The High Court · 2025

Judgment

Aggrieved by the order dated 08.10.20i0 passed 1n O.4.No.272 of 2010 (old O.A.No.2 of 2OO7) on the file of A.P. Endowments Tribunal, H_vderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), this Civil Miscellancous Appeal is filed by appellant.

2. Heard Mr. G.M.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellant, and Mr. Narasimha Murthy Gollamudi, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. .l , 3 and 4.

3. Brief facts: O.A.No.2 o{ 2OO7 rcnumberccl as O.A.No.272 of 2OlO was filed by respondent No.l hcrein bcforc the Tribunal. Appellant is not a party to original proceedings belore the Tribunal. Case of respondent No. 1 is that one Mr. Matke Nagaiah was the absolutc os,ner of Mulgi Nos.4267 to 4272 with building and out house abutting main road, Sajj arlal Street, Secunderabad. purchased under registered document dated 21 .12.1932 lrom the ()fficial Receiver, Secunderabad. He built a double storied building, his o."r,n cost, demolishing ) JAK, J (.1t{.4.No.340 2014 old structures arrd dedicated to charitable purpose. Mr. Matke Nagaiah further purchased the adjacent property covered by Muigi Nos.4273 and 4274 ald created a Trust r.r,ith name and style 'Nageswara Dharma Nilayam'to develop Sanskrit culture, promote Veerasaiva cult and dharma, accommodate Veerasaiva Community travelers. to render linancial assistance to them and to provide boarcling and lociging to Sanskrit students. He appointed three trustees to look after the Trust i.e., himself, one Jidige Basavalingam and Chidire Mattam Veerabhadra Sastry. Any of the trustee could nominate successor before retirement or on death and in case of failure to nominate, other trustees can nominate and i[ all trustees fail, Veerasaiva Communitv of Hyderabad and Secunderabad can nominate and the settlor Mr. Matke Nagaiah reserved the right to modify/ alter the method of devolution of trusteeship, if required. Mr.Matke Nagaiah died in 1937

4. After the death of Matke Nagaiah, Matke Gor.vramma, W/o. Matke Nagaiah, approached Matke Rajaiah (brother of Matke Nagaiah) to give her authority to adopt a son to J JAK, J C M,4 No 310 2011 perpetuate the lineage of her husband. Matke Rajaiah author2ed in writing to adopt any boy ol her choice, by a Deed of Authority to adopt, dated O6.04.1939, a registered deed in the office of Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad. Thereafter, wife of Matke Nagaiah got her sister's son, Lingappa, aged 3 years, with a view to adopt him. The ceremony of adoption of the boy \vas performed at Domakonda, Sarw,adhari year, Magha Bahula 3, Tuesday, equivalent to 15.02.1949 by natural mother of the boy, Sakkera Bayamma and Matke Gowramma adopted the boy in the presence of elders in the ceremony and caste Purohits of Lingayat Community i.e., Matam Nagarajayya and Matarn Prabhulingam.

5. In the Deed of Confirmation ol Adoption (registered deed), it is reflected that bov \{as entitled to ail rights, as a biological born son to her properties and the properties of her husband (Matke Nagaiah). She pcrformed his marriage and is now living with her, carrying business of a grocery shop in the name of Matke Nagaiah Gari Lingappa, Secunderabad. It is also stated in the Deed ol Adoption that there is a family settlement deed, between herself and Matke Rajaiah, 4 JAK, J C M.A No.340 2Al4 M.Sivamma and Basavanna, registered as Sl.No.256 of 1939 on 06.04.1939.

6. Inspector, Endowments Department, Secunderabad, submitted remarks on a petition filed by Matke Lingappa under Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions arrd Endowments Act, 1987, (Act 30 of 1987) (for short the Act') in respect of Matke Nagaiah Dharmashala. In tl-rc report submitted by lnspector, to the Deputl, Commissioner, Endowments Department, it is stated that Deed oi Trust dated 18.05.1936 is executed bv the ou,ner and loundcr of the Institution/ Dharmashala i.e., Matke Nagaiah. It is further stated that Matke Lingappa is the adopted son of Late Matke Nagaiah deserves to be considered ancl declared as a Member of the Familv ol the original founder Matke Nagaiah. 7 . Section 1 7(1) of the Act enables "Member of the familg of the founder tneans children, grand children and so in agnatic line of succe.ssion for the time being in force and declared or recogni-z,ed as such bg the releuant appointing authoitu." 5 JAK, J ( M.n No.340 2014 B. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, (respondent No.1 is no more, represented by his legal representatives), submitted that by virtue of the registered Adoption Deed, Matke Lingappa is member of the lounder lamily of Matke Nagaiah. It is further submitted that permission was sought from the brother of Matke Nagaiah i.e., Matke Rajaiah, for adoption. That the adopting ceremony \\'as performed after the permission, proper rituals and ceremonies were conducted in the presence of elders, then Matke Lingappa was adopted as son by Matke Gorvramma, W/o. Matke Nagaiah.

9. Appeal is filed by Mrs. B. Gouri t@, M. Gouramma, W/o. B.Nagabushanam, D/o. M.Rajaiah alias Rajalya, the brother of Matke Nagaiah, who accorded permission to Matke Gowramma to adopt a son. A registered deed of authority for adoption was executed by the father of rhe appellant herein i.e., Matke Rajaiah. The ceremony of adoption of Matke Lingappa was performed, thus, he, being an adopted son, cannot be disputed, the Adoption Deed is a registered 6 JAK, J C.ltl.A No.310 2014 document and the ceremony is periormed in the presence of elders by lollowing the rituals. i0. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that adoption performed as per the rituals and customs is proper and a valicl adoption and if the same is demonstrated by adducing evidence. In the present case, Adoption Deed is registered, ceremony of adoption rvas performed in the presence of elders and it was a case of giving in adoption and taking in adoption b-\, both the giver and taker, which is a condition necessarl From thc contcnts of thc Adoption Deed, it is clear that the adoption rvas performed at Domakonda (place) on Sarwadhari year Magha Bahula 3, Tuesday equivalent to 15.02.1949 in the presencc of elders arrd caste purohits of Lingayat Communitv and that Matke Lingappa would be the successor ol Matke Nagaiah's properties and properties of Gowramma for all purposes. The adoption is a valid adoption, 15 1lt accordance r,r'ith larv, and the fact is demonstrated by the contents ol rt:gistered deed of adoption, thus giving validity for the act ol adoption. Once adoption is proper and in accordance with the law laid down and fulfills the criteria JAK, J C L'|.A.No.310 20t4 under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the adoption is valid.

11. The present appeal is filed by the daughter of Matke Rajaiah alias Rajayya, who has attested the adoption deed as witness No.2.

12. [t is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is the legal heir, being the daughter of Matke Rajaiah, the brother of the deceased Matke Nagaiah, and that Matke Lingappa cannot claim himself to be the legal heir and succeed to the property of the founder ol family. [t is submitted chat the adoption was only to deny the benelits to legal heirs and that Explanation II to Section 17 (1) ol the Act describes that children, grand children and so in agnatic line ol succession for the time being in lorce and declared or recognized as such by the relevant appointing authority alone as Members ol the Family of the Founder and in no r\rav recognizes any others including by trust or testamentary succession for recognition as Member or Members of the Founder Family. It is submitted that the appellant, being the child, alone is eligible to be recognized under Section 1 7 of 8 JAK, J C M.A No..r40 2014 the Act and that the report of the oflice of the Inspector of Endowments Department dated 3O.10.20O4 is not based on any document ald considers only a Trust Deed dated

18.05.1936 and a copy of registered document dated 21 .12.1932 and that without there being any basis, a report is submittecl and it is on the basis of the said report, the Tribunal ha s based its order which is not in a proper perspective and is not in conlormity with the Act.

13. It is observed from the documents filed, on beha-lf of respondent No. I (deceased), represented by represen tati','es i.e.. respondent Nos.3 and 4, page Nos.S to 1O, the doclrments annexed to the counter affidavit, are a registered Deed ol Authority to adopt. In the deed, it is reflected that Matke Nagaiah's wife was free to adopt any boy of her choice so that she may continue and perpetuate the lineage of Matke Nagaiah. The said Deed is dated 06.04.1939 registered in the Sub Register's office, Secunderabad.

14. The Deed of Authoritv is as follou,s: "DEED ofAUTH ORITY to adopt This Deed of Authority to adopt granted by Matkc Rajayya, son o[ Basavayya age 30 years, 9 JAK. J C.M.A.No.340 2011 residing in New Boyizuda, Secunderabad, herein after called the Pirst party in favour of Matke Gowramma, widow of Matke Nagawa, age 30 years, residing in New Boyigudam Secunderabad, herein after called the Second part5r. Whereas the Second party is the widow of Matke Nagayya who died in Secunderabad on or about 3-2-1937, and whereas the said Matke Nagayya died suddenly without executing any Will, and whcreas the Second party has requested the First party who is the only nearest Reversioner ol her husband to give her authority to adopt, so that she might adopt a son who would perpetuate the lineage of her husband Matke Nagayya and rvhereas Matke Nagayya was a very religious man who had spent more than Rs.2O,OOO for constructing a Dharmasala and Choultry in Hissam Ganl, Secunderabad, and whereas his widow the Second part5r had deemed it to be her duty to continuc the lineage of such a man. Now this deed of authoriW to adopt witncsseth that Matke Rat'ayya the First party aloresaid after mature consideration herein grants and gives authority to adopt to Matke Gowramma and hercby authorises her to adopt any boy of her choice so that he may continue and perpetunte the lineage o[ Matke Nagayya. Hereafter, neither the First party nor his descendants shall raise any oblection to any adoption made by Matke Gorvramma on the ground of want authority to adopt. Executed at Secunderabad with my free will and consent on this 6n day ofApril 1939."

15. Pursuant to the Deed of Authority to adopt, a Deed of Conlirmation of Adoption is rnade by Matke Gouramma, rv/o. Matke Nagaiah, the Founder of the Trust, Sri Matke Nagaiah Dharmashala. The said Deed of Confirmation of Adoption is t0 JAK, J C.il.A No.340 20I4 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad. This deed was executed on 25. 11.1959. The recitals of the deed are as follows: "])trtrD OF CONFIRMATION ()F ADOPNION This deed of Conhrmation of adoption executed by Matke Gowramma, widow of Matke Nagayya, Hindu agc 50 years residing in New Boyiguda, Secunderabad. My husband Matke Nagawa died on or about 3-2-1937. As hc died suddenly without executing ar-ry will, I approached his natural brother Matke Raiawa son clf Basavayrya to give me authority to adopt a son to perpetuate thc lineage of my husband lvho u,as a religious and a pious man who spent a lot of monev for constructing a Dharamshala and a Chou,ltry in Secunderabad. The said Matke Raiarrya authorised me in writing to adopt any bov of my choice by a registered authority to adopt dated 6-4-1939 and registered as serial No. 13 of i939 in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Secundcrabad. After tl-re said authority was given in l94O I brought my sister's son by name Lingappa, then 3 ycars old from my Sister Bayamma with a vicrv to adopt him. Since that time, thr: bov had bcen brought up, maintained and educated by me rvith a view to be adopted by me. Thc actual adoption of the boy was made by me at Domakonda, on Sarwadhari year Magha Bahule 3, Tuesday equivalent to 15-2-1949. by the natural mothcr of the bov Sakkera Bayamma giving the boy in adoption and myself taking the boy in adoption in the presence of elders and Caste Purohits of Lingayat Community Matam Nagarajayya and Matam Prabhulingam. Since the date ol adoption the said boy had become entitled to all the rights ol an aurasa or natural born son to my properties as rvell as to the properties of my late husband Matke Naga1,rya. I have also performed his marriage at my expense. He is now 1l JAK. J C.M.A.No.340 2014 living with me and has grown up to be a major end carrying on business of a chillar shop in the name of Matke Naga117a Gari Lingappa in Secunderabad. There is also a deed of family settlement between myself and Matke Rajavya, M.Sivamma and Basavanna registered as serial No. 256 of i939 on 6-4-39. This deed of Conhrmation of adoption has been executed by me to avoid future disputes or controversies of any kind from any agnates of M.Nagawa or other re lations regarding the status of my adopted son Lingappa or his right to my husband's or my properties in future and to record the pasl fact ofadoption. Executed with my free will and consent on this the 25th day of November 1959, at Sccunderabad. "

16. It is reflected in the registered Deed that Matke Gouramma has performed the marriage of Matke Lingappa and Matke Lingappa has been ca-rrying on business of grocery shop. There are other recitals, which are not relevant to the present case. Suflice to state that the Deed of Authority to adopt registered deed and it is the father of appellant/aggrieved person, who has given the deed ol authority to adopt. It is trite to take note of the fact that Mr. M. Nagaiah and Mr. M. Rajaiah are brothers and Mr. M. Nagaiah's u.ife has sought permission of Mr. M. Rajaiah to adopt a son, this shows the importance given by M. Gouramma to her husband's brother. It is only after t) C.ll.1 JAK. J 2014 ^io.310 this deed tl.rat the Deed of Confirmation of Adoption was entered with Sakkera Bayamma, who is the sister of M Gouramma adopting her son as a legal heir for succession. It is pertinent to note that though the Act is silent with regard to the succession of an adopted son, it is well settled by a catena of decisions that under Hindu law an adopted son (by a valid adoption) is considered as a natural son in the agnatic line of succession, in the present case as Founder.

17. It is brought to the notice of this Court by Mr. M. Vidya Sagar, learned Standing Counsel, that a .Division Bench of this Court u'hile dealing r,r'ith the aspect of agnatic line of succession has hcld that agnatic line of succession is a term which cannot be considered in the light of the amendments which have been brought to the line of succession whereby equal rights have been granted to female child in the lineage and they are endorved rvith rights equal to male born.

18. Contention put lonvard herein is about the adoption In the present case, the deeds of adoption rvere not on record before the authorities belo$,. It u,as contended that on the basis of the report of the lnspector, M. Lingappa was 13 JAK, J C.M.1.No.310 2014 considered to be the adopted son of M. Nagaiah. That in the absence of deeds on record before the authorities and the Tribunal, the Tribunai erred in concluding that M. Lingappa is an adopted son.

19. It is obsen,ed from the order that the appeilant herein is not a party before the Tribunal and the dispute 1S with regard to, u,ho is the successor under Section 17(1) of the Act.

20. Appellant was examined as PW. 1 in O.A. It is on the basis of the evidence of PW. I and the remarks of the Assistant Commissioner, M. Lingappa was recognized as a Member ol the Fourrder Ferrnily by the Tribunal. It is true that no documents were marked belore the Tribuna-I. It is a-lso true that the said documents ol authority of adoption deed and the deed of adoption dated 06.04.1939 and 26.1L.1959 were not placed before the Tribunai. This Court is not precluded from adjudicating the issue by referring to deed of authority and the deed of adoption u,hich are registered documents in the office of Sub Register, Secunderabad. t4 JAK, J C.ll .4 No 3.t0 2014

21. From the contents of the deeds, it can safely be concluded that M. Lingappa stated before the Tribunal in his evidence the true facts, though sarne are not supported by aly documents. If these documents were presented to the Tribunal, registered documents, this Court would have viewed the order of the Tribunal in a different perspective- This Court has ample power to consider the documents placed before it which in fact reinforce the fact that M. Lingappa was an adopted son and in the interests of justice, this Court cannot be prevented from adjudicating the issue on the basis of the said registered deeds. From the facts on record, the documcnts and the record beforc this Court, it is evident that M. Lingappa is the adopted son of M. Gouramma [wife of M. Nagaiah (deceased)] by valid adoption deed (by the wife of M. Nagaiah, '"r,ho died in the year 1937).

22. It is only after the death of M. Nagaiah, his brother and father of appellant, M. Raj aiah was nominated by the Trust Board with two others. In other u,ords, the father of the appellant was discharging the responsibilities of being the l5 JAK. J C.M.A.No.310 2014 Founder Trustee as he was nominated by M. Nagaiah. M Gouramma rightly sought permission of M. Rajaiah, who is the brother of M. Nagaiah after the death of M. Nagaiah to adopt M. Lingappa and it is only after seeking such permission, adoption was carried out by lollowing rituals and customs prevailing in the community. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Tribunal coupled with the fact that the adoption deed and the authority of adoption deed seeking permission from the brother of M. Nagaiah were registered in the years 1939 and 1959. This Court is not inclined to interfere u,ith the findings. On this ground too, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

23. An order of remand for appreciation of evidence placed on record is what has been sought for b1r tfts appeliant. It is relevant to observe that the O.A. is of the year 2OO7 and the order is dated 08.1O.2010 and C.M.A. came to be Iiled in the year 2014. It is submitted that the appellant is not aware of the Tribunal's order, but surprisingly the appellant is also a resident of same area and in the grounds of the appeal, the appellant has not even averred the date of knowledge. It is a1' l6 JAK.J C.il.A.No.310 2011 trite law that cause of action arises from the date of knowledge, but such a factual foundation has to be laid by adducing proper evidence before the Court that the appellant was not aware of the proceedings and the date of knowledge is only after four years. No such grounds are made out. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to a.ccede to the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant. This Court is not devoid of the pou'er to examine the evidence adduced in the interest of justice. As rccorded supra, the deeds in qucstion are registered documents attestcd b-v appellalt's father. Evidence of PW. 1 , the report of the Endowments lnspcctor, was considered by the Tribunal to arrive at a conclusion. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be futile to remand the matter to the Tribunal, unless this Court is satisfied for such remand. This Court has perused the documents placed on record and found that no evidence is brought on record contrary to the contents of deeds or any other ground is made out. Appeal is devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. \ t7 JAK, J C M.t No 340 2014

24. It is submitted that O.A.No.1O7 of 20 18 is pending on the file of the Tribunal with a prayer that the appellant also be considered as a Founder Family Member under Section 17 of the Act. Needless to state that the appellant is at liberty to pursue the remedies as available under larv.

25. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 1S dismissed. No order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stald closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. N.SRIHARI DEPUTY REGI SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The A.P.Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad(With records,if any) 2. One CC to SRI G M RAVI KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY GOLLAMUDI, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies I { ADK/PSL\y HIGH COURT DATED:0510812025 1HES ')l,) 2 $ JAtt 20?E * 'v C) -]l .t JUDGMENT+DECREE CMA.No.340 of 2014 DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS @ 1l-z {e' I I I [ 3384 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 340 OF 2014 Between: Smt. B.Gouri @ M. Gouramma, Wo. B. Nagabhushanam, Occ: Household, Rio 6-2-231, New Bhoyaguda, Secunderabad. ...Appella nUAgg rieved person AND

1. s, S/o. Nagaiah, R/o. H,No. 6-5-571, New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad(Died as perLRS3&4)

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments,Secunderabad ... Respondents/Applicant & Opposite pafi

3. Matike Nageshwar Rao, S/o. Late Matike Lingappa, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/a: 6-5-571, New Bhoyaguda, Secunderabad.

4. Matlke Gouri Shankar, S/o. Late Matike Lingappa, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.6-5-57'1 , New Bhoyaguda, Secunderabad (R3 & R4 brought on records LR's of the deceased R1 vide Court order dated 10-07-2023 in lA.No. 3 of 2023) Appeal under section 88 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious lnstitutions and Endowments Act 1987 against the Judgment and Decree Dated 08-10-20'10 made in OA No. 272 of 2010 (Old OA No. 2 of 2007 of D.C. Hyderabad) on the file of the Court of the A.P.Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI G lvl RAVI KUMAR, Advocate for the Appellant and of SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY GOLLAMUDI, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 ,3&4. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: / /

1. That the CMA be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/- N.SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR ---'a-- CTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// he A.P.Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad wo CD Copies To,

1.7 2.r ADK/PSL v \ { HIGH COURT DATED:0510812025 DECREE CMA.No.340 of 2014 DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS @ \ur,