The High Court · 2025

Judgment

r\ggrieved bv tl-re 'ludgment and Decree datec 09 12'2014 passed in O.A.No.38 of 20i0 (o1d O A'No 53 of 19') 1) on the file oftheAPEndowmentsTribuna-l,Hyderabad({crshort.the Tribunal), this Civil Miscelianeous Appeal is filed L nder Section 88 of the Endowments Act, 30 of 1987 read with z mended Act' 33 of 2007. c

Heard Mr. M.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel cr appellant' None appears for re spondent-Department'

3. Parties are referred to as in O'A'No'38 O.A.No,53 of 1998). Petitioner in O'A' alleges tl-a 1950, a tempie dedicated to lord Rama was consl his residentiai premises for his family membelr other ceremonies are said to have been performe J members of Sri G.R,Kuppuswamy Naidu with tlt without collecting any donations from the publi: rf 2010 (old t in the Year -ucted within . Poojas and by the familY :ir own funds it is claimed 2 \ that it is purely a private family property, not endowecl as per Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act No.30 of I9g7 (tor short ,ApCHRIE Act,). A few sl6p5 were attached to the temple for the maintenance to meet expenses for Nitya Nyvedyam ancl Deeparadhana, etc. Further, a Plot No.1g0/ I I adjacent to the temple was given in favour of the temple.

4. A notice dated Og.Og. 199g was received by one M.B. Naidu (elder son of Sri G.R.Kuppuswamy Naidu, a person who constructed the temple). The said notice was under section 15 of APCHRIE Act, dated 22.07.1998, objections were filed before the Deputy commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad . Respondents (Endowments Authorities) also filed objections, stating that the temple is a public Religious Instirution publishecl under Section 6(c)(ii), registered under Section 3g of APCHRIE Act, on an application by the founder of the temple and that he executed a Trust deed for the maintenance of the Institution with some immovable properties to the temple. i! i 3

5. Tribunal, after considering the evidence < I pW1 for applicants, RW1 for respondents, Exs.Al and A2 marked for applicants and the objections, held that that old Rzr nalayam at D.No.2-7-22U 1, Nallkunta, Hyderabad, is a purlic temple (endowed property). The said judgment in O.A.No. lg of 2010 dated 09.12.2O14 is under challenge in the CMA.

6. Learned counsel for appellant/petitioner sutr appellent's grand-father (Sri G.R.Kuppuswamy Naic of the temple had constructed the temple in the ve his residential prcmises solely for the purpose o.- members as Lord Rama being their ,lsta Devatha,. I submitted that Poojas, Nithya Nyvedyam, Deeparac litted that u) founder rr l95O in his family is lurther hana, etc. were performed by the family members and the sam: were done without collecting any donations from the public. It contended that the property was never endor,".t Endowments Department and that the acts of I characterized the temple not to be an endowed proper is further d to the he family ?v, 7 . I t is submitted that notice does not reflect any e 'ounds by n,l-rich the temple could be considered as an endowec property, 4 \ except quoting Section 6 of ApCHRIE Act. it is further submitted that in the remarks offered by the authorities, construction of temple was not denied, dedication to Lord Rama, that certain residentia_I blocks and shops attached for the maintenance of the temple to meet the expenses were not denied. It is pointed out that temple was managed with own resources, without collecting any public donations and that these remarks of the Assistant Commissioner establish the fzrct that the temple cannot be caled to be an enclou,ed properry to be under the administrative control of thc Endow,ments Department.

8. Leamed counsel invited that attention of this Court to the order of the Tribunal and submitted that Tribunal erred in drawing an adverse inference in the absence of w l as such when it was specifically pleaded and proved that the temple was being maintained out of the own funds of the founder family memlers, such drawing of an adverse inference is not in accordance with law. It is also contended that mere non production of Will does not vest the property to be the property .--,ri?j+.:5_----- 5 of Endou,mcnt Departmcnt. It is also contended th I no specific date has been brought on record with regard to t le property bcir-rg cndorved. That order of the Tribunal suffers ll tm the vice of illegality and hence, be set aside.

9. There is no appearance on behalf of -espondent Department 1n spite of the matter being posted under the caption 'for orders,. The cause list displays tL t name of Government pleader for Endowments Department

10. Heard learned counsel, considered the subm ir srons and perused the record 1 1 Sri G R.Kuppuswamy Nardu is the grand-far.r er of the appellant. Case of appellant is that Sri G.R.Kuppus\\ i my Naidu got constructed a temple of Lord Rama in 1950 out r I his own personal funds ivithou r donations from the public. .l I rt poojas, Nit.va Deepa Doopa Nyveciyam, etc., offering to the de:1, was out ol ou,n fund s, The Kalyanam of Lord Rama on ther < ay 9f g1l Rama Navami being performed out of own funds, nc Hundi in the temple. In the parawise rema_rks of the \ssistant L l l I I I I I l I I I t 1 I i l : '! f I l l 6 Commissioner (a copy annexed at Page No.I9), it is reflectcd that temple was constructed by Sri G.R.Kuppuswamy Naidu and that Poojas were being perlormed by his family. It is observed that the Assistant Commissioner stated certain residential blocks and shops were attached to the temple for the purposes of maintenance of the temple to meet expenses. On the basis of these facts borne on record, the contention was that the temple is not an endowed property and the provisions of the Act have no application. The case of the respondents is that there is no evidence that temple was not constructed with the donations from the public and as such the dispute that Sri G.R.Kuppuswamy Naidu got constructed the temple on the site purchased by him with his funds.

12. A copy of judgment dated 24.08.1954 in O.S.No.2O7 of 1951 on the file of IV Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabacl, is relied to buttress the case oi appellant. Suit was filed b-y rhe founder of the temple for possession of land in Sy.No. lg0/ 1 l. Tribunal taking into consideration Ex.A I - copy of the judgment, Ex.AZ - certified copy of the decree held that the said 7 judgment ar.rd decree do not support the case of l 'W 1 that the temple is a private one. The contention of the lerr 'ned counsel for appellant that it was a private temple, by 'elying upon Exs.A 1 and A2, thus is rn,atered down. It is also o1> erved by the Tribur-ral that RW 1, the personnel of the departme ,)t was cross extrrnined but nothrng r.r,as elicited to hold that tlr r temple was a private one. I 3. PW 1 (appellant/ petitioner) filed an af i lavit (chief examination afhdavit), in his affidavit he stated th€ I the brother of founder of the temple in his Will executed on

26.O9 .t97 I, house bearing No.2-l-222/BL, be handed over t,) the trustees of Rama Mandir at Nallakunta and that it was err lowed to the temple further expressing his intention that the .ncome from house be spent for performing Nitya Deepa Doo : r Nyvedyam. PW 1 in support of his evidence stated that Will executed in 197 1 is sulfice to buttress the contention that it r /as a private temple, did not hle a copy of the Will. In the abser r e of the Wi1l, this Court does not hnd any infirmity in the Trit unai finding 8 that the appellant was unable to supPort his case that the temple was a private one.

14. Though it was averred by PW1 that temple was being maintained without Hundi or any sale of tickets and it was maintained out of personal funds without collecting any donations and that rents are being used for the maintenance of the temple, he in his cross-examination deposed that his grand- father executed a Will of how to manage the temple affairs and that a copy of the Will was appended with the Seclion 38 Register of APCHRIE Act. Further in his cross examination, deposed that public were allowed into the temple on special occasions for purposes of Poojas with the pcrmission. This Court does not hnd any reasons to interfere with the hnding of the Tribunal. The evidence on record is suffice to hoid that the temple is not private one.

15. Section 38 of APCHRIE Act is as follows: "38. Power of Commlssioner' Deputy Commissloner or Assistant Commissioner to Punish ofllce-holders etc., in certain cases - (1) Where it is noticed by the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Cornmissioner having jurisdiction that any 9 ol'ficc Iroldcr or servant attached to an institutic i:rldorvmenr has not been dezrlt with suitably by the tr ol the Executive Officer as the case may be under s r 37 lor any of the lapses specified in sub-section (1) th the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner cr Assistarrt Commissioner as the case may be, may diro( trustee or the Executive Oflicer to take action under sc 37 , failing which the Commissioner, the lrr Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner as th,: may be, may after following the prescribed proc: impose by an order in writing any of the penalities spr in subsection (1) of that section on such office-hol,l servant. (2) Any office holder or servant aggrieved by an passed under sub-section ( 1) may within sixty days the date of receipt of the order by him, prefer an ap: such order is passed by- reof, t the pu ty lure, :r or 'al if (a) the Commissioner, to the Government; (b) the Depu ty Commissioner, to the Commissi ar-r d {c) the Assrstant Comm.issioner to the De Commissioner; atld any order passed in such :1 shall be fin al." ner; )uty

16. Scction 2(27) ol APCHRIE Acr is as follows: "(27) Temple'means a place by whatever desigrLr tion known used as a place of public religious worship, and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right l), the Hindu community or any section thereof, as a pla<: of public religious worship and includes sub-shrines, ut,ava mzurdapas, tanks arld other necessary appurt,l rant structures and land; Explanation:- A place of worship where the put I : or a section thereof have unrestricted access or declared rs a private place of worship by court or other authorit./ but notwithstanding any such declaration, public or a si c .ion thereof has unrestricted access to such place a.rrd inch des a temple which is maintained within the residr:: .tial premises, if offerings or gifts are received by the p,: 5611 managing the temple from the public or a section therr: f at 10 rt) the time of worship or other religious function shall be deemed to be a temple." 17 . RWI - Assistant Commissioner deposed that the founder got the temple registered under Section 3g of APCHRIE Act ancl as the registration is effected under Sectjon 3g of ApCHRTE Act, the temple would be a public temple. lt was admitted by the Assistant Commissioner that house of the founder was beside the temple and public was allowed for Darshan of Lord Rama. RW 1 also deposed that temple was separated (from his residence) by acquiring different door number, one assigned to the premises of Temple for access of public and one for his residence. PW1 though stated that he would produce a copy of the Will for verification, but did not choose to lile the copy. An adverse inference was drawn against the case of pW l, which cannot be found fault with.

18. Tribunal considered the definition of temple under Scction 2(27) of APCHRIE Act. Basing on the evidence of pW 1 an cl RW 1, it was inferred by the Tribunal that there was unrestricted access for the public to the temple and it went on to hold tha[ 7L temple constructed was used as a place of pubhc ,.r :rship. As to the point of dedication, the Tribunal recordr:, . that PW1 (Ramesh Kumar) in cross-examination adm 1 -ed to the execution of the Will by his grandfather G.R,1 uppuswmay Naidu, founder of Temple. lt is further recorded hat the Will rvas in the possession of Assistant Commissior :r and that SecLron 38 Register o[ the Act contains an entry ,\ th regard to the Will. The finding arrived at that if only th: temple was dedicated as a private temple, the purpose of exr: :uting a Will and delivering such Wili to the Endowments Depa.r :ment would not arise. This frnding is based on the evidenr: on record. Neither of the parties have produced Will or a colr ' of the Will. Even a Trust deed regarding the management of tel rple was not produced. 19 , The Tribunal on the basis of conduct of tl-t : founder of templc r, e. , handir-rg over the Will to the De1.,; rtment and seekir-tg a sepelr.lte door number to the premises a rd attending circumstances i,e., temple being dedicated tci the public coupled with the absence of proof from 'c ppellant to ( { 72 substantiate the claim of the temple being a pnvatc onc' l-relcl that the temple was endowed. The Tribunal rightly conclLldcd as the petitioner was unable to adduce any proof much less copy of the Will on which the contention is based that it was a private temple being run with the funds of the family without Hundi was disbelieved. This Court does not find any reason to upset the finding, as the Tribunal considered the evidence of PWI and RW1 and the record and the contentions' Appellant's reliance on the judgment of OS to buttress the contention that it was private property, is of no help to substantiate the case of appetlant as observed supra. The finding of Tribunal cannot be interfered with, there are no merit in thc appeal'

20.Forreasonsaforesaid,CivilMiscellaneousAppealbeing devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs' Miscellaneous applications pending, if any' shall stand L closed. "'J;33lVi33AlSE \ to'',. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER ,n" A.P.Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad- [with records' ifany] l$Jpr,:tml ff f iil?'35,''*% r th e state or re I a n s a n a l' lf: t3 :i.'g 4 Two CD Copies at Hyderabad [OUT] Kam/PSL . -(A- '---=-.rY.a- :r-*-_-:=--.-.-:-- ___- I I HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 .: T^ i€ ,)o I JAN 2$2$ .r i i ^....-' ,4 i r) _L. *., / JUDGMENT CMA.No.132 of 2015 DISMISSING OF THE CMA -4as"+ jKs'