Aravind Kumar, J. - (1.)Heard Sri. R. Chandrashekar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri. Anandeeshwara, learned HCGP appearing for respondents. Perused the records.
(2.)I.A.1/2018 is filed by learned Advocate appearing for petitioner seeking for production of Annexure-L to Annexure-R which are said to be the documents to establish the category under which the temple in question would fall and also to establish as to how the impugned order is affecting the petitioner for subsequent years. Objections have not been filed to the said application. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate appearing for parties, this Court is of the considered view that production of additional documents would not prejudice the respondents in any manner whatsoever, but on the other hand, it would enable this Court to take into consideration all the relevant aspects for adjudicating the petition on merits.
(3.)One Sri.M.Bhaskarlu Naidu of Robertsonpet, K.G.F and a devotee of Lord Sri Venkateshwara Swamy and Padmavathi Devi god and goddess of Hindu deities and main deity situated at Tirumala hills, with an intention to construct a temple in his land out of his own earnings, constructed a temple of Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Swamy and Padmavathi Devi by installing said deities for being worshiped every day with all customary rituals and ceremonies as being conducted at Tirumala temple. On the demise of said Sri M.Bhaskarlu Naidu, his son-in-law Sri B Bhaskarlu Naidu continued to perform the customary rituals at the temple. Since he was finding it difficult to maintain the day-to-day affairs of the temple, he executed a gift deed dated 10-12-1936 (Annexure-A) in favour of the then Maharaja of Mysore with a condition in the gift that he would be the first 'Dharmadharshi' and on his demise, one person to be elected from his family and one person from Sri. M.Bhaskarlu Naidu's family would take care of the temple management with the help and assistance of Government .