Dismissed

Y.Babu Guru v. Y.Jagannadham and 2 others

Telangana HC21 Mar 2023CMA/1144/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging a 1981 order declaring the appellant's nephew as hereditary trustee of a temple. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding the appellant failed to show active management beyond ritual permission and could not explain the 40-year delay. The suit filed earlier for similar relief was also dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by Y.Babu Guru challenging the 1981 order declaring Y.Jagannadham as hereditary trustee was dismissed.

Y.Babu Guru Vs Y.Jagannadham and 2 others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 11214 OF 2019

¶6

Appeal filed Under Section 88 of Endowments Act 33 of 2007 aggrieved by the order dated 27-08-1981 in O.A.No. 12 of^'1980 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Y.Babu Guru, S/o.Narsaiah, Aged about 65 years, occ. Poojari (Purohit) R/o.H.No.20-1-120/1, Chandrikapuram, Puranapool, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . Y.Jagannadham, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged about 71 yearc, occ. Retired Employee, Electricity Department, Rl/o. H.No. 14-7-146, Shanker Bazar, Jagannadwara, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Deputy Commissioner, Endowment Department, Tilak Road, Hyderabad

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner, Twin Cities, Endowment Department, Tilak Road, Hyderabad

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶16

Petition under Section 151 of CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased To suspend the order dated 27-08-1981 in O.A.No.12 of 1980^passed by the 2nd respondent herein pending disposal of the above appeal.

¶17

CounselfortheAppellant : Sri BANKATLAL MANDHANI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri NAGA SRINIVAS RAO

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3 : None appeared

¶20

The_Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

HONOUT IABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAIf IIAIDU

¶22

C-M.A.NO.1144 of 2OL9

¶23

]UDGMENT:

¶24

ihis Ci /il lYiscellaneous Appeal has been fiied by the appellant und,:r Section BB of Endowments Act i,e. Lct 33 of 20O7 against the: rrder dated 27-08-1981 oF the e;rrnr:d Deputy Commissioner cf Endowments, Hyderabad in O.A.N:.i2 of 19E0.

¶25

It appears from the record that the 'ir jt^-espondent herein had fi =d O.A.No.12 of 1980 before the letrned Deputy Commissioner Endowments Act, Hyderabad under Secticn 4A rlw Section t-7 <:f lhe Act 17 of 1966 with a prayer to decl ere him as Hereditary -T-rr 15iss of Sri Mahankali Temple situ lt ld at Muslim Jung Bridge, F yderabad and to make necessary entrir:s in the Book of Endowme:nt s. As per the petition filed by the l'ir:;t respondent before the Clor lmissioner, it was his specific case tlat about 30 to 60 years pr cr to filing his application, his grand-1'alhe" by name Muthayya fcur ded a Temple by name Mahankali ,rt th,3 northern side of tvluslin Jung Bridge, Hyderabad and rill hi:;,leeth he had managed th,=: emple by performing annual services ancl after the death of his 1 rand-father, the father of the first rt:spondent by

¶26

55 R N,] C Nl.A No^1i:14 ol 20i9

)

I ; ! 1 1

l l i : I

name Nagaiah^{used to manageand performannuat Bonalu in the} said temple^{and his brother Balramused to assist him in} performing the^{functions.The first respondent also claimed in the} applibation^{that during the road widening and when a cement road} was laid, the^{level of the road becamehigh and templebecame} underground.^{Therefore,the father of the first respondent} constructed^{paccatemplewith Gopuram etc'' and later diedin} 1957.^{The respondentNo.1 has claimed that since the death of his} father,^{he was managlngthe temple and performingthe services} without^{any complaint.He has also claimedthat the sald temple} was not^{registeredin the Endowment recordsunderthe old Act'} Hisfatherwasnotparticularaboutestablishingrightsof Towliathship^{but he came to know that the templehas already} been^{registered in the Book of Endowmentsat Sy'No'34in the} year 1355 Fasli.

¶31

Therefore, the^{respondentNo'1 sought for declaring} him as a^{Hereditary Trustee'As per the order in O'A'No'12of} 1980, it^{see.msthe Assistant Commissioner' Endowmentsfileda} report stating^{that the Templeis a small one situatednear Muslim} Jung Bridge^{and the same was founded by the grandfather of first}

¶32

55 RN,] cM \ No 11.r,r oi 2019

¶33

resDondent. le used to^perform daily^{Poojas ard conducted} Annuai C:ierr rtions and after his death, his^{1-wr> sorts namely} Balram and N arsaiah managed the affairs of ti e temple^and rncreased th,: ncome by their own efforts and tha:^{l{arsaiah,the} father of ther r:spondent No.1 developed it into a te:mple shape. The learned 1)eputy Commissioner of Endowments conducted enquiry in O.A No.12 of 1980, In support of the clirin', the^first respondent 6rrc duced PWs.1 to 3 and marked Ex.A.-. Tire learned Deputy Comnr ssioner disposed O.A.No.12 of 198'l by his order dated 27-08-1')81 and declared the first respondent ils lereditary Trustee of Sri Yahankali Temple, Muslim Jung Bridgtt, llyderabad and allowed th 3 request of respondent No.1 for tht:^,:nr ulment of entry in Col.N r.7 of the Book of Endowments bi' ncluding the name of first rr spondent as Hereditary Trustee.

¶34

Th( appellant who is no other than :he trrother of respondent l\c.1 herein filed this Civil MlscellanelLs i\ppeal on 10-10-2019 ,rn the following grounds :

¶35

The orde r of the Deputy Commissioner is^rlontrtry under Section Bf of t r.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments A=t, 1987 as amended by Act of 33 o'2107. The

i-l

'.Bry?€-!r-

!*rD

ssRi'l l

C tll A llr I i¹⁴ ol lni,

¶41

respondent No.1^{passed the impugned orderEx-partewithout} service of any^{noticepertainingto the applicationfiled by} respondent No.1.^{RespondentsNo.2 and 3 did not issueany} notice to the appellant^{or any other membersof Late Y Narsaiah} being his legal^{representativeat the time of said enquiry with} regard to the application^{filed by respondentNo'1' Respondents} No.2 and 3 did^{not conduct any enquiry nor recordedthe} statements of^{appellant so as to ascertainwhether he has got any} objection to^{the applicationfiled by first respondentThe order} impugned^{in the presentappealdoes not discloseany reasonas to} why respondents^{No.2 and 3 did not choose to examine the family} members of^{Narsaiah and the appellant who as per their records} were managing^{the temple, which is known as Bhoolakshmi} Temple.

¶42

The appellant^{has claimedthat respondentshave got} knowledge^{that the appellant herein was in charge and managing} the temple^{after the death of his father and his uncle by name} Balram.^{The appellant has claimed that since no enquiry washeld} as required^{under law and as the facts have been suppressed'it} resulted total^{mis-carriage of justice' He has also claimed that the}

¶43

5SRN,] illANo.:1 4roi2Ot9

¶44

respondents r a're suppressed the fact as lvelr ; s dc.cumentary evidence r.ri^ ic h will show the appellant is not of lly managing Bhoolakshm^- emple but also performing ye,arly Bonalu and he used to ottti rr permission from the po ice ar thorities for conductrnq E;or atu lathara. The said fact will falsi v not only the contentions of^-espondent No.1 that he was ntanaging t.re temple but also wili es:ablrsh the appellant was in acl ual nranacTement of the tem ple,

¶45

il.e appellant has claimed that he wa:; cor tinuously performing Dev Nlavaratri celebrations as well as Mjla l)rasadam (Annakut) for e ",ery year. He has also claimed that respondents No.1 to 3 hi:v: got knowledge that appellant al)rg with the members const luted a registered society under ttle nilme and style of Bhoolak: hmi Mahakali Temple Welfare Committee and that the State Go.,ernment also contributing amorjr t towards expenditur€ by way of cheques issued in the name of Sri Bhoolakshmi Mat ankali Matha Temple to the appellant ilnc he was submitting accor nts to the Government. The apperllunt further contended that. r espondents No.1 to 3 have got kno\i\ ledge that appellant is nct :nly doing religious service to Templs t ut also

¶46

__^r-i

¶47

c tuln lo t i44 oi i01!

¶48

arranging Bonalu procession and on the basis oF some irresponsible complaints lodged by third parties, criminal cases were booked against the appeilant herein and he has contested the said criminal cases and later obtained acquittal.

¶49

The appellant has claimed that the respondent suppressed the real facts, documents, committed fraud and obtained orders in O.A.No.12 of 1980. He has also alleged that at no point of time, he gave his consent for declaration of the first respondent as a Hereditary Trustee.

¶50

The appellant has claimed that respondent No.3 failed to conduct proper enquiry with regard to performance oF Nithya Seva. Respondent No.2 did not apply euasi Judicial Mind while appreciating the evidence of^pw,s.2 and 3. The appellant has claimed that the first respondent was illegally collecting money from the devotees in the name of Raksha Bandhan and he was asking the people, who visit the temple to deposit amount in Account No.3L74288714 under the name of M/s.Godi Mahankali and illegally utilizing the same for the purpose of private purposes and he was using the gold ornaments for his family purpose, thereby enriching himself. The respondent No.1 without spending

¶51

SSBN,] ( l,' i No 1l r.1 of 1019

¶52

any amounl. c- the purpose of maintena.lc€r oF tf,e temple, swallowinq the entir-e amount of the temple for his owr purposes and alleged t.h lt the first respondent with a marafido irtention to deceive the :ernple, approached the second respond€rnt with false averments arc f led an application seeking declaration -o declare him as a Herr:i i3;y Trustee with false avermentS.

¶53

He has also alleged that respondr)nts tJo.1 to 3 kept the applicerlon o' r-espondent No.1 in secret and !vi1 hoirt issuing any notice :o hc 3ppellant and without any enqLir/ passed an order on 27-t)l -1987, thereby, the appellant soug hr. for setting aside the ord(jr t-l e: has also alleged that as pr:r Ser:ti tn BB of the Endowments A :t, any person aggrieved by th() de:ision of Endowment T-it una under Section B7 in May, rvithin 90 oays from the date receipt of decision before on appeal but sin:e he was not served with the copy of orders in O.A.No. 12 of 1980. he came to know the aboye referred order only on 2B-04-2Olg wherr he was served with a c )py by the first respondent. Therelo|e, filed the present Civil Y scellaneous Appeal against the sa d order and sought for settin I as de the impugned order.

¶54

Nolv :he point for consideration is :

¶55

¶56

55FN r C. lrl A No.I 1,1,1 of 70].1

¶57

Whether the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments failed to follow the procedure while disposing O.A.No.12 of 1980, if so, whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside?

¶58

This appeal has been filed by the appellant who is no other than the brother of the respondent No.1, who was declared as Hereditary Trustee of Mahankali Temple, Muslim Jung Bridge, Hyderabad. The appellant has challenged the order oF Deputy Commissioner Endowments Department in O.A.No.12 of 19BO which was decided/d isposed by the learned Commissioner on 27-08-7987. It may be true that the appellant or other family members of the respondent No.1 were not shown as respondents in the original application filed by the respondent No.1 which was decided during 1981. But the appellant cannot claim that he is not aware of the order which was passed about more than 40 years ago. The appellant has claimed that the order under appeal is contrary to Section 87 of the A.p. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, L987. The appellant has claimed that he was performing all the rituals including Bonalu and Devi Navarathri Celebrations. The appellant while claiming that he was leading the procession at the time of Bonalu Jatara, and used

¶59

!5RN,] i l,r No 1ldt cr ll19

¶60

to get permi:;si )r From the police department. r-l e hils al: o claimed that the resilc ndelts No.1 to 3 have got knov/leclge thai the appellant rs pe fornring not only religious serv ces to Bh,tolakshmi Mahankali T{rn Dle but also arranged procession ;rnd he was involved in cr-ir rinal cases at the instance oF some rrre sponsible complaints.^-['h :refore, it is his case that he was ac: .ely involved in the affairs of temple and the above referred orde- in ().A.No.12 of 1980 was lle ssed rryrthout notice to him, and tn ;upport of his claim, he sor ght to i-ely on the proceedin(IS cf police Commissioner, 3ranting perm^jssion for process at Ihe time of 'Bonalu'. The r:spondent No.1 did not dispute the stid fact but claimed that th r appellant herein was doing all tholie activities under his ins;tr lctions and he was only an Org rr izer. The respondent l'as filed counter affidavit in an inter.locutory application in thI present C.M.A. and submitted that il^e eppellant herein has alreac y filed a suit vide O.S.No.1051 of 20t4 be fore the Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Small Cause Cour:. Hyderabad for the same rel ef and his suit was dismissed by the sa d Court but the appella 1t did not whisper anything about the said Judgment.

!-I

55RN ] C.M.A.No.1t44 ot 2019

¶65

L2. As per the copy of the Judgment filed along with the counter, it shbws the appeilant herein fired o.s.No.1051 0f 2074 with a prayer to declare that the defendant No.1 therein (respondent No.1 in the present appeal) has no right or authority to collect, demand donations, money, gifts, gold or silver articles from the devotees to declare all the collection of money, donations, gift articres which were kept in the second defendant Bank i.e., Central Bank of India, Begum Bazaar Branch are not absolute property of respondent No.1 herein but berong to him. He has also sought for a mandatory injunction to remove the box kept for collection of money, donations etc., and Mandatory injunction against the defendants to produce the details of the amount lying in the Bank account and some other relief,s including perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant No.1 from collecting any donations. However, the suit was dismissed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Small Cause Court.

¶66

As per the application filed before the Deputy Commissioner during the year 19g0, the respondent No.1 herein sought for a declaration to declare him as a Hereditary Trustee on the ground that his father constructed the Temple and developed

¶67

-^{'-=1!i==: --!}

¶68

,.--:-l

¶69

l1 ,rs8 N,l l flo l t rl _-'2019

¶70

the same vrit r. his efforts After the Ceath itf hrs f,lth:r-, the first respondent i; rnanaging the tempie and pr:i-frtr lir g services w ithout ilny c )nrplaint.

¶71

A: could be seen from the order, the learned Deputy Commissioner has obtained the report 1,T(rm Assistant Commissionet, according to which the above referr.e,l^--emple was founded by r randfather of the first respondenr and during his lifetime, he h rs managed the affairs, perforrred ,h: caily poojas and after his⁽ eath his sons namely Balram, I\lar,iailf , ttte father of the appellant Nrt.1 and respondent No.1 mapaqec the afFairs and increased the income of the Temple by their orurr efforts. The Assistant Cor tmissioner has also mentioned in the r.eport that father of tire respondent No.1 herein devek)ped the r;aid ..Gudi,, into a Terr ol ) shape with pacca steps and afte r thr: death of Narsaiah, the respondent No.1 and appeilant hersirr vras rooking after the ar.ai s of the Tempre. The Tempre was re(listered under the Book of Er dowments. The respondent No,1 beilg ellest son of Narsaiah man tging the affairs of temple with the e s:;istance of his brother and tt ey gave consent stating that they havrl nt objection if their elder )rother becomes Hereditary Trustee cf t1e temple.

:--LEl-:.a;,..----

:,-_ .=i+-++,--:j!:+

s5RN.l c.M-A Nc 114. oJ 2019

¶78

The original application filed by the respondent No.1 was disposed after examining three witnesses before the Deputy Commissioner. The learned Deputy Commissioner having discussed the evidence of PW's.1 to 3, came to the conclusion that the respondent No.1 herein is entitled for the declaration as Hereditary Trustee of temple, thereby allowed the application vide order dated 27-OB-7981. The appellant herein could not place any material before the Court to show that he was actively participating in the rituals of the Temple except filing photocopies of^permissions granted by police department for conducting procession. Even as per those permission letters, the appellant herein was referred as poojari of the temple but he was never referred as organizer or Manager of the temple as claimed by him in the appeal. Therefore, simply because the Deputy Commissioner of Hyderabad City granted^permission for conducting process, based on the request of appellant who was referred as Poojari in the said^permission, the appellant cannot claim that he was managing all the affairs of the temple. Furthermore, the appellant is not able to explain the delay in filing the appeal at belated stage of more than 40 years. As per the

¶79

1l 55 RN,l r, .1 rro 1j.1; of 2019

¶80

copy ot Jud,:tn ent in O.S.No.105l of 20t4, it seefir,j th I appellant herein apprra:hed the Civil Court with a prayer to grlnt similar relief's of the ;ame was rejected by a competenl Coltrt but he did not mention anything about the suit in lhe pr€ sent appeal. Therefore, :hr:rt: are no grounds to set aside lhe order in O.A.No.12 of 1980.

¶81

In he result, appeal is dismissed.

¶82

Consec;ur:ntly, Miscellaneous applica:ions tf any, are

¶83

closed. No cost;.

¶84

Sd/. M. VIJA'TA BHASKAR .,C,INI' REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

:iECTION^gFFICER

To,

The Deputy Co nmissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri IANKATLAL MANDHANI, Advocate IOPU ll

¶89

J. One CC to Sri I IAGA SRINIVAS RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶90

Two CD Cop es

Njb

Kam

::r--_---"--.:!!-

HIGH COUR T

DATED:21 l0 tt}l13

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.114t.of 2O1g

/
i ;iln !

DISMISSING THE AT PEAL

¶100

\< -:.i-. I
j

Y.Babu Guru v. Y.Jagannadham and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Babu Guru v. Y.Jagannadham and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Chandra Mouli Vs K Suguna

Smt. a. Taramma and 2 others Vs Smt. a. Manjulaand 3 others

Sri. Cherukupally Prabhakar Vs Smt. Cherukupally Santhoshini

M/s. Addsun Health Care Vs Bion Therapeutics India Private Limited

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Pilli Yellamma

Maloth Mangya and another Vs Maloth Balaji