Telangana High Court
V.Krishrtamacharyulu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 December, 2018
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
WRIT PETITION No.12930 OF 2015
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not recognizing the petitioner as hereditary Dharmakartha/Trustee of Sri Nettikanti Anjaneyaswami Temple, Kasapuram Village, Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District, as illegal, arbitrary and a consequential direction was sought to direct the respondents to recognize the petitioner as hereditary Dharmakartha/Trustee of the said temple.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Sreekanth Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for Endowments.
3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that the petitioner's grandfather Garudacharyulu was the hereditary Dharmakartha of the subject temple and that the subject temple was a family institution founded and developed by their family; great grandfather of the petitioner's grandfather was declared as hereditary trustee of the subject temple; when the then Madras Government interfered with the rights of the petitioner's grandfather, he filed O.S.No.5 of 1933 on the file of Sub-Court declaring him as hereditary trustee of the subject temple and by judgment dated 22.02.1934, the Hon'ble Court declared him as hereditary trustee of the subject temple; according to the adoption deed dated 10.03.1935, the said Garudacharyulu adopted the petitioner's father Kesavacharyulu as per valid custom and ceremonies; thereafter, the petitioner's father was recognized as 2 hereditary Dharmakartha till 1944 i.e., till his death; due to employment to them, the children of Kesavacharyulu i.e., the petitioner and others requested one K.Ramanjaneyulu, Son of Garudacharyulu, the petitioner's maternal uncle, to act on their behalf. After retirement from service, the petitioner requested the legal representatives of the said Ramanjaneyulu to keep off from attending duties, but they refused to do so; as such, the petitioner made a representation dated 24.03.2015, requesting the authorities to recognize him as hereditary Dharmakartha/Trustee of the subject temple. Hence, the writ petition.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4 inter alia stating that Sri Nettikanti Anjaneya Swamy Vari Devasthanam is a public charitable institution published under Section 6(a)ii of the Endowments Act, 1987 and the same is under the administrative control of the Commissioner, Endowments Department; there are no records to show that the ancestors of the petitioner were recognized as hereditary trustee and they never discharged the functions of archakathwam and trusteeship of the subject temple; one Kothakota family is the founder family of the subject temple; the present hereditary trustee Smt. K.Sugunamma and her ancestors are the hereditary trustees of the subject temple and also performed archakathwam in the temple; the registers maintained under Sections 25 and 43 of the subject temple show that K.Ramanuja Charyulu and his ancestors are in management and used to perform archakathwam in the temple; the Commissioner of Endowments also recognized the rights of Kothakota family as hereditary trustees-cum-archakas; the registers maintained under Section 25 of the Endowments 3 Department disclosed that Sri K.Bheema Charyulu, Sri K.Anantha Charyulu, Sri K.Ramanuja Charyulu and Sri K.Garuda Charyulu were shown as the persons exercising the hereditary rights of administration and maintenance of the subject temple; the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner dated 15.10.1969 also show that the above said persons were the hereditary trustees- cum-archakas; the Hon'ble Sub-ordinate Judge in O.S.No.4 of 1930 also declared that Garuda Charyulu was the hereditary trustee of the subject temple and the same was also confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in A.S.No.150 of 1934 on 25.07.1938; after the death of Garuda Charyulu, K.Ramanuja Charyulu succeeded as hereditary trustee-cum-archaka; the Assistant Commissioner also issued proceedings on 02.04.1998 adding the name of K.Ramanuja Charyulu as the founder family member in Column No.4 of Section 43 Register; the said Ramanuja Charyulu has discharged his functions as a founder family member till he died in the year 2001; after his death, his daughter- in-law Smt. K.Sugunamma succeeded to the hereditary trusteeship and the same was recognized vide G.O.Ms.No.969, Revenue (Endts-II) dated 18.09.2003 and that she has been performing the duties as hereditary trustee continuously; the petitioner has not raised a plea that Sri Garuda Charyulu was having a son by name Ramanuja Charyulu and after the death of Garuda Charyulu, his son Ramanuja Charyulu became the hereditary trustee and the writ petitioner also filed O.A.No.2944 of 2010 before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad to set aside G.O.Ms.969 Revenue (Endts-II/1) Department, dated 18.09.2003 appointing Smt. K.Sugunamma as founder trustee member of the subject 4 temple and the same was allowed on 29.10.2014; against the said order, Smt. K.Sugunamma has preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.988 of 2014 before this Hon'ble Court and on 17.11.2014 this Court granted interim stay of operation of the order passed in O.A.No.2944 of 2010.
5. As seen from the record, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2944 of 2010 before the Endowments Tribunal to set aside G.O.Ms.No.969 Revenue (Endts-II/1) Department, dated 18.09.2003, appointing Smt. K.Sugunamma as founder trustee member of the subject temple and the same was allowed on 29.10.2014. The said Sugunamma also preferred C.M.A.No.988 of 2014 and this Court granted interim stay of operation of the order passed in O.A.No.2944 of 2010. It is further evident that the writ petitioner did not even implead the said Sugunamma, against whom he filed O.A.No.2944 of 2010, as a party to this writ petition even though she is a proper and necessary party to the writ petition. Since the necessary party was not impleaded as respondent to the writ petition, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of proper and necessary party.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Date: 06.12.2018 Ivd