Rajendra Babu, J. - (1.) These appeals arise out of a suit brought by Manjeti Venkata Nagabhushana Rao and Manjeti Lakshmi Kanta Rao against the State of Andhra Pradesh and others for a declaration that the property comprised in R.S. No. 400 with a building thereon bearing Municipal No. 15/184 at Chilakalapudi, Masulipatnam measuring Ac. 17-61 cents in which the plaintiffs have a half share is not subject to any public or charitable trust or endowment or provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 that the Order G.O.Ms. No. 1501 dated July 12, 1979 is void; and for certain other consequential reliefs. For purposes of convenience we will refer to the parties as arrayed in the suit.
(2.) The trial Court framed several issues as to whether (1) the notification dated July 28, 1960 is valid and binding on the plaintiffs; (2) the suit property is subject to any charitable trust or endowment; (3) the aggrieved parties are estopped from questioning the ownership; (4) any of the parties have perfected their title by adverse possession; (5) the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit after Act 17 of 1966 came into force; (6) the order of the third defendant dated May 26, in O.A. No. 50/69 is conclusive and binding on the parties; and (7) any of the parties are estopped from contending that the plaint schedule property constitutes charitable endowment in view of the order of the third defendant in O.A. No. 50/69. On all the issues the trial Court held against the plaintiffs. Two appeals were filed in the High Court against the judgment of the trial Court which were dismissed. Thereupon two Letters Patent Appeals were filed.
(3.) When the suit was pending in the trial Court the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came into force from January 26, 1967 and defendants Nos. 4 to 12 filed a petition (O.A. No. 50 of 1969) under Section 77 of the Act before the third defendant in the suit and that petition ended in their favour by holding that the property had been purchased by the applicant and other members of his family in a Court auction and they had been enjoying the same for nearly 40 years and no one had questioned their enjoyment on the ground that the property was subject to any public charity of endowment. The third defendant made a declaration that the said property is not public charity or subject to any endowment. That order became final inasmuch as no appeal or suit as contemplated under the Act had been filed. In the circumstances when the order made by the Deputy Commissioner had attained finality and conclusiveness and the matter could not be challenged except in the manner provided under the Act and that course having not been adopted the High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeals and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as affirmed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. Hence this appeal.;