Remanded

Dodla Murali Krishna Reddy v. the Assistant Commissioner of Endowment

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Aug 2023CMA/36/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal against the AP Endowments Tribunal's order declaring certain parties as members of the founder family. Finding insufficient evidence and procedural errors, the Court remanded the matter for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Tribunal set aside. Matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after affording ample opportunity to parties.

Dodla Murali Krishna Reddy Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE ~"- ~ r° ~t„. <sup>.

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 36 OF 2020

¶6

Appeal Under Section 88 of the Endowments Act, 30 of 1987 read with Amended Act, 33 of 2007, against the orders of the AP Endowments Tribunal, Pedakakani, Amaravathi passed in O.A.No.529 of 2016, dated 07-01-2020 declaring the respondents 3 to 11 as members of the Founders family to Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Van i Temple, Temple Street, Butchireddypalem Post, SPSR Nellore District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dodla Murali Krishna Reddy, s/o D.Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged about.62 years, Member of the Founder's Family, Sri Kodanda Ramaswamy Vani Temple, Temple Street, Butchireddypalem Post and Village, SPSR Nellore District.

¶9

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1

¶10

AND

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner Of Endowment, SPSR Nellore District.

¶12

Sri Kodandarama Swamy Van i Temple, Temple Street, Butchireddipalem Post, SPSR Nellore District, rep.by its Executive Officer

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3

¶14

Dodla Dwarakanatha Reddy, s/o Anna Reddy, Aged about. 70 years, r/o Sivalayam Street, Butchireddipalem, SPSR Nellore District.

¶15

Dodla Sudhakar Reddy, s/o late D.Sundarama Reddy, Aged about. 72 years, occ. Business, r/o No.10, Tarapore Avenue, Harrington Road, Chennai.

¶16

Dodla Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, s/o late D.Chinnabboy Reddy, Aged about. 78 years, occ. Business, r/o No.8, Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar road, Vepery, Chennai.

¶17

Dodla Varada Reddy, s/o late D.Chinnabboy Reddy, Aged about. 76 years, occ. Business, R/o El and E2, Sagar Dweepa Apartments, 46.A, Kiriampudi Colony, Visakhapatnam.

¶18

Dodla Gopala Krishna Reddy, s/o late D.Ramalcrishna Reddy, Aged about. 58 years, occ. Business, r/o Flat No.302, D.No.24-7-22, Daffodil Apartments, Magunta Lay Out, Potti Sreet amulu Nellore.

¶19

Dodla Vivek Reddy, s/o late D.Gopalakrishna Reddy, Aged about. 57 years, Occ.Business, r/o No.10, 3rd Street, Subbarao Avenue, Nungambakam, Chennai.

¶20

Dodla Sarath Kumar Reddy, s/o late D.Panduranga Reddy, Aged about 80 years, occ. Business, r/o D.No. 16-6-79, Srinivasa Agraharam, Potti Srirramulu Nellore.

¶21

Dodla Padmanabha Reddy„ s/o late D.Panduranga Reddy, Aged about. 71 years, occ.Business, Rio B-5, Stone Valley Apartments, Road No.4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶22

Dodla Venkata Raghava Reddy, s/o Dodla Raghava Reddy, Aged abcut. 80 years, occ. Retd.Scientist, r/o H.No.8-2-283/B/1, Road No 3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶23

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 8

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay the operation of the order passed in 0.A.No.529 of 2016, dated 07-01-2020 of the AP Endowments Tribunal, Pedakakani, Amaravathi given in favour of respondents 3 to 11 as members of the founder's family to Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Van i Temple, Temple Street, Butchireddypalem Post, SPSR Nellore District.

¶26

IA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶27

Petition under order 22 Rule 4 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to bring the respondents 12 and 13 as LRs in place of respondent no.3 as respondents 12 and 13 in CMA.No.36 of 2020.

¶28

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI M VIDYA SAGAR

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent NO.2: SRI G RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS)

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents 4 to 11: SRI G NARASIMHA MURTHY

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶33

C.M.A.No.36 OF 2020

¶34

JUDGMENT:

¶35

The^1st respondent before learned Tribunal filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.0 1.2020 in O.A.No.529 of 2016 on the file of A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Amaravati at Pedakakani in declaring the petitioners and respondents 1 and 4 are the members of the founder family of the subject temple i.e Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Van i Temple, Temple Street, Butchireddypaiem Post, P.S.Nellore District.

¶36

The appellant herein is the 1st respondent; the respondents 1 and 2 are the respondents 2 and 3; 3rd respondent is the^4,h respondent; respondents 4 to 11 herein are the petitioners 1 to 8 before the Tribunal.

¶37

Initially respondent; 4 to 11 herein, who are petitioners have filed O.A.No.529 of 201.6 against the respondents therein under Section 87(1)(h) of A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 30 of 1987 seeking to declare the petitioners therein as members of the founder family of the subject temple Sri Kodanda Rarna Swamy Van i Temple, Temple Street, Butchireddypalem Post, P.S.Neliore District.

¶38

¶39

Per contra, 1St respondent i.e appellant herein filed counter before the learned Tribunal and contended that he obtained declaration as a member of t:he founder's family vide Rc.No.A3/2687/98, dated 19.08.1998 and also declared by^1St respondent herein i.e Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Nellore basing on oral and documentary evidence and the hereditary trustees, who were alive, when this appellant/^1St respondent declared as a members of the founder's family. One Sri Panduranga Reddy and others has given No Objection Affidavit to the^1st respondent herein relinquishing their right as trustees to the subject temple, thus forgoing their right as trustees to the subject temple. As far as members concerned, they were passed away and no successors from their side were declared consequently as member of the founder's family. Further the O.A was filed after long elapse of 18 years, which itself shows that the petitioners in O.A did not make any attempt to obtain a declaration so far. Therefore, requested to dismiss the O.A.

¶40

Per contra, 2nd respondent Le Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Nellore filed counter affidavit and mainly contended that the 1St respondent/ appellant is the founder trustee Qf the temple-cum- son of Ramakrishna Reddy, who is the sore of Dodla Muddukrishna Reddy S/o Venkatrama Reddy. The said Dodla

¶41

Rami Reddy was the founder trustee of the temple as per the recitals of the approved property register and Dodla Venkata Rama Reddy is the adopted son of great grandson of Dodla Rami Reddy. The 1St respondent/ appellant, who is from the above succession was recognized as founder family member of the temple by the then Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Nellore and the property register was approved under Section 43 of Endowments Act 30/87 in Rc.No. 1126, dated 31.12.2015 by the 2n~ respondent. The petitioners who are claiming relationship to the branch of Dodla family did not apply to recognize them as member of founder family and hence they were not recognized as such. Dodla Sudhakar Reddy, Doclla Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, Dodla Varada Reddy, Dodla Gopala Krishna Reddy, l)odla Vivekreddy, Dodla Sarath Kumar Reddy, Dodla Padmanabha Reddy, Dodla Venkata Raghava Reddy are the members of the founder family of the subject temple and they may be recognized as founder family members of the subject temple. Therefore, requested to dismiss the O.A. '

¶42

Eased on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal eventually framed the following issues for trial:

¶43

Whether the petitioners are entitled to be declared as the members of the founder family of the subject temple along with others, if any? 2. To what relief?

¶44

¶45

During the course of trial,^7h petitioner therein was examined as PW-1.; 1St respondent was examined as RW-1 ar~d^2nd respondent therein was examined as RW-2.

¶46

The learned Tribunal after hearing on both sides, disposed of the petitioner, wherein it was held that the petitioners and respondents 1 and 4 are eligible to be declared/ recognized as the members of the founder family of the subject temple as their ancestors were founders of the subject temple as per records and disposed of the petition. Assailing the same, the present C.M.A came to be filed.

¶47

Heard Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the appellant/^1st respondent and Learned Standing Counsel for Endowments for the 2nd respondent; Sri G. Narasimha Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 11 / petitioners 1 to 8.

¶48

During hearing learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal erred in relying upon the evidence of 1St respondent herein, who deposed and thus stepping into the shoes of the petitioners as if he is a claimant as member of the founder's family by giving particulars which the respondents 3 to 11 dad not substantiate in their application. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal ignored the

¶49

¶50

contentions of the appellant, wherein he had raised^aspecific contention as to the right of the unofficial respondents, who^were unable to show to the Court that they hail from the family^of hereditary trustees nor they were able to come out with an authentic genealogical tree to substantiate their right as a member of the founder's family. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the crucial intention of the petitioner wherein he referred to his declaration as a member of the founder's family by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Nellore before whom no objection certificate were given that they were forgoing their right as a trustees and thus have no objection to the appellant being declared as a member of the founder's family. It is also further contention of the appellant that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the petitioners therein are eligible to be declared as a members of the founder's family as the temple is founded by the vendors of the respondents 3 to 11 and such conclusion is arrived at without even any evidence based on the record would speak about they being the children or grandchildren of the original hereditary trustees or the institution. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

¶51

¶52

Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 11 vehemently opposed to allow the C.M.A and contended that their great grandfather by name Sri Dodla Bangaru Rama Reddy had constructed the subject temple in his own land and with his own funds. After him, their successors were managing the affairs of the said temple. Therefore, the respondents 4 to 11 are the members of Dodla family and successors to Sri Dodla Bangaru Rama Reddy therefore they belongs to founder's family. From the year 1998 the appellant has been managing the temple. During the year 1926 the temple was handed over to the then Hindu Religious Endowments Board vide orders No.630, dated 21.11.1927.

¶53

The 1St respondent herein would contend that the appellant is the present founder trustees of the temple, being son of Ramakrishna Reddy and he is a recognized as founder family member of the temple and the property was approved under Section 43 of the Endowments Act 30/87 and issued proceedings dated 31.12.2015 by the 1St respondent. The respondents 4 to 11, who are petitioners therein, are claiming relationship to the branch of Dodla family did not apply to recognize them as member of founder family. Therefore they were not recognized as such.

¶54

As could be seen from the material on record and upon perusal of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, this Court

¶55

finds that in support of their respective^{contentions ofbothparties,} proper and necessary documentary proofs have not been^filedand no witnesses were examined, except PW-1 and RWs -1 and^2before the trial court, which is insufficient to decide the rights of^the parties as claimed in the O.A. Further the learned Tribunal has look into the proceedings issued by the 1St respondent herein and blindly came to a conclusion and disposed of the O.A. The findings of the learned Tribunal are mere surmises. There are several allegations between each other and it has to be decided on oral and documentary evidence at length in strict sense, but the learned Tribunal failed to look into. The learned Tribunal also considered the Judgment of this Court in C.M.A.No.590 of 2012, wherein the learned Single Judge clearly discussed with regard to Section 87(1)(h) of Act. 30/ 1987, but the learned tribunal did not follow the said aspects, through referred in its order.

¶56

Under these circumstances, this matter requires both oral and documentary evidence on record to ascertain who the founder family are members of the said temple. Therefore, it deserves to be remanded back to the learned^{Tribunalforfresh} disposal by setting aside the impugned^{orderofthelearned} Tribunal.

¶57

¶58

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to allow the C.M.A, while remand back the O.A.No.529 of 2016 to the learned Tribunal for fresh disposal, after affording ample opportunity to the respective parties and dispose of the same afresh, strictly adherence in accordance with law, within six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order dated 07.01.2020 in O.A.No.529 of 2016 of the learned Tribunal is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶59