Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. It is after the PW.1s evidence in chief taken on record and while coming for her cross examination by mainly contesting respondent Nos.4 to 8 supra, they filed the IA.No.396 of 2017 for rejection of the OA. The averments in the petition seeking for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC are that as per the judgment of the High Court in CMA.No.590 of 2012 reported in Sri Vallabharayeswara Swamy Temple rep. by its Managing Trustee Jalasutram Venkata Subbaiah Vs. Bellamkonda Venkata Subrahmanya Sarma and Another , Section 87(1)(h) is only applicable to the institutions and endowments which came into existence after the commencement of the Act No.30/1987 and the present OA filed by the OA petitioner thereby is not maintainable as the institution/Bhagya Laxmi Temple is in existence even under the old Act No.17/1966 covered by the property registered under Section 38 of that Act and thereby the OA proceedings are barred by law and liable to be rejected.

5. Said dismissal order in IA.No.396 of 2017 dated 30.08.2017 impugned in the revision is by saying in view of the judgment of Sri Vallabharayeswara Swamy Temple supra observations particularly at Para 23 saying Court has no option other than reading down the provisions of Section 87(1)(h) of the Act to bring harmony between said provision and explanation I & II and Section 17(1) thereof to say Section 87(1)(h) is applicable to only in relation to institutions and endowments came into existence after the commencement of the Act No.30/1987 and the Tribunal not disputed the provisions should have acted upon said judgment of Sri Vallabharayeswara Swamy Temple supra for rejection of the OA by holding as not maintainable and thereby the order of the Tribunal dismissing the OA rejection application is liable to be set aside by allowing the revision.

29(b). As per section 2(27) of the Act, 'Temple' means a place by whatever designation known used as a place of public religious worship, and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as a right by the Hindu community or any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship and includes sub-shrines, utsava mandapas, tanks and other necessary appurtenant structures and land;
Explanation I:- A place of worship where the public or a section thereto have unrestricted access or declared as a private place of worship by Court or other authority but notwithstanding any such declaration, public or a section thereof has unrestricted access to such place and includes a temple which is maintained within the residential premises, if offerings or gifts are received by the person managing the temple from the public or a section thereof at the time of worship or other religious function shall be deemed to be a temple.

34(b). Further, on the above concept from the scope of Sections 87(1)(h) r/w 15-19, after the amended Acts 27/2002 & 33/2007 to the Act,30/1987, as held by another expression of this Court in Andal Raghavan vs. Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada at Para 10, that The declaration of a person as founder or member of the founders family under section 87(1)(h) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments or by any competent authority before coming into force of Section 87(1)(h), is altogether different from the appointment of a qualified founder or a qualified member of founders family as trustee under Sec.17(1) of the Act (see- G.Rajendranadh Goud vs. State of AP-2006(1)ALD705). Every founder or member of the founders family cannot be said to have an enforceable right for being appointed as a trustee or Chairman of Trust Board as a matter of course. Such person has to fulfill the qualifications prescribed in Section 18 of the Act, Rule 8 of the Rules, and should not incur any disqualifications under Section 19 of the Act. Further, even in a case where the number of applications received by the competent authority is equal to the number of trustees to be appointed, even then, no applicant can be said to have any right for appointment. The antecedents of all the applicants have to be verified by the subordinate officers and the verification report has a bearing on the exercise of the power by the competent authority. Therefore, unless and until the application is made by the person claiming to be founder or member of the founders family giving all the details in Form No.II and unless and until the antecedents of such person are verified by the Verification Officer, such person cannot be appointed as a trustee. Rule 7 of the Rules clearly lays down that, competent authority shall scrutinize the applications along with the report of the Verifying Officer and pass orders appointing trustees. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no necessity for the founder or member of the founders family to apply in Form No.II under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, after publication of notice in Form No.1, cannot be countenanced. If the same is accepted and a member of the founders family is appointed without there being an application, it would lead to number of complications besides showing up problems and difficulties in a case where there are more than one recognized member from the founders family. It no way speaks even of those not recognized as such already of the institutions in existence prior to the Act 30/1987 came into force cease to be so recognized or to adjudicate any dispute in relation thereto. Even another division bench expression of this Court in K.Girijakumari Vs. G.Rajendranath Goud , it was held that Member of the family of the founder of the Temple though got no right of claim as hereditary trustee, yet shall have a right in the trust board to be constituted as Chairman, unless disqualified otherwise as the management shall remains with the members of the family of the founder as laid down by the Apex Court in Pannalal supra. Further, in the case of Executive Officer, Group Temple, Dhulipudi Vs. D.S.Rao , referring to the decisions of the Apex Court in Pannalal supra and the division bench expression of this Court in K.Girijakumari Vs. G.Rajendranath Goud supra, it was held that a hereditary trustee, if qualified entitled to be appointed as a trustee in Board of trustees when constituted. When U/s 15 of the Act, a Board of Trustees is constituted in respect of an institution or endowment, the founder trustee or the hereditary trustee as the case may be should be one of the said members of the board and should be an honorary Chairperson of the said Board. The hereditary trustee has no right except of being appointed as a trustee in the board of trustees when constituted, subject to being qualified under the provisions of the Act (Sec.17-19). Furthermore, in the case of Govt. of A.P rep. by Commissioner of Endowments Vs. Rajandranath Goud and others , referring to the decisions of the Apex Court in Pannalal Bansilal Pitti supra, it was held that hereditary trustee, unless incurred any disqualification in terms of Sec.18/19 of the Act, is entitled to be appointed as a trustee in Board of trustees when constituted. However he is not entitled to even any honorarium much less other remuneration though earlier it was paying since such right stood abolished by Sec.144 of the Act 30/1987. From the above there is no need of recognition earlier and no bar to appoint as one of the trustees to head the trust board as its Chairman by a person if he belongs to the family of the founder, if founder is no more even, provided he/she is one of the lineal descendants of the founder in the line of succession to make a claim of entitled to be recognized and declared as Member of Founder Family of the temple as per Sections 15 to 20 r/w 87(1)(h) of the Act 30/87 amended by Acts 27/2002 & 33/2007, for bound to consider as Member of Founder Family for trusteeship as one among others to the Trust Board of the temple being constituted u/s.15 of the Act, by the Endowments Department from time to time, subject to disqualifications u/s.19 of the Act as there is no any exemption of application of Sections-15-19 of the Act for Member of founder family to become Chairman of the board of trustees, ex-officio or otherwise. This Honble High Court also held in W.P.No.18719/2007 reported in 2008(2) ALD 123, that there is jurisdiction and power to question the illegal order of recognition even given, on having came to know of the same irrespective of the same was earlier not challenged. Way back the full bench of the Madras High Court in Gauranga Sahu Vs. Sudevi Matha that it is competent to decide when questioned by any heir of the founder of the shrine or other institution for any non- appointment in trusteeship from the failure to recognize him in the line of original trustee as an unending right.