share in yielding of Archakatvam lands. However his services in the subject temple as normal ‘Archaka’ are not interfered with. 13. Consequently, O.A No.497 of 2017 was partly allowed, declaring that Penumudi and Potturi families alone come under the ambit of Sec.34 (3) and accordingly the petitioners No.1 to 6 who are respondents No.5 to 10 in O.A No.541/2017 are at liberty to approach the competent authority to recognize the qualified persons from their families and 4th respondent herein i.e., Chavali Hanuma Kumar is restrained from in any way interfering with their Archakatvam service. Consequently the proceedings issued by the Deputy Commissioner in Rc.o.A8/4428/13 dated 23.08.2013 are declared as null and void. It was also held that the 4th respondent is declared as not entitled to have hereditary Archakatvam as contemplated under Section 34(3) and is therefore not entitled to have the share in yielding of Archakatvam lands. However, his services in the subject temple as normal ‘Archaka’ are not interfered with. 14. Challenging the order in O.A.No.541 of 2017, the petitioner therein i.e., Chavali Hanuma Kumar has filed CMA Nos.85 and 86 of 2024 before this Court. 15. Later, aggrieved by the order in O.A No.497/2017, the petitioners No.1, 3 to 6 in O.A No.497/2017 have preferred the CMA No.311 of 2024 before this Court with delay of 30 days in filing the appeal vide I.A.No.1 of 2024. 15. Later, aggrieved by the order in O.A No.497/2017, the petitioners No.1, 3 to 6 in O.A No.497/2017 have preferred the CMA No.311 of 2024 before this Court with delay of 30 days in filing the appeal vide I.A.No.1 of 2024. In view of the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal is condoned and I.A.No.1 of 2024 is allowed. 16. Heard Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CMA Nos.85 and 86 of 2024 and Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in CMA No.311 of 2024; learned Government Pleader for Arbitration and Smt Padmavati Padnavis, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 17. On hearing, Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in CMA Nos.85 and 86 of 2024 while reiterating the averments made in the appeals, contended that the order of the Tribunal is ex-facie illegal for the reason that the Tribunal while dismissing the O.A., held that the O.A applicant i.e., the appellant herein does not come under the purview and ambit of hereditary archaka as contemplated under Sec.34(3) and therefore not entitled to have the share in the yielding of archakatwam lands. Ignoring the fact that the Endowments Tribunal does not have the power to declare any person as a hereditary archaka consequent to the abolition of hereditary rights and after brining into force Act, 30 of 1987. He further submits that the Tribunal has totally ignored the prayer of the petitioner i.e., the appellant herein wherein he sought a declaration that he is entitled to perform archakatwam service in the subject temple of Sri Rameswara Swamy Temple, Ganganammapet, Tenali as per his turn for a period of 6 months commencing from Sravana Maasam excepting Pushya Maasam as per his custom and usage in every year without obstruction from the respondents 5 to 10 i.e., the unofficial respondents and other consequential reliefs. He further submits that the Tribunal had passed an order in favor of the respondents 5 to 10 in an OA filed by the petitioner and going to the extent of enlarging the scope of the OA by adjudicating an issue wherein the petitioner status as a hereditary archaka was discussed. He further submits that the Tribunal had passed an order in favor of the respondents 5 to 10 in an OA filed by the petitioner and going to the extent of enlarging the scope of the OA by adjudicating an issue wherein the petitioner status as a hereditary archaka was discussed. He mainly contended that the Tribunal totally ignored the issues in question which related to the right of the petitioner to render archakatwam service in the subject temple along with the respondents 5 to 10 on the strength of the agreements entered in between the appellant and the unofficial respondents which was being continued for the last 50 years. He submits that the Tribunal conveniently ignored the Will dated 24-03-1954 which speaks about the registered agreement with regard to the personal properties and also with regard to the archakatwam service in the subject temple in between the petitioner in the OA and the other persons which also covers the enjoyment of the temple lands. He further submits that the Tribunal has also erred in passing the order for the reason that the appellant herein who was one of the petitioners along with respondents 5 to 10 in W.P.No.17446 of 1990 claiming themselves to be archakas of the subject temple had sought for a relief against the temple from installing a hundy, in the subject temple and the same was ignored by the Tribunal, to favour respondents 5 to 10. He further submits that the finding given by Tribunal is contradictory for the reason that Ex.P-3 registered agreement dated 04-05-1951 registered in the office of the SRO, Tenali still holds the field and when the service is being allowed in conformity with the same the Tribunal is not justified to ignore this crucial evidence. He further submits that Tribunal also erred the mere non-entry of the name of the appellant in the 43-register cannot be termed as a disqualification a reason to continue the petitioners in the OA for rendering archakatwam by applying this principle choosily ignoring respondents 5 to 10 who are similarly placed. 18. To support his contentions, Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel has relied upon Section 17 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”). He submits that as per Section 17 of the Act, which reads as under : Section 17. 18. To support his contentions, Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel has relied upon Section 17 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”). He submits that as per Section 17 of the Act, which reads as under : Section 17. Procedure for making appointments of trustees and their term:- (1) In making the appointment of trustees under Section 15, the Government, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, shall have due regard to the religious denomination or any section thereof to which the institution belongs or the endowment is made and the wishes of the founder:[Provided that the founder or one of the members of the family of the founder, if qualified as prescribed shall be appointed as one of the Trustees. [Explanation 1. - 'Founder' means,- (a) in respect of Institution or Endowments existing at the commencement of this Act, the person who was recognized as Hereditary Trustee under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 or a Member of his family recognized by the Competent Authority; (b) In respect of an Institution or Endowment established after such commencement, the person who has founded such Institution or Endowment or a member of his family and recognized as such by the competent authority.]Explanation II. - "Member of the family of the founder" means children, grand children and so in agnatic line of succession for the time being in force and declared or recognized as such by the relevant appointing authority. Explanation III. - Those persons who founded temples by collecting donations partly or fully from the public as well as those who founded them on public lands shall not be recognized as founder trustees by any means. 19. Learned counsel while relying upon the above decision requests this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the order in O.A.No.541 of 2017 passed by the Tribunal. 20. On the other hand, Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in CMA No.311 of 2024 also reiterated the contents made in the applications. 19. Learned counsel while relying upon the above decision requests this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the order in O.A.No.541 of 2017 passed by the Tribunal. 20. On the other hand, Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in CMA No.311 of 2024 also reiterated the contents made in the applications. He contended that the endowment tribunal failed to see that the 4th respondent, who is appellant in CMA Nos.85 and 86 of 2024 has no right to be the Archaka of the temple, once it has been established beyond doubt that he is not a hereditary archaka. He submits that the endowments tribunal also failed to see that Ex.R.10 dated 04-05-1951 categorically enable the hereditary archakas to engage deputies of their choice on their behalf and neither the temple nor executive officer nor the endowments tribunal cannot issue directions to engage the 4th respondent as one of the archaka especially when his right as claimed by him was totally negatived and that the abundant evidence on record would show the amount of bad bled he has created to spoil serine atmosphere and because of his highhanded acts in collusion with the others, spoiled the reputation of the hereditary archakas and the temple respectively to achieve his near ends with an oblique motive. He further submits that the order in O.A No.497 of 2017 is vitiated as having noticed his licentious conduct as apparent from Ex.R.16 to Ex.R.30 and Ex.P.9, Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.13, the endowment tribunal ought not to have given the impugned direction. He further submits that the order of the tribunal is vitiated as Act 30 of 1987 came into force on 04-04-1987 and the 4th respondent failed to establish that he was holding the office of archaka as on 04-04-1987 and Sec.34(2) is a clear bar. He also submits that as the father of the respondent died on 22.07.1997 but not during the year 1987 as contended by him in W.P.No.23791 of 2013 and batch as evident from his own admission in his examination as P.W.1 and also that as on the date of Act.30 of 1987 come into force he did not work as an archaka and basing on his admissions, the endowment tribunal ought to have totally negated the claim of the 4th respondent that he is not entitled to continue an archaka, as well. He further submits that the order of the endowment tribunal is vitiated having disbelieved Ex.P.3/R.10 he failed to prove the unregistered Will dated 23-04-1954 and he failed to establish that his father and grandfather worked as an archaka of the temple much less as hereditary archaka and once the Will was disbelieved and by virtue of Ex.R.12 and Ex.X.31 and the Ex.P.1 did not see the light of the day till the 4th respondent filed W.P.No.23719 of 2013, the endowment tribunal ought to have held that the 4th respondent is not entitled for any relief. He further submits that the Tribunal has also failed establishing 4th respondent’s right under the said Ex.P.1 Will, and he is not entitled any benefit or continuation. He further submits that the Tribunal also erred in passing the order as the 4th respondent failed to discharge his burden and that Ex.X12 to Ex.X28 and Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 and Ex.P16 to Ex.P18 are subsequent to the filing of W.P.No.23719 of 2013 and they are fabricated with an obelic notice the active conveyance with the then Executive Officer. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants in CMA No.311 of 2024 requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 21. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents have also reiterated the contents made in the applications. 22. On perusing the material available on record, it is observed that, in O.A No.541 of 2017, the forefathers of the petitioner rendered Archakatvam service in the subject temple hereditarily for generations together including the father of the petitioner i.e., Late Chavali Radha Krishna Murthy. The petitioner even during the lifetime of father of the petitioner used to assist his father in Archakatvam service in the subject temple. It is also observed that the agreement in the form of a settlement deed is in conformity with the order of the HRCE Board. As per the terms and conditions of the said Deed, the parties to the agreement/ Archakas are entitled to enjoy the income over the archakatvam service lands belonging to the subject temple while rendering Archakatvam Service in the subject temple. The same was also approved by the Commissioner Endowments, Hyderabad vide proceedings in 11153/1970 dated 02-05-1970. As per the terms and conditions of the said Deed, the parties to the agreement/ Archakas are entitled to enjoy the income over the archakatvam service lands belonging to the subject temple while rendering Archakatvam Service in the subject temple. The same was also approved by the Commissioner Endowments, Hyderabad vide proceedings in 11153/1970 dated 02-05-1970. All the Hereditary Archakas are parties to the above said Registered Agreement under document No.1111/1951 namely 1) Potturi Satyanarayana 2) Potturi Lakshmikatha Rao 3) Penumudi Hanumantha Rao 4) Penumudi Seshaiah 5) Penumudi Venkata Siva Subrahmanyam 6) Penumudi Koteswara Rao 7) Penumudi Venkata Subba Rao (5 to 7 being the minors Rep. by their mother Smt. Meenakshamma). 23. This Court also observed that, as per the agreement between the hereditary Archakas and the Hereditary Trustees dated 04-05-1951 the hereditary Archakatvam in the subject temple and the enjoyment of the Income over the Archakatvam Service land was shared by 5 families. It is also observed that, the appellant in CMA Nos.85 and 86 is connected with Late Penumudi Seshaiah who is one of the signatory and party to the said agreement and the respondents 5 to 8 are connected with the other hereditary archakas who are parties to the said agreement dated 04-05-1951 under document No.1111/1951. All the 5 hereditary Archaka families rendered Archakatvam Service in the subject temple and enjoyed the income over the archakatvam service lands belonging to the subject temple and on demise of the hereditary Archakas who were parties to the sale agreement the descendants in the said families continued the hereditary archakatvam Service in the subject temple even after commencement of Act.30 of 1987 though there is a abolition of hereditary rights as per the said Act. and the Endowments Department Authorities never raised any objection with regard to the conducting Archakatvam Service in the subject temple in consonance with the above referred agreement dated 04-05-1951 as the said agreement was infact approved by the Commissioner Endowment, Hyderabad vide proceedings dated 02-05-1970 In RC No.11153/1970. 24. Insofar as the appellant in CMA Nos.85 and 86 of 2024 i.e., petitioner Chavali Hanuma Kumar is concerned, he is connected with hereditary Archaka Penumudi Seshalah who was not having any Issues. 24. Insofar as the appellant in CMA Nos.85 and 86 of 2024 i.e., petitioner Chavali Hanuma Kumar is concerned, he is connected with hereditary Archaka Penumudi Seshalah who was not having any Issues. As such during his life time, the said Penumudi Seshiah in a sound and disposable state of mind executed a will dated 24-03-1954 and thereby made arrangements in connection with the properties and also in connection with the hereditary Archakatvam Services being enjoyed by him connected with the subject temple including the Archakatvam service lands under his enjoyment being one of the party and sharer of Archakatvam Service in the subject temple as per the Registered Agreement dated 04.05.1951. Subsequently on demise of the said Chavali Hanumantha Rao and Chavall Chandramouli the descendants in their families became entitled to enjoy the hereditary Archakatam rights in the subject temple. 25. Admittedly, the PW.1, who is the appellant in CMA Nos.85 and 86 of 2024 who is the petitioner in OA No.541 of 2017, has been working in the subject temple and he was also recognized as Archaka by the temple authorities for all practical purposes. It is also observed from the impugned order that, as deposed by P.W.1, the Tribunal has no objection to continue him as Archaka on their rolls. But he is not entitled to have the share in Archakatvam lands, because he cannot be recognized as hereditary Archaka. Therefore, his right and entitlement to continue as Archaka cannot be interfered with. Further, since Chavali and Penumudi families alone are entitled by virtue of Ex.P1 Agreement, they alone are entitled to enjoy the usufruct over Archakatvam lands as detailed therein and Chavali Hanuma Kumar has no right or role to interfere the same. Therefore, his continuation in the temple as Archaka is not interfered with by this Tribunal and it is for the temple authorities to take decision in respect of his Archakatvam service. 26. Viewed from any angle, the Tribunal has right in dismissing O.A No.541 of 2017. Accordingly, this Court found no merit in the instant appeals i.e., CMA Nos.85 and 86 of 2024 and the same are liable to be dismissed. 27. Accordingly, the CMA Nos. 85 and 86 of 2024 are dismissed. 28. Insofar as CMA No.311 of 2024 is concerned, the Tribunal also came to correct conclusion and partly allowed the O.A No.497 of 2017 which was filed by petitioners/ appellants. 27. Accordingly, the CMA Nos. 85 and 86 of 2024 are dismissed. 28. Insofar as CMA No.311 of 2024 is concerned, the Tribunal also came to correct conclusion and partly allowed the O.A No.497 of 2017 which was filed by petitioners/ appellants. Therefore, this Court found no illegality in the order passed in O.A.No.497 of 2017 and warrants no interference and devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 29. Accordingly, CMA No.311 of 2024 is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.