Allowed

Tadikonda Koteswara Rao v. Nagasarapu Annatha Venkata Satyanarasyana and 2 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Jan 2026CMA/83/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an Endowments Tribunal order on whether a temple was private or public and who could manage it. The High Court found the Tribunal's declaration that the appellant was not a founder's family member went beyond the relief prayed for in the original application and set aside only that part, allowing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Portion of the Tribunal's order declaring the appellant not entitled to be recognised as founder's family member set aside; rest of the order continued.

Tadikonda Koteswara Rao Vs Nagasarapu Annatha Venkata Satyanarasyana and 2 Others — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

APHC010735642012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3329]

¶5

TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 83/2012

¶8

Between:

¶9

TADIKONDA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O RAMA POLISETTY MANAGING TRUSTEE, SRI RUKMABAI SAMETHA PANDURANGA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DIST. SHOP.NO. 8788, SRI NEW MADHURA MATCHING, M.G. CLOTH MARKET, SATTENAPALLI ROAD,

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

NAGASARAPU ANNATHA VENKATA SATYANARASYANA AND 2 OTHERS, S/O NARASIMHAM R/O 3-12-33, POWER OFFICE ROAD, NARASARAOPET,

¶13

THE INSPECTOR, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Appeal Under Section_____against orders

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CMAMP 161 OF 2012

¶18

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 grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of orders dated 11-10-2011 made in OA.NO. 1256 of 2010 on the file of the A.P.Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad pending disposal of the appeal

¶19

¶20

IA NO: 4 OF 2012(CMAMP 4743 OF 2012

¶21

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

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CMAMP 88 OF 2014

¶23

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 implead "sri Rukmabai sameta panduranga swamy Devasthanam, Narasaraopet, Near Shivuni Bomma Center, Sattenapalli Road, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, Rep: by its Executive Officer" as a party respondent NO. 4 to the appeal CMA No. 83/2013 and as well as CMAMP's and to pass

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2014(CMAMP 2552 OF 2014

¶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

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CMAMP 497 OF 2016

¶27

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 implead the proposed respondents 4 and 5 as respondents 4 and 5 in CMA No.83/2012

¶28

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶29

1.D V SASIDHAR

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE SC For Endowments

¶32

2.M VIDYASAGAR

¶33

The Court made the following:

¶34

¶35

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶36

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.83 of 2012

¶37

JUDGMENT:-

¶38

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 11.10.2011 passed in O.A.No.1256 of 2010 on the file of the A.P.Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader for Endowments and the learned Standing Counsel for Temple.

¶40

The claim of the petitioner herein is that the Tribunal erroneously passed an order declaring that the appellant/respondent No.3 in O.A.No.1256 of 2010 is not entitled to be declared as a family member of the founder’s family of the subject temple to manage the affairs of the temple and its properties either independently or under the control and as per the orders of the Assistant commissioner dated 16.12.1996 much less for continuing by virtue of the order any longer as founder’s family trustee of the subject temple. The said declaration is contrary to the application and prayer of the petitioner in O.A.No.1256 of 2010.

¶41

Learned counsel for the appellant drawn the attention of this Court to the prayer of the respondent herein/petitioner therein in O.A.No.1256 of 2010 is extracted hereunder:

¶42

“Declare that Sri Rukmabai Sametha Sri Panduranga Swamy Devasthanam, Narasaraopet Town and Mandal, Guntur District along with its properties (a) Landed property admeasuring an extent of Acs.1610 cents in Sy.Nos.300/C and 2A(b) a building in Sy.No.552 in Narasaraopet Town and Mandal is not a public religious endowments

¶43

¶44

attracting the provisions of the Endowments Act and consequently declare that the temple with its properties is a private institution and the petitioner and his successors are entitled to manage the affairs of the temple and its properties being the persons and further orders as are just and necessary in the circumstances of the case”.

¶45

The prayer of the respondent No.1 herein/petitioner in O.A.No.1256 of 2010 as stated supra, but whereas the tribunal beyond to the prayer of the Respondent No.1/petitioner, went ahead and declared that the respondent herein is the member of the founder’s family and recognized him as founder’s family member while holding the entire findings against the petitioner and denied the claim of the Respondent No.1 regarding declaration of subject temple as private temple and properties of the temple are private properties and also rejected the claim of the Respondent No.1. Therefore, the subject portion of the order in O.A.No.1256 of 2010, dated 11.10.2011 is liable to be set aside.

¶46

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel as well as learned Government Pleader submits that they have no objection to the claim of the appellant herein, moreover the orders passed by the tribunal is certainly beyond the scope of the petition as well as prayer set out by the petitioner in his application in O.A.No.1256 of 2010, which is extracted hereunder:

¶47

“Point-4: In the result, the petition is (i) while dismissing with costs on the claims that (a) the temple is a private one and its properties are the private properties by holding that it is the public temple when its properties as a public religious endowment, (b) the petitioner is entitled to be recognized or declared as person belong to Founder family of the subject temple to manage the affairs of the temple and its properties by holding that the petitioner is not entitled to be recognized or declared as person belong to founder family of the subject temple to manage the affairs of the

¶48

¶49

temple and its properties; (ii) allowed with no costs on the claim that (a) RW-1- Sri T.Koteswara Rao, is not entitled to be recognized or declared as person belong to founder family of the subject temple to manage the affairs of the temple and its properties either independently or by virtue of the order of the Asst. Commissioner, dated 16.12.1996 much less for continuing by virtue of the order any longer as Founder Family Trustee of the subject temple. (iii) it is however made clear that subject to qualifications and disqualifications under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act there is no bar for the authorities concerned to appoint either the petitioner or RW1 or both of them as non-hereditary trustees in the trust board being constituted from time to time under Section 15 of the Act. Advocate fees fixed is Rs.2,000/-...”

¶50

Certainly, the order passed by the Tribunal, dated 11.10.2011 extracted above is beyond the prayer of the Respondent No.1/petitioner. Therefore, to the extent of declaration of the appellant herein/respondent No.3 therein is not entitled to be recognized as founder family member is hereby set aside. Further, except the above observation, the other part of the order shall be continued in accordance with law and do not warrant any interference.

¶51

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

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

¶53

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

06.01.2026 BSP

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶58

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.83 of 2012

¶59

06.01.2026 BSP

Tadikonda Koteswara Rao v. Nagasarapu Annatha Venkata Satyanarasyana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tadikonda Koteswara Rao v. Nagasarapu Annatha Venkata Satyanarasyana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijjam Hanumayamma Vs Medagam Anjamma

Peddinti Chakram Vs Sri G Sai Prasad IAS

Mottadam Gangaraju Vs M M Nayak, IAS

Mamidi Suresh Vs Mrs. Sheela Rani

Mamidi Suresh Vs Mrs. Sheela Rani

K Janardhan Reddy Vs G Sai Prasad IAS