Judgment : VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 15.02.2016 in A.S.No.50 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni (“First Appellate Court” for short), reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 20.10.2010 in O.S.No.169 of 2004, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur (“Trial Court” for short). 2. The appellant Nos.1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs and 1 st respondent herein is sole defendant in O.S.No.169 of 2004, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur. During the pendency of the appeal suit before First Appellate Court, 1 st respondent herein died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.2 to 4 therein. The 3 rd appellant herein died during the pendency of this appeal and her legal representatives were brought on record as appellant Nos.4 and 5 and that the 2 nd appellant herein died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.5 to 10. 3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.169 of 2004, on the file of Junior Civil Judge,Yemmiganur, with a prayer for declaring the plaintiffs to perform the duty of Archakathvam on yearly term basis as well as defendant and order to deliver the keys and ornaments of Lord Beerappa Swamy Temple situated in Chetnipalli Village, Mantralayam Mandal every year after performing Sivarathri Utsvam on rotation every year to the plaintiffs and defendant; to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and servants, etc., from interfering in any manner in discharging the duty of Archakathvam during the period of plaintiffs and for costs of the suit. 4. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.50 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. The learned II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, allowed the appeal by reversing the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.169 of 2004, is as follows: (i) The plaintiffs and defendant are residents of Chetnipalle Village of Mantralayam Mandal. There is a Beerappa Swamy Temple situated at Chetnipalli Village, constructed about 100 years ago by the ancestors of the plaintiffs, performed the Archakathvam and offered prayers to the said Beerappa Swamy from the time immemorial. The plaintiffs and defendant are belongs to Kuruva community and all the Kuruva community people are offering prayers to the said Beerappa Swamy as per their customs and usages. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are father and son and are performing the Archakathvam of Beerappa Swamy Temple. As per the understanding, the plaintiffs perform Archakathvam for a period of ten years and handed over the same to the defendant for a period of ten years. In the year 1988, the defendant violated the said practice and custom and interfered intentionally and purposefully in discharging the duties of Archakathvam of the said Beerappa Swamy temple. The 1 st plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.21 of 1988 on the file of this Court against the defendant for permanent injunction restraining not to interfere in any manner. After filing of the said suit, the village elders by name S.K. Venkoba Rao, R.P. Basavanna Gowd and community elders have effected amicable settlement between the 1 st plaintiff and defendant and the said suit is dismissed for default on 18.07.1988. As per the settlement, the plaintiffs and defendant agreed to perform the Archakathvam of the said Beerappa Swmay temple on yearly basis. The temple keys and ornaments of Lord Beerappa Swmay to be handed over as per their term on yearly basis. (ii) The 1 st plaintiff died on 10.12.2007 by leaving behind him, his wife and son, who are the plaintiffs 2 and 3. The 2 nd plaintiff is assisting the 1 st plaintiff in performing the Archakathvam. The defendant handed over the keys and ornaments of said Beerappa Swamy Temple after completion of Sivarathri Uthsavam in the month of February, 2004. The 2 nd plaintiff is assisting the 1 st plaintiff in performing the Archakathvam. The defendant handed over the keys and ornaments of said Beerappa Swamy Temple after completion of Sivarathri Uthsavam in the month of February, 2004. The defendant intentionally and purposefully started interfering in discharging the duties of Archakathvam without any right. On 10.08.2004 the defendant got issued a legal notice to the plaintiffs and others. On 30.08.2004, the plaintiffs got issued reply notice. On 12.09.2004 the defendant made a forcible attempt with the support of followers and political leaders to dispossess the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs prevented the same with the help of devotees. The plaintiffs are in lawful possession and enjoyment of Inam land of Beerappa Devatha in Sy.No.253 to an extent of Ac.3.39 cents of Chetnipalle village. The defendant has no right to do so during the period of plaintiffs in discharging the duty of Archakathvam. 7. The defendant filed written statement before the trial Court. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows: There was a very small Shivalayam Temple in the village, which was known as Sri Beerappa Sivalayam and as Beeralingeswara Swamy Temple in Chetnipalle village. Beerappa died about 30 years back without issues. During his lifetime, his brother Pujari Lingappa was looking after him and was living like a Sadhu. After the death of Beerappa, his younger brother Pujari Lingappa came into possession of the temple and all its properties, etc., and performed the duties of Archaka for about 12 to 13 years and died leaving behind his sons Pujari Naganna, Pujari Piddappa, Pujari Mallaiah and Pujari Hanumanthu and during the life time of Pujari Lingappa, all of his 4 sons assisting him in performing the temple duties. After the death of Pujari Lingappa, his second son Pujari Piddeppa i.e., the defendant herein has been performing the duties of the temple. The plaintiffs have nothing to do with the performance of any duties of Beerappa temple, Chetnipalle. Neither the plaintiffs nor their ancestors at any time officiated or performed any kind of duties of the temple except as devotees of the temple. The plaintiffs have nothing to do with the performance of any duties of Beerappa temple, Chetnipalle. Neither the plaintiffs nor their ancestors at any time officiated or performed any kind of duties of the temple except as devotees of the temple. The Silver ornaments of the Temple such as horses and drums (14 in Nos.), umbrellas (16 in Nos.), etc., in all weighing about 19 Kgs., documents relating to temple and financial offering and investment of the same by way of loan and interest to the members of Kuruva community and landed properties of the temple to an extent of Ac.13.46 cents are all in the possession of the defendant and his brothers. Every year, during the Sivarathri festival, large number of devotees, more particularly, the members of Kuruva community have been visiting the temple. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are performing the Archakatvam of Lord Beerappa Swamy Temple from February, 2004? (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for? (3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration as sought for against the defendant? (4) To what relief? The trial court framed the following additional issue on 07.03.2008: Whether the 3 rd plaintiff is a necessary and proper party to the suit? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 to D.W.7 were examined and no documents were marked. 10. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.50 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, wherein, the following points came up for consideration: 1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration that themselves and the defendant are having right to perform Archakatvam of Beerappa Swamy Temple in Chetnipalle Village on year-wise rotation basis? 2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant? 3) To what relief? 11. 2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant? 3) To what relief? 11. The learned II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the plaintiffs and allowed the appeal reversing the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Felt aggrieved of the same, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.169 of 2004 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 12. On hearing both side counsels at the time of admission of the appeal, on 03.08.2016, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, framed the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court misconstrued the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 by wrong application of principles of law in construing the documents marked as Exhibits A.3 and A.7 in allowing the appeal suit by reversing the well consider judgment and decree in the suit? (2) Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court is manifestly unreasonable and unjust one in context of evidence on record? (3) Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in law and facts in allowing the appeal suit based on the oral evidence of D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.3 without any documents filed in support of their depositions? (4) Whether the finding of the Lower Appellate Court based on the evidence of D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.3 is proper and based on legally admissible evidence? (5) Whether the Lower Appellate Court committed error of law and fact in disbelieving the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and construing the documents Exhibits A.3 and A.7 in reversing the judgment and decree passed in the suit while allowing the appeal suit? 13. Heard Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and heard Sri K. Rajanna, learned counsel for the respondents. 14. Law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence. In a case of Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh , [ AIR 1993 SC 398 ] , the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court which was the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature.” In a case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar , [ AIR 1999 SC 471 ] , the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the First Appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.” 15. The case of the appellants is that themselves and 1 st respondent are having right to perform Archakatvam of Beerappa Swamy Temple in Chetnipalle village on rotation basis of every year. The appellants/plaintiffs approached the trial Court for seeking declaratory rights to perform Archakatvam at Chetnipalle village on rotation basis of every year along with defendant. 16. It is a trite law that in a suit for declaratory rights of Archakatvam, the burden is always lies on the plaintiffs to make out and establish clear case for granting such declaratory relief and the weaknesses, if any, of the case set up by the defendant would not be a ground to grant relief of declaration of rights of Archakatvam in temple in favour of the plaintiffs. It was incumbent on the part of the Court to record a finding on the claim of rights of Archakatvam on rotation basis along with defendant in a temple, the Court is also bound to enquire or investigate that question on first before going into any other question that may arise in a suit proceedings. 17. The plaintiffs in order to discharge their burden relied on the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and relied on Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7. 17. The plaintiffs in order to discharge their burden relied on the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and relied on Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7. As per the own case of the plaintiffs, there was an understanding between the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendant, the plaintiffs and defendant used to perform Archakatvam of temple for a period of 10 years each and after expiry of 10 years, they used to handover Archakatvam to the other. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record to show that the plaintiffs and defendant have to perform Archakatvam of the temple as stated supra. As per the own admissions of P.W.1, a mediation was held only once after the year 1988. As noticed supra, there is no evidence on record there was an understanding between both the parties that they have to perform Archakatvam for every year on rotation basis. Admittedly, the plaintiffs instituted a suit in O.S.No.21 of 1988 against the defendant before the District Munsif Court, Yemmiganur, for seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The contention of the plaintiffs is that during the pendency of the said suit, the village elders viz., S.K. Venkoba Rao, R.P. Basavanna Goud and others effected an amicable settlement between the 1 st plaintiff and defendant. The alleged S.K. Venkoba Rao, R.P. Basavanna Goud are not yet examined as witnesses by the plaintiffs. 18. The plaintiffs relied on Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7. Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are copies of legal notices. Ex.A.3 is No.3 Adangal. The dispute in between both the parties are not in respect of landed properties. The plaintiffs also relied on Ex.A.4 to Ex.A.7. Ex.A.4 is Photostat copy of plaint in O.S.No.21 of 1988; Ex.A.5 is certified copy of plaint in the said suit, O.S.No.21 of 1988; Ex.A.6 is the certified copy of judgment in the suit proceedings in O.S.No.21 of 1988 and Ex.A.7 is the certified copy of letter of understanding, dated 03.03.1987. It is admitted case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs instituted a suit in O.S.No.21 of 1988 against the defendant on the file of the District Munsif Court, Yemmiganur and there was an understanding during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.21 of 1988 itself that both the parties have to perform Archakatvam on rotation basis for every year. It is admitted case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs instituted a suit in O.S.No.21 of 1988 against the defendant on the file of the District Munsif Court, Yemmiganur and there was an understanding during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.21 of 1988 itself that both the parties have to perform Archakatvam on rotation basis for every year. But, as per the own admissions of the plaintiffs in the plaint, the settlement was arrived in between the plaintiffs and defendant during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.21 of 1988. As seen from the said alleged understanding letter, that alleged understanding was happened on 03.03.1987. Ex.A.7 clearly goes to show that the alleged settlement was taken place on 03.03.1987. There is no whisper in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 about the alleged Ex.A.7. The contention of the defendant is that Ex.A.7 is not a genuine and fabricated document. As stated supra, there is no evidence on record to show that Ex.A.7 was acted upon. Furthermore, as per the own case of the plaintiffs the alleged settlement was taken place during the pendency of the suit proceedings in O.S.No.21 of 1988. But, as seen from Ex.A.7, the alleged understanding in between both the parties which was happened on 03.03.1987 much earlier to the institution of the suit in O.S.No.21 of 1988. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the plaintiffs that there was an oral understanding in between both the parties that they have to perform Archakatvam on rotation basis. The plaintiffs failed to prove about their rights in respect of Archakatvam on rotation basis for every year with the defendant. 19. The specific case of the defendant is that during his lifetime, his brother Pujari Lingappa was looking after him and was living like a Sadhu and Bheerappa performed the duties of Pujari and archaka of the said Bheelingeswara Swamy Temple (Bheerappa temple), prior to him, his father and grandfather were performing the said duties and removed the then structure of the temple and constructed the present structure and until his death he was looking after the same and was also possession and enjoyment of movable and immovable properties of the temple. The defendant further pleaded that after the death of Bheerappa about 30 years back, his younger brother Pujari Lingappa came into possession of the temple and all its properties, etc., and performed the duties of Archaka for about 12 to 13 years and died leaving behind his sons viz., Pujari Naganna, Pujari Piddappa, Pujari Mallaiah and Pujari Hanumanthu and during the life of Pujari Lingappa, all of his 4 sons assisting him in performing the temple duties. The defendant further pleaded that after the death of Pujari Lingappa, his second son Pujari Piddeppa i.e., the defendant herein has been performing the duties of the temple. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the performance of Archakatvam in Bheerappa Temple. In order to prove the defence, the defendant relied on the evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.7. 20. As stated supra, the plaintiffs approached the trial Court for seeking declaratory rights to perform Archakatvam along with the defendant for every year on rotation basis. As stated supra, since the plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief of rights of performing Archakatvam, the burden heavily casts on the plaintiffs to prove the said aspect, but the plaintiffs did not choose to adduce any cogent evidence to prove about the alleged rights of performing Archakatvam along with the defendant on rotation basis for every year. The learned trial Judge after conclusion of trial, gave finding that the defendant did not make any efforts before the trial Court to show that Ex.A.7 is a false document and the learned trial Judge also pointed out some of the admissions made by the defendant in cross examination in his evidence. 21. As stated supra, the plaintiffs approached the trial Court for seeking declaratory relief claiming rights of Archakatvam together with defendant on rotation basis. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial Judge in a suit filed by plaintiffs for a declaratory relief that the defendant has not proved his case is unknown to law. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned First Appellate Judge rightly set aside the findings given by the learned trial Judge and rightly allowed the First Appeal, therefore, I do not find any illegality in the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Judge and the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. 22. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned First Appellate Judge rightly set aside the findings given by the learned trial Judge and rightly allowed the First Appeal, therefore, I do not find any illegality in the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Judge and the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 15.02.2016 in A.S.No.50 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in the second appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.