Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. It is the further case of the revision petitioner that his ancestors have developed the Temple and they were in exclusive management and administration of the Temple for several centuries. Vide proceedings in File No.23 of Endowments Branch in 1323 Fasli, the ancestors of the revision petitioner were recognized as Muthavallies-cum- Heriditary Archakas and Service Inamdars. Later, Munthakab was also issued in favor of Mr. Shatagopa Chary, the grandfather of the revision petitioner herein, and 5 ML,J Crp_3885_2006 after his death, the Munthakab was issued in favour of C.M.Venkata Raghava Chary, the father of the revision petitioner. The ancestors of revision petitioner have enjoyed the benefits of Sulse Sulsana by virtue of Farman issued by H.E.H. Nizam. The revision petitioner was recognized as a hereditary trustee, being the member of family of trustee. He denied the averments that during Brahmostavams, the family members of Gunnala Madhava Reddy used to present dhothi and saree to the Lord; procession used to start from the house of respondent Nos.1 to 6 and also harathi, sevas and chanting were done in the name of Gunnala family in day-to-day Archanas. As per the revision petitioner, he and his forefathers have been managing the Temple from immemorial times. The grandfather of the revision petitioner registered the Temple as per the Hyderabad Endowment Regulations and Munthakab was also granted in the year 1965 in favour of the father of the revision petitioner. His grandfather was recognized as inamdar and trustee of the Temple. The revision petitioner admits that he is the editor of VAK Magazine. On the above pleadings, he prayed to dismiss the OA.

6 ML,J Crp_3885_2006

8. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Ranga Reddy District (respondent No.7 herein) filed a report stating that the ancestors of the revision petitioner are the inamdars and they have been doing Archakatvam services and are taking care of management of the Temple. He also stated that as per the magazines published by the revision petitioner, G.Madhava Reddy is the person who founded the deity, constructed the Temple and started poojas, but no records are available to show that respondent Nos.1 to 6 are the descendants of G.Madhava Reddy. He has further stated that forefathers of the revision petitioner migrated from Tamil Nadu State and they have been doing Archakatvam and holding inam lands and managing the Temple. He further stated that neither revision petitioner nor his forefathers were declared as hereditary trustee or founder trustee either under the old or new Act of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act.

Provided that the founder or one of the members of the family of the founder, if qualified as prescribed shall be appointed as one of the Trustees.
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;
Provided that the founder or one of the members of the family of the founder, if qualified as prescribed shall be appointed as one of the Trustees."

39. A combined reading of above provisions contained under Section 17 of the Act of 1987, original Act of 1987 does not contain any definition of founder, but it contains the definition of Trustee and Hereditary Trustee. However, in the Amendment Act 27 of 2002, the word 'founder' has been defined first time, as per which, founder is a person, who has founded an institution or endowment and recognized as such by the authority competent, as trustees under Section 15. By way of amendment Act 33 of 2007, new definition has been given to the founder. As per said provision, only the Hereditary Trustee recognized under the Act, 1966 was alone treated as founder for the institutions existing as on the date of coming into force of Act of 1987.