Smt. Kommuru Kanakaratnam Vs Jami Suresh Kumar

1.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) W.P.No:2672/2020 Between: Sanghamitra Estates, ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.AKULA VAMSI SANGEETH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶35

1.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)

¶36

3

¶37

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶38

W.A.No:641/2021

¶39

Between:

¶40

Smt. Kommuru Kanakaratnam and Others

¶41

...APPELLANT(S)

¶42

AND

¶43

Jami Suresh Kumar and Others

¶44

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶45

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶46

1.M/S INDUS LAW FIRM

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶48

1.SABBAVARAPU SATISH BABU

¶49

2.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)

3.T V S KUMAR

W.A.No:642/2021

Between:

Smt. Kommuru Kanakaratnam and Others

¶54

...APPELLANT(S)

¶55

AND

¶56

Jami Suresh Kumar and Others

¶57

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶58

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶59

1.M/S INDUS LAW FIRM

¶60

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶61

1....

¶62

2.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)

¶63

3.T V S KUMAR

¶64

4

¶65

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶66

The Court made the following Common Order:

¶67

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶68

All the above cases arise out of the disputes relating to the ownership and claims Ac.14.20 cents of land in Sy.No.409/P and Ac.29.73 cents in Sy.No.438/P of Bogapuram-West Village, Vizianagaram District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the property’). All these cases relate to the same land and as the parties involved in these writ petitions are, to a large part common, all these cases are disposed of by way of this common order.

¶69

Heard Sri V.R.N. Prashanth, learned counsel assisted by Sri Guna Sekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Indus Law Firm for the appellants/petitioners/respondents in all these cases. Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel appearing for the implead petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2025, in W.P.No.12893 of 2007, Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.30145 of 2018, Sri Akula Vamsi Sangeeth Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.2672 of 2020 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents in all these Cases.

¶70

The property in question was part of the ancestral property, belonging to a family with the surname Kommuru. In 1952 there was a partition within this family and the property fell to the share of Sri Appadu Dora. Apart from this, Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora had been given other properties. In 1957, Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora established the Appadu Dora

¶71

5

¶72

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶73

Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust) for charitable purposes and registered this Trust on 16.04.1963, with the Sub-Registrar, as Document No.510/1963. Under this Deed of Trust, Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora transferred various properties for achieving the charitable purposes set out in the Deed of Trust itself. However, the property in dispute was not transferred to the Trust under this Deed of Trust. Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora was childless and passed away, on 16.07.1989. His brother, who was the 1^st petitioner in W.P.No.12893 of 2007, contends that late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora died intestate and consequently, the 1^st petitioner, viz., Kommuru Appala Swamy, became the legal heir to all his properties. The wife of the 1^st petitioner and his son, have continued the writ petition, even after the death of the 1^st petitioner. (the petitioners in this writ petition are hereinafter referred to as ‘the family members’).

¶74

The National Highways Authority of India acquired an extent of Ac.1.35 cents in Sy.No.438/2 and Ac.0.92 cents in Sy.No.409/2 out of this property, in the year 2002 and paid compensation to the petitioners in W.P.No.12893 of 2007.

¶75

Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, who is the 4^th respondent in W.P.No.12893 of 2007 raised a claim that late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora, had executed a document dated 16.05.1988, appointing him as the Trustee of the Trust. Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, on the basis of this document, dated 16.05.1988, approached the revenue authorities and obtained pattadar

¶76

6

¶77

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶78

passbooks and title deeds, in the name of the Trust, in relation to the lands comprising the property. Aggrieved by this, the family members have approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, by way of an appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the ROR Act’). On 31.12.2006, the Revenue Divisional Officer allowed this appeal and cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the Trust. Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao filed a revision before the Joint Collector, against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 31.12.2006. This revision came to be allowed by the Joint Collector, by an order dated 05.06.2007, setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer passed on 31.12.2006. Aggrieved by the said order of the Joint Collector, the family members have approached this Court by way of W.P.No.12893 of 2007. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 25.06.2007, had initially suspended the order of the Joint Collector, dated 05.06.2007. The said interim order came to be vacated by order dated 26.09.2012.

¶79

The family members filed Writ Appeal No.1304 of 2012 against this order. The writ appeal came to be disposed of on 07.11.2012 granting liberty to the family members to approach the learned Single Judge for early disposal of the writ petition. Apart from this, the order dated 07.11.2012 also directed that status quo existing as on that day, shall be maintained by the parties. The order further recorded that the learned counsel appearing for the

¶80

7

¶81

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶82

respondents in the writ appeal, had undertaken that they would not alienate the property in question in view of the status quo order granted by the Court. This undertaking is essentially the undertaking of Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, who is the 4^th respondent in W.A.No.1304 of 2012.

¶83

In a parallel proceeding, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments addressed a letter to the Commissioner, Endowments Department, on 21.05.2007, requesting the Commissioner, Endowments, to notify the Trust under Section 6 (c)(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Endowments Act’) as Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao was alienating the Trust properties. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, by an order dated 30.05.2007 appointed a Single Member Trustee to take full charge of the Trust and its properties. The Endowment Department, on 27.06.2007, issued proceedings, registering the Trust under Section 6(c)(1) of the Endowments Act. Aggrieved by the appointment of a Single Trustee, Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P.No.25662 of 2008. This writ petition was disposed of on 08.12.2011 setting aside the proceedings dated 30.05.2007 relating to the appointment of the Trustee. However, the registration of the Trust under Section 6(c)(1) of the Endowments Act, on 27.06.2007, was upheld.

¶84

Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, during the pendency of these proceedings, initiated the process of alienation of the property by executing an

¶85

8

¶86

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶87

irrevocable possessory agreement of sale coupled with General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of Sri U. Appala Swamy Dora and his son Sri U. Venkatachalam. This document was presented for registration on 02.07.2007 and was subsequently, registered on 05.07.2007 as Document No.5362/2007. The family members contend that they were unaware of this transaction, at any stage, till a publication was made in Eenadu newspaper in September, 2020.

¶88

Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao passed away on 01.11.2015 and

¶89

his wife Smt. A. Umadevi entered the picture, claiming that she had been appointed as Trustee by her husband, on 19.09.2015.

¶90

Smt. A. Umadevi, who is the wife of Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, claims to be the Trustee, who succeeded Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, and sought registration of a deed of cancellation, dated 05.07.2007, which is said to have been executed to cancel the earlier GPA executed on 27.06.2007 by Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao. Smt. A. Umadevi, approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.30145 of 2018 for a direction to the Registration Authorities to register the said Deed of Cancellation dated 05.07.2007. This writ petition is part of the batch of cases being disposed of by this order.

¶91

M/s. Sanghamitra Estates, Developers & Builders have also approached this Court, in relation to this GPA, by way of W.P.No.2672 of

¶92

9

¶93

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶94

The contention of M/s. Sanghamitra Estates, Developers & Builders, in this writ petition, is that a deed of sale had been executed, in relation to part of the property, on the basis of the GPA granted on 27.06.2007 and that the said deed of sale should be impounded and regularized.

¶95

One Sri J. Suresh Kumar, approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.21998 of 2018, claiming that Sri U. Appala Swamy Dora, who was the GPA holder of the GPA dated 27.06.2007, had executed an agreement of sale and delivered possession of the land admeasuring Ac.13.49 cents in Sy.No.409/1 and Ac.26.40 cents in Sy.No.438/1 and that a direction should be given to the District Registrar to impound the said unregistered agreement of sale with possession. This writ petition was disposed of on 20.11.2018 with a direction to the District Registrar to impound the agreement of sale, dated 19.01.2010 if the same is produced by Sri J. Suresh Kumar, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

¶96

The family members became aware of this order in September 2021 and moved W.A.No.642 of 2021 against this order, claiming that such an agreement of sale is a void and invalid document.

¶97

Sri J. Suresh Kumar, again approached this Court by way of W.P.No.18014 of 2021 contending that he was unable to comply with the directions of this Court in W.P.No.21998 of 2018, within the stipulated time

¶98

10

¶99

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶100

and sought a fresh direction to the District Registrar to impound the agreement of sale dated 19.01.2010. This writ petition came to be dismissed on 04.09.2021 by the learned Single Judge, on the ground that an order, in this regard, had already been passed in W.P.No.21998 of 2018, with a direction to the District Registrar to comply with the earlier order in W.P.No.21998 of 2018. This order in W.P.No.18014 of 2021 has been challenged by the family members in W.P.No.641 of 2021.

¶101

M/s. Sanghamitra Estates, Developers & Builders moved W.P.No.2672 of 2020 for a direction to the Joint sub-Registrar to register the deed of sale, dated 02.10.2015 as the Joint Sub-Registrar, had refused to register the same on 04.11.2015 and the appeal preferred against the said order of rejection had been dismissed.

¶102

Smt. A. Umadevi, claiming to be the Trustee of the Trust, filed W.P.No.30145 of 2018 seeking registration of deed of cancellation dated 05.07.2007, which is said to have been executed to cancel the GPA dated 27.06.2007. She has also filed an application bearing I.A. No. 2 of 2025 in W.P.No.12893 of 2007. This application is dismissed, on account of the findings being set out in this order.

¶103

The above facts can be simplified in the following manner:

¶104

a) The property, is said to the property of the Trust. The family members dispute the said claim, as the deed of Trust does not show any such transfer of the property, by late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora to the Trust.

¶105

11

¶106

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶107

b) Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, claiming to have been appointed

¶108

as Trustee, by late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora, who executed a GPA cum possessory agreement of sale, dated 27.06.2007 in favour of Sri U. Appala Swamy Dora and his son Sri U. Venkatachalam. M/s. Sanghamitra Estates, Developers & Builders and Sri J. Suresh Kumar claim that the GPA holders, of the GPA dated 27.06.2007, had executed deeds of sale in their favour and that the registration authorities were placing hurdles in registration of the said documents.

¶109

c) Smt. A. Umadevi, who is the widow of Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, claims that she had been appointed, as a Trustee by Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, by proceedings dated 19.09.2015 and filed writ petitions for registration of a deed of cancellation, dated 05.07.2007, said to have been executed to cancel the GPA dated 27.06.2007.

¶110

d) Apart from this, the Endowment Department claims that Smt. A. Umadevi cannot act as a Trustee as Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao did not have any authority to appoint Trustees. Further, the power of appointing Trustees, stands vested in the Government and the officials of the Endowment Department, in view of the Trust being notified under Section 6(c)(1) of the Endowments Act.

¶111

Consideration of the Court :

¶112

The above facts, and contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for all these parties, raise the following issues:

¶113

12

¶114

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶115

Whether the property is Trust property?

¶116

Whether Smt. A. Umadevi is the properly appointed Trustee of the Trust and whether her contention, that the deed of cancellation dated 05.07.2007 should be registered, is valid?

¶117

Whether the GPA cum Possessory Agreement of Sale, said to have been executed by late Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao is valid or not?

¶118

Whether M/s. Sanghamitra Estates, Developers & Builders and Sri J. Suresh Kumar are entitled to claim right and title over the said property and whether they are entitled to reliefs claimed by them in their writ petitions?

¶119

Issue No.1 :

¶120

The deed of Trust executed by Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora and registered as Document No.510/1963 has been placed before this Court. The properties which have been endowed on the Trust have been enumerated in the Deed of Trust itself. The property, which is the subject matter of this litigation, is not mentioned in this Deed of Trust. It is contended that this property came to be endowed by subsequent documentation.

¶121

I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.2672 of 2020 and I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.30145 of 2018 have been filed by the 6^th petitioner W.P.No.12893 of 2007 contending that she is a family member of late Sri Kommuru Appala Swamy Dora and has a vital interest in the property under dispute. In view of the findings of this Court in this regard, it is necessary and appropriate to

¶122

13

¶123

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶124

implead the petitioners in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.30145 of 2018 as respondent Nos.7 and 8 in the main writ petition and the petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.2672 of 2020 as respondent No.5 in the main writ petition.

¶125

Smt. A. Umadevi had filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 to implead herself as a respondent in W.P.No.12893 of 2007. She had filed a reply affidavit in this application. The documents attached to this reply affidavit contains an agreement of sale dated 16.10.1970 and certain other documents under which, the property is said to have been transferred to the Trust. The agreement of sale dated 16.10.1970 is said to have been executed between Smt. A. Annapurnamma and Sri Appadu Dora. Under this agreement, Sri Appadu Dora is said to have agreed to sell certain land, including the property, to Smt. Annapurnamma and her son Sri Gadadhara Prasad. Thereafter, Smt. Annapurnamma and Sri Gadadhara Prasad are said to have executed a deed of agency, dated 10.04.1975, in favour of Sri K. Venkateswara Rao. Under this deed of agency Sri K. Venkateswara Rao was appointed as the agent to look after the properties set out in the schedule. This schedule mentions Ac.5.56 cents in Sy.No.169 and Ac.31.14 cents in Sy.No.438. Only a part of the lands, comprising the property, are shown in the schedule.

¶126

The next document is a letter, dated 13.07.1986 signed by Smt. Annapurnamma and Sri Gadadhara Prasad and addressed to the Trust. In this letter, it is stated that Sri Appadu Dora, who had sold the land to them, under the agreement of sale, dated 10.10.1970, wanted to buy back these

¶127

14

¶128

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶129

lands and paid Rs.1,80,000/- towards sale consideration and sought transfer of the land to the Trust. Certain written documents are said to have been executed, on 08.05.1986, between Sri K. Venkateswara Rao acting as agent of these two persons and Sri Appadu Dora and that the said documents have been ratified by these two persons. Thereafter, a deed of confirmation dated 08.07.1991 is said to have been executed by Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, affirming that the land was being given to the Trust. The next document produced before the Court is said to be a declaration given by Smt. Annapurnamma, under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Land Reforms Act’). In this declaration she is said to have declared Ac.31.14 cents in Sy.No.438 and Ac.5.56 cents in Sy.No.169 to belong to her. Apart from this, a permanent lease agreement dated 15.07.1962 and agreement of sale of rights over zeroity land under permanent lease dated 18.05.1984 and a statement said to have been received from Sri K. Appala Swamy Dora (who is the brother of Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora) accepting that the property now belongs to Trust, have also been placed before this Court.

¶130

The contention of Smt. A. Umadevi is that the property had been transferred to the Trust by virtue of these documents. The said documents are all unregistered documents. The transfer of immovable property, can be affected only by way of written instruments, which are registered and stamped with proper stamp duty. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, mandates

¶131

15

¶132

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶133

that any document affecting transfer of immovable property is compulsorily registerable. Section 49 of the Registration Act stipulates that no Court can look into any unregistered document, if such document is compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

¶134

In the present case, none of these documents have been registered and cannot be looked into. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited and Ors., vs. State of Haryana and Anr. ,¹ , had categorically held that there can be no transfer of immoveable property, by way of an agreement of sale and that agreement holders cannot claim title over the land, set out in the said agreement of sale.

¶135

In the circumstances, as there was no transfer of the property to either Smt. Annapurnamma or to Sri Gadadhara Prasad, transferof the land to the Trust, by these persons, would not arise. Further, the alleged transfer of land by these persons to the Trust is not on the basis of any deed of sale or clear document of transfer, which is registered. The alleged transfer is by way of recording certain oral understandings of transfer of the property.

¶136

This Court, while not going into the question of whether these documents are genuine or not, has no hesitation to hold that there was no transfer of property from Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora to Smt. Annapurnamma or Sri Gadadhara Prasad. This Court is also of the opinion that there was no transfer of property from Smt. Annapurnamma and Sri Gadadhara Prasad to

¶137

1 (2012)1 SCC 656

¶138

16

¶139

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶140

the Trust. Declarations, if any, filed before the land ceiling authorities would not clothe such declarants with title and right over the land. Similarly, any declaration said to have been given by the 1^st writ petitioner, would not create a right or title, in favour of the Trust.

¶141

In the absence of any valid documents of transfer, it cannot be held that the property belongs to the Trust.

¶142

Issue No.2 :

¶143

Late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora, had stipulated, in the deed of Trust, executed by him, that he would be the Trustee for his life time and subsequently, persons appointed by him would be Trustees. In the event of Trustees not being appointed by him, his heirs would continue as Trustees and run the Trust in accordance with the conditions set out in the deed of Trust.

¶144

Late Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao and Smt. A. Umadevi have relied upon a document dated 16.05.1988, in which late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora is said to have appointed Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao as Trustee. In this document, late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora stated that all his rights and authority as Trustee was being transferred to Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao subject to the conditions set out in the Trust. Thereafter, late Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, before he passed away, on 01.11.2015, is said to have executed a deed of appointment dated 19.09.2015, in which he had appointed Smt. A. Umadevi as the Trustee of the Trust after him.

¶145

17

¶146

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶147

Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel appearing for Smt. A. Umadevi, contends that the said letter of appointment is valid on two grounds. Firstly, the settler of the Trust, late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora, while appointing Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao as Trustee, had also transferred all his rights and authority as settler of the Trust and consequently, Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, stepped into the shoes of late Asri Kommuru Appadu Dora and was empowered to appoint other trustees. Secondly, Section 73 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, provides that in the absence of a person who can appoint trustees, the existing Trustees would be entitled to appoint new Trustees.

¶148

There is a dispute as to whether late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora had in fact, executed the appointment proceedings dated 16.05.1988. This issue is not being considered by this Court, at this stage. This Court is only looking at the power of late Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao to appoint Smt. A. Umadevi as a Trustee, even if his appointment was valid. Under the proceedings, of 16.05.1988, late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora, while appointing Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao as Trustee, had also stated that all his power and authority, as Trustee, is being transferred to Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao. In the light of this statement, it cannot be construed that Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora had transferred his authority, as settler, to Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao. The authority said to have been transferred to Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, is only the authority available to a trustee. Further, the deed

¶149

18

¶150

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶151

of Trust itself states that the Trustees would be either late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora or the persons appointed by him and his legal heirs, if there is no person appointed by him to act as Trustee. Even if the appointment of Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, as Trustee, is accepted, the same would not empower Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao to appoint Smt. A. Umadevi as Trustee.

¶152

Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel appearing for Smt. A. Umadevi contends that Section 73 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 empowers existing Trustees to appoint new Trustees, if there is no provision available in the deed of Trust or no appointment has been made in accordance with the deed of Trust. This contention has two difficulties. Firstly, the Deed of Trust stipulates that the heirs of late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora would succeed him as Trustee, if no persons have been appointed by him. At best, Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao can claim to be a Trustee. After his demise, it would only be the heirs of late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora, who would become Trustees.

¶153

Even if such power is to be found under the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, the same would not ensure to the benefit of Smt. A. Umadevi, in as much as, the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 apply to private Trusts only. The preamble as well as savings clause, in Section 1 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 very clearly stipulate that the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 apply to private Trusts only. The Trust herein is a

¶154

19

¶155

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶156

public Trust and consequently, the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act would not be applicable to this Trust.

¶157

There is yet another reason as to why Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao did not have the power to appoint Smt. A. Umadevi as Trustee. The Trust had already been registered under Section 6(c)(1) of the Endowments Act, on 27.06.2007. This registration has become final as this registration has not been set aside by any subsequent proceeding of this Court or otherwise. Once the Trust has been registered as a public charitable Trust, under the provisions of the Endowments Act, the power of appointment of Trustees vests in the Government and the officials of the Endowments Act, as provided under Section 15 to 17 of the Endowments Act. The settler or any other person, running the Trust, would be divested of the power to appoint Trustees to a public charitable Trust. Any appointment made by Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, is clearly without authority of law.

¶158

In that view of the matter, Smt. A. Umadevi cannot claim to be a Trustee of the Trust nor can she initiate legal action on behalf of the Trust. Consequently, W.P.No.30145 of 2018 filed by Smt. A. Umadevi, for a direction to the authorities to register the deed of cancellation, date 05.07.2007, would not be maintainable, and accordingly, W.P.No.30145 of 2018 is dismissed.

¶159

Issue No.3 :

¶160

Though doubts have been expressed, as to whether Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao has been appointed as a Trustee of late Sri Kommuru

¶161

20

¶162

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶163

Appadu Dora, this Court is not going into this issue as findings of fact would have to be given in this regard and the same would not be appropriate in the present proceedings.

¶164

However, any possessory agreement of sale or GPA given by late Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao to any person, in relation to the property, would be valid, if the property belonged to the Trust in the first place. In view of the findings of this Court, in relation to Issue No.1, it must be held that the property does not belong to the Trust. Consequently, any agreement of sale or GPA executed by Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, on behalf of the Trust would not create any rights in favour of any person, including the purchasers or the GPA appointed under the said document.

¶165

Issue No.4 :

¶166

M/s. Sanghamitra Estates, Developers & Builders and Sri J. Suresh Kumar are claiming rights on the basis of the agreements of sale / deeds of sale, said to have been executed in their favour, by the GPA holders, mentioned in the GPA dated 27.06.2007. This claim, could have been gone into, if the agreement of sale or GPA has been executed by the owner or a person who had a right over the property. As held above, the Trust is not the owner of the property and any agreement of sale or GPA granted by the Trustee would also be invalid and would not bind the property. The agreements of sale / deeds of sale executed by such GPA would not create any right or title to any of the beneficiaries of such documents.

¶167

21

¶168

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶169

Apart from this, the Trust is a public charitable institution, which had been registered on 27.06.2007. The GPA dated 27.06.2007, was presented for registration only on 05.07.2007. Section 80 of the Endowments Act mandates that no property of a charitable institution, falling within the ambit of the Endowments Act, can be alienated except by way of public auction or after obtaining the prior written consent of the Commissioner of Endowments / Government of A.P., before alienation is done in any other manner. This provision of law also mandates that any alienation, done in violation of this provision, is void. The status of the Trust, as a public charitable Trust, is not challenged and in any event, has been accepted since 2007. In such circumstances, even if the property is the property of the trust, any transaction of private sale, without the prior approval of the Commissioner of endowments, either by the Trustee or the GPA of a Trustee, would be void.

¶170

Sri K. Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel appearing for Sri J. Suresh Kumar, the private respondent in W.A. No. 641 and 642 of 2021 and Sri A. Vamsi Sangeeth Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No. 2672 of 2020 contend that the refusal, of the registrar concerned, to register the documents presented to them is violative of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the rules made thereunder. Both learned counsel have sought to stress on the title of the Trust, over the property, which is said to have been confirmed by orders of the appropriate authority, and contend that the registering authority has no authority to go into the question of title,

¶171

22

¶172

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶173

once the persons seeking registration , of a document, produce prima facie proof of ownership. Sri A. Vamsi Sangeeth Kumar has also relied upon the following judgments:

¶174

State of Rajasthan & ors vs. Basant Nahata²

¶175

Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors., vs. M.I.D.C. & Ors.³

¶176

R. Hanumaiah & Anr., vs. Secretary to Government of Karnataka Revenue Department & Ors.,⁴

¶177

B. Sridevi vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh Criminal Petition No.4976 of 2022 dated 14.07.2022

¶178

Deoki Nandan vs. Murlidhar⁵

¶179

Smt. Sridevi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, W.P.No.8017 of 2022

¶180

The aforesaid judgments are on the issues of the validity of section 22A of the Registration Act; the rights of a person, under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, in the context of compulsory acquisition of land; the rights of private persons over private tanks and the weight to be given to revenue records; principles for grant of bail; the principles to be applied for determining whether a trust is a private or public trust ; and whether assigned land would continue to be assigned land when it is sold in auction by the mortgagee bank. This Court has not found any relevance in these judgments except in the case of Deoki Nandan vs. Muralidhar . In this case, the

¶181

2 (2005) 12 SCC 77 = AIR 2005 SC 3401

¶182

3 AIR 2013 SC 565

¶183

4 2010 (4) SCR 904

¶184

5 AIR 1957 SC 133 = 1956 SCJ 75

¶185

23

¶186

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶187

question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether the temple, in dispute, was a private temple or a public temple. The Hon’ble Supreme court, after laying down the guidelines for deciding such an issue, had gone into the facts of the case to determine the nature of the temple. This case does not present any such difficulty. The Trust deed itself states that the trust is being set up for assisting students and for other charitable purposes. The Trust has been registered, under Section 6(1)(c) of the Endowments Act, as a Charitable Trust. Further, this registration was way before the transactions between these persons and the General power of Attorney holder, said to have been appointed by the Trustee had taken place. This court has already held that, the property does not belong to the Trust, as the documents of transfer placed before this court are unregistered documents said to be recording oral transfers of immovable property. Even if the property is to be treated as Trust property, there can be no transfer of title or property, in view of Section 80 of the Endowment Act, by way of a private sale, without prior approval of the Commissioner, Endowments. This Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the property is to be treated as a property of the Trust, neither M/s. Sanghamitra Estates Developers & Builders nor Sri J. Suresh Kumar, would acquire any title over the property even if such deeds of sale are registered. Any such registration would only create an unnecessary cloud over the title.

¶188

24

¶189

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch

¶190

In accordance with the above views, I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.30145 of 2018 is allowed and W.P.No.30145 of 2018 is dismissed. Similarly, I.A.No.2 of 2020 is allowed and W.P.No.2672 of 2020 is dismissed. W.A.Nos.641 and 642 of 2021 are allowed.

¶191

I.A.No.2 of 2025 and W.P.No.12893 of 2007 are allowed and the order of the Joint Collector, dated 05.06.2007 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Joint Collector to exercise his power under Section 9 of the ROR Act, for ascertaining the true owners of the land, in accordance with the observations of this judgment and to direct necessary entries to be made in the revenue records and for consequential actions of issuance of title deeds and pattadar passbooks. The said exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks. In the event of the Joint Collector having any difficulty in deciding any questions, which are in conflict, it would also be open to the Joint Collector, to refer the parties to civil litigation, for ascertaining the ownership of the land. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶192

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed.

¶193

_______________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J

¶194

____________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J

¶195

Js.

¶196

25

¶197

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch