The High Court · 2025

3. Sri Satyanarayana Sharma, (Died) 4. Ramesh Chandra Jhanwar, S/o Late Suresh Chandra Jhanwar, aged 40 Yrs., R/o D.No.15-9-48, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad-sooo12.

5. Ashok Kumar Bajaj,, S/o Late Sri Gangabishan Bajaj, aged 50 Yrs., R/o D.No.15-2-220, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad 500 012. 6 Purshotham Das., Mmeber of Founder Family, Sri Rao- rnathji Temple, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad 500 012. (Claims to be founder family member) -. '' - '"-: lA NO: 1 OF 2023 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 15i CpC praying that in the c r the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m:r, all further proceedings in Order dated 01_Og_2023 O A No.3004/2010 :OId O.A.No.19/2003 on the fite of tr Endowments Depanment, Hyderabad) on the file of the Tel Tribunal, at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Civil Revisio r :umstances stated in be pleased to STAY 1.A.No.14212023 in cuty Commissioner, ngana Endowments Petition. Counsel for the petitioners : SRI BANKATLAL MANDANI Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI VENKATESH DESFI ANDE The Court made the following: ORDER /'\ THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO cRP.NO.296A OF 2023 ORDER

1. This Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 01.09.2023 in IA.No.142 of 2O23 in OA.No.3O04 of 2010 (Otd O.A.No.19 of 2003) passed by rhe Telangana Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad.

2. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the proposed petitioner Nos.4 to 6. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6 are the respondents and respondent No.4 is the petitioner No.3 in OA.No.3004 of 2010 (Old OA.No.19 of 2003). Respondent No.5 is not a party to the O.A.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the learned rribunal is contrary to raw and facts of the case, the Tribunal has dismissed the application on the sole ground that the petitioners have not placed on record any document establishing the relationship with the petitioner No.1 (Sri Venugopal Inani). petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have filed their Aadhar cards along with the revision to prove that they are the sons of Late Sri Venugopal Inani. Respondent No.6 and his family members filed a petition in the month of July 2023, admitting that the petitioners, their sisters and their mother are the legal representatives of Late sri venugopar Inani and sought the retief 2/B BRMR,J cRP_2964_2023 to bring them on record in another petition ti,:d by them. The Tribunal ought to have taken the said petition int consideration and ought to have allowed the LR application and pra 7 rd to set aside the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 subr its that the petitioners are not entitled to come on record as egal heirs of Venugopal Inanr as a matter of right like that of a Civi ';uit, the same analogy cannot be applied in the matters filed under S;r ction 87( 1)(h) of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious ir stitutions and Endowments A<:t, 30/ 1987. relied on the decision ir the case of Vallabharayeswara Swamy Temple Vs. Bellamkc rda Venkata Subrahmanya Sarmal and prayed to dismiss the CRp.

5. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is su1> .rvisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its s rpervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. -- ,is power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are appar€ tt on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tri: rnal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jur ,idiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse nanner: (See K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan,2025 SCC OnLi e SC 985). ' MANU/Aplos64l2o:]4 w ,,}' 318 DRMR,J cRP296a 2023

6.t. Petitioner No.3 has sworn the affidavit in IA.No.142 of 2023 which is filed under Rule 10 of TET Rules r/w 28 and 29 of Civil Rules of Practice r/w Section 151 of CPC. It is stated in the affidavit that Venugopal Inani (petitioner No.1) and others filed the O.A. to declare them as Members of Founder's Family and Muthawalli of Sri Raghunathji Temple situated at Maharajganj, Hyderabad by setting aside the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad (respondent No.2 herein) in proceedings No.D14673195, dated 04.12.1995. Pending O.A. petitioner No.1 died on 29.72.2022 leaving behind the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 as agnatic line of successors of the petitioner No.1 and prayed to permit them to come on record as LRs of petitioner No.1 as just and necessary parties.

6.2. It is mentioned in the cause title of the petition in IA.No.142 of 2023 that respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 are not necessary parties to the petition.

7. Respondent No.6 has filed his count€r and contended that the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 cannot come on record as LR's of petitioner No.1 in the matters filed under Section 87(1)(h) of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act,30/1987. Under Section 17 Explanation I of the Act neither the ancestors of petitioner No.1 nor the ancestors of the other petitioners were recognised as Foundg-s for enabling the petitioners-a pplica nts to get themselves BRMR,J cRP 2964-2023 recognised as members of Founder's Family and the emedy of the petitioners is elsewhere and the petition is not properly -amed in view of the defective cause title and respondent No.5 (Ashct Kumar Bajaj) was fraudulently made as party and prayed to dismiss tf I application.

8. The learned Tribunal after going through the :,ntents of the affidavit and the counter filed thereon has dismissec IA.No.142 of 2023 on 01.09.2023 which is impugned in the present (: .P

9. Venugopal Inani (petitioner No.1 herein); Gart abishan Bajaj and Ramesh Chandra Jhanwar have filed petition tnder Section 87(1Xh) of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Religious E t lowments Act, 30/1987 against (1) Smt. Chandrabhaga Bai (2) Asst. O, mmissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad to declare petition3 Nos.1 to 3 as Members of the Family of Founder of the Temple and ; so Muthawalli in respect of the Temple by duly setting aside the cr 04.12.1995 in Proceeding No.D/a673/95 by resF ler passed on rndent No.2. Satyanarayana Sharma is impleaded as respondent Nc 3 in the O.A. vide IA.No.2 of 2OO7, dated 23.05.2007 and Ptt ,;hotham Das (respondent No,6 herein) is impleaded as respondent responiient No.1 vide IA.No.8 of 2021, dated 28.10.2(t: '1o.4 as LR of 2. It is to be noted that Gangabishan Bajaj (petitioner No.2 in the O.. . ) died during pendency ofthe case and case against him is abated. ,\ s/8 BRMR,J oRP296A 2023

10. It is apt to refer Section 17 Explanation I of Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious lnstitutions and Endowments Act, 1987 which reads as under: Explanation I:-'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.

11. It is also appropriate to refer Section 87(1)(h) of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 which reads as under: Section 87. Power of Endowments Tribunal to decide certain disputes and m atters:- "(1) The Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction shall have the power, after giving notice in the prescribed manner to the person concerned, to enquire into and decide any dispute as to the question- (h) Whether a person is a founder or a member from the family of the founder of an Institution or Endowment". t I BRMR,J cRP 2964 2023

12. In Vallabharayeswara Swamy Templel . the High, ourt observed that : "In respect of the institutions or endowments ex: commencement of the 1987 Act, only persons rec hereditary trustees or members belonging to the fr hereditary trustees under the 1966 Act are enl.i considered for appointment as trustees in the Tru:;l be constituted under the 1987 Act. If a persor recognised either as a hereditary trustee or as belonging to the family of the hereditary truste(! 1966 Act, he is not entitled to approach the authority under the 1987 Act under Section t; declaration as such or the appointing authority for i) :ing at the rgnised as nily of the led to be Boards to was not r member under the rompetent i1)(h) for pointment as a trustee".

13. Petitioner's have filed copies of applications filed r OA.No.86 of 2017, which goes to show that Smt.Chandrabhaga B.ri filed the O.A. against Venugopal Inani (petitioner No.1 herein) and o.l ers. After the death of Smt.Chandrabhaga Bai, her leg'al heirs wr: 3 brought on record including respondent No.6 herein. Respondent I'l ,.6 herein and his other family members have filed an application in t le above O.A. before the Endowment Tribunal under Order 22 Rule 9 c 10 of Telangana Endowment Tribunal Rules to t r CPC r/w Rule ng the legal representatives of respondent No.1 therein (Venugop. Inani). The affidavit is sworn by respondent No.6 herein wherein e stated that .a J4 I a BRMR,J cRP 296a_2023 Venugopal Inani died on 29.12.2022 leaving behind Pramila Devi and her children as legal heirs to be brought on record. Petitioner Nos,2 to 4 herein are shown as the children of Late Venugopal Inani apart from other family members in the affidavit. t4. The order passed by the learned Tribunal goes to show that the application filed by the petitioners to bring them on record as LRs of Venugopal Inani came to be dlsmlssed solely on the ground that no documentary proof is placed on record establishing the relationship. Petltioner Nos.2 to 4 have filed their copies of Aadhar cards which shows that they are the children of the petitioner No.1.

15. The decision cited by respondent No.6 counsel is after full trial of the O.A. which is filed for recognition as Members of Founder's Family of the subject Temple therein. In the present CRP the order assailed is rejection of application to bring the LRs of the deceased- petitioner No.1. The ratio laid down by the High Court in the above said decision would not apply in the present case as main O.A. is still pending consideration before the learned Tribunal.

16. Respondent No.4 herein is the petitioner No.3 in O.A. and respondent No.5 (Ashok Kumar Bajaj) is no way concerned with the application and the learned Tribunal has rightly ordered to stuck off his name from the cause title. BRMR.J cRP 2968 2023

17. The learned Tribunal has lost sight of the conter ions raised by the petitioners and passed an erroneous order withou: going into the material placed on record. This court is of the view hat the order passed by the learned Tribunal is perverse and the sanl, is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.

18. Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order rassed by the learned Tribunal in IA.No.142 of 2023 in OA.No.3004 rf 2010 dated O1.O9.2023 is set aside and consequently petitiorr filed by the petitioners is allowed without costs. interim orders if any stands vacated. Miscellanec r s application/s shall stands closed. ASS Sd/. C. DEEPIKA GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// s OFFICER To,

1. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, I yderabad) on the file of the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, at Hydera ) rd. 2. One CC to SRI BANKATLAL MANDANI Advocate [OP[J )] 3 One CC to SRl. VENKATESH DESHPANDE Advocate l( PUCI 4. Two CD Copies GE/PR ,N/ HIGH COURT DATED:2011112025 ORDER CRP.No.2968 ot 2023 |i l .\ (f (, * 10 F: } .l ti : t;,.\i. .)/ --1 :-'-'u'- ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS b v LD 1?-