Dismissed

Pulumati Krishna Murthy v. The Assistant Commissioner

Telangana HC16 Nov 2023CRP/4610/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dispelled eight civil revisions assailing Tribunal dismissing injunction applications for lack of cause of action. Court held violations of property rights were alleged in brief pleaded facts. Ruled CPC Order VII Rule 11 inapplicable for silence in the Endowments Act schedule, thus upholding Tribunal's interim order rejection on merits.

What did the court decide?

Confirmed Tribunal orders dismissing interim injunction applications; directed expedited disposal.

Pulumati Krishna Murthy Vs The Assistant Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF^NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry^THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos:4566.4604.4610^{. 4621. 4653. 4686.4693.4698} and 4736 of 2017

¶6

C.R.P.No. 4566o1 2017:

¶7

Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution^{of lndia aggrievedby the order} dated 30-06-2017 in l.ANo.816 0f^{2014 in O.A.No.737 0t 2013 0n the fileof the} Court of the Telangana Endowments^{Tribunalat Hyderabad}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vaiinepalli Rajakala, Wo. Srinivasulu,^{aged about 4q} l9ar9'^{Household, H. No12-7-} 48; S.V.N. Road, Ramannapeta, Warangal Town and^District

¶10

...PETITIONER/ Petitioner / Respondent^{in O.A.}

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments^{Department, Warangal Town and} District.

¶13

Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple,^{Rep. by its Executive Officer,} Ramannapeta, Warangal Town^{and District.}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/ Respondents / Applicants^{in O.A.}

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA^PRASAD

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents:^SRI J.R.^{MANOHARRAOSC FOR ENDOWMENT}

¶17

c.R.P.NO.46040F 2017

¶18

Petition Under Article²²⁷ of Constitution^{of lndia aggrievedby the order} dated 30-06-2017 in l.A.No.^{819of 2014in O.A-No. 740} 9t^{2013 on the fileof the} Court of the Telangana Endowments^{Tribunalat Hyderabad}

¶19

Between:

¶20

Bandari Uday Kumar S/o. Rajeshwar Rao , aged^{about28 years, Business} , H.No. 12-7-55, S.V.N. Road, Ramannapeta,^{Warangal Town and District...} Petitioner/ Respondent in O.A.

¶21

And

¶22

L-.' r+J

¶23

1 . The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Warangal Town and District.

¶24

Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Ramannapeta, Warangal Town and District.

¶25

. Respondents/ Respondents/ Applicants in O.A"

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SIVALENKA RAMACHANORA PRASAD

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J.R. MANOHAR RAO SC FOR ENDOWMENT

¶28

C.R.P.No .4610 ot 2017

¶29

Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 30-06-2017 in l.ANo. 823 ot 2014 in O.A.No. 743 ot 2O13 on the file of the Court of the Telangana Endowments tribunal at Hyderabad

¶30

Between:

¶31

Pulumati Krishna Murthy S/o. Late Seetharamaiah, aged about 60 years, Business, H.No. 12-7-47, S.V.N.Road, Ramannapeta, Warangal Town and District. Petitioner/ Respondent in O.A.

¶32

And

¶33

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Warangal Town and District.

¶34

Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Ramannapeta, Warangal Town and District.

¶35

.. Respondents/ Respondents/ Applicants in O.A"

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD

¶37

Gounsel for the Respondents: SRI J.R. MANOHAR RAO SC FOR ENDOWMENT

¶38

C.R.P.NO. 4621 0F 2017

¶39

Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 30-06-2017 in l.ANo. 824 ot 2014 in O.ANo. 744 ot 2013 on the fite of the Court of the Telangana Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad

¶40

Between:

¶41

Bandavaram Bujjibau S/o. Late Varada Rajulu, aged about 36 years, Business, H.No.^'12-7-53, S.V.N. Road, Ramannapeta, Warangal Town and District

¶42

Petitioner/ Petitioner/ Respondent in O.A.

¶43

And

¶44

1 . The Assistant Commissioner,^{Endowments Department,Warangal Town and} District.

¶45

Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Rep.^{by its Executive Officer,} Ramannapeta, Warangal Town and^District.

¶46

.. Respondents/ Respondents/ Applicants in^O.A.

¶47

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SIVALENKA^{RAMACHANDRA PRASAD}

¶48

Counsel for the Respondents:^SRI J.R.^{MANOHAR RAO SC FOR ENDOWMENT}

¶49

.R.P.No.4653 1

¶50

Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia^{aggrievedby the order} dated 30-06-2017 in l.A.No. 818 ol2O14 in O.A.No.^{739 of 2013 on the file of the} Court of the Telangana Endowments^{Tribunalat Hyderabad}

¶51

Between:

¶52

Vijinepally Rangamani Wo. Late Viswanatham aged^{about 79 years,} Household , Shop No. 12-7^-56, S.V.N. Road,^{Ramannapeta, WarangalTownand} District. Petitioner/ Respondent in O.A.

¶53

And

¶54

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments^{Department, WarangalTown and} District.

¶55

Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple,^{Rep. by its Executive Officer,} Ramannapeta, Warangal Town and^District.

¶56

.. Respondents/ Respondents/ Applicants in^O.A.

¶57

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SIVALENKA^{RAMACHANDRA PRASAI)}

¶58

counsel for the Respondents: sRl J.R. MANOHAR^{RAO SC FOR ENDOWMENT}

¶59

C.R.P.No.4686 of 2017:

¶60

Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of^{lndia aggrievedby the order} dated 30-06-2017 in l.ANo. 820 ot^{2014 in O.A.No.741 ot 2O13on the file of the} Court of the Telangana Endowments^{Tribunalat Hyderabad}

¶61

Between:

¶62

Vajinepalli Gopala Krishna Murthy S/o. Late Narayana ,^{agedabout52 years,} Business, H.No. 12-7-45, S.V.N. Road, Ramannapeta, Warangal^{Town and} District. Petitioner/ Respondent in O.A.

¶63

And

¶64

1 . The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments^{Department, WarangalTown and} District.

¶65

Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple,^Rep. by^{its Executive Officer,} Ramannapeta, Warangal Town and District.

¶66

.. Respondents/ Respondents/ Applicants in O.A

¶67

Counset for the Petitioner: SRl. SIVALENKA^{RAMACHANDRA PRASAD}

¶68

Counsel for the Respondents:^SRI J.R. MANOHAR^{RAO SC FOR ENDOWMENT}

¶69

c.R.P. NO. 4693of²⁰¹⁷

¶70

Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 30-06-2017 in l.A"No. 821 ol 2014 in O.A.No.⁷⁴² ot^{2013on the file of the} Court of the Telangana Endowments^{Tribunal at Hyderabad}

¶71

Between:

¶72

Venishefty Panchakshari S/o. Shankaraiah aged about^{58 years, Business,} H.No. 12-7-50, S.V.N. Road, Ramannapeta, Warangal Town^andDistrict Petitioner/ Respondent in O.A.

¶73

And

¶74

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments^{Department, Warangal Townand} District.

¶75

Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Rep. by^{its Executive Officer,} Ramannapeta, Warangal Town and District.

¶76

.. Respondents/ Respondents/ Applicants in O.A

¶77

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA^PRASAD

¶78

Counsel for the Respondents:^SRI J.R. MANOHAR RAO SC^{FOR ENDOWMENT}

¶79

C.R.P.No. 4698 of 20'17

¶80

Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 30-06-2017 in l.A-No.⁸¹⁷ ot²⁰¹⁴ in O.ANo,⁷³⁸ of^2013on the^file of the Court of the Telangana Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad

¶81

Between:

¶82

Pamu Shekaraiah S/o. Late Yellaiah , AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, Business, Shop No. 12-7-58, S.V.N.Road, Ramannapeta, Warangal Town and District.

¶83

Petitioner/ Petitioner / Respondent in O.A

¶84

And

¶85

1 . The Assistant Commissioner,^{Endowments Department, WarangalTown and} District.

¶86

Sri Ramalingeswara^Swamy Temple,^{Rep. by its Executive Officer,} Ramannapeta, Warangal^{Town and District.}

¶87

.. Respondents/ Respondents/ Applicants in^O.A.

¶88

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl.SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD}

¶89

Counsel forthe Respondents:^{SRI J.R. MANOHARRAOSC FOR ENDOWMENT}

¶90

c.R.P.NO.4736 0F 2017

¶91

Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution^{of lndia aggrievedby the order} dated 30-06-2017 in l.A.No.^8'15 ol^{2014 in O.A.No. 736 ot 20'13 on the file of the} Court of the Telangana Endowments^{Tribunalat Hyderabad}

¶92

Between:

¶93

Peddi Santhosh S/o. Late Nageshwar^{Rao,agedabout40 years,} Petitioner/ Respondent in O.A.

¶94

And

¶95

The Assistant Commissioner,^{Endowments Department, WarangalTown and} District.

¶96

Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple,^{Rep. by its Executive Officer,} Ramannapeta, Warangal Town and^District.

¶97

.. Respondents/ Respondents/ Applicants in^O.A.

¶98

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SIVALENKA^{RAMACHANDRA PRASAD}

¶99

Counsel for the Respondents:^SRI J.R.^{MANOHARRAOSCFOR ENDOWMENT}

¶100

The Court made the following COMMON^{ORDER :}

¶101

THE HONOURABLE SMT. WSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI C.R.P. Nos. 4566 4604 46LO 4621 4653 46A6 4693 4698 alod.4736 of2o l7

¶102

COMMON ORDER:

¶103

In view of commonality of the issue invorved in a, these civil revision petitions, they are heard togetler and being disposed of by this common order.

¶104

All these civil revision petitions are hled assailing the orders of the Telangana Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad, dated 30.O6.2O17 in dismissing I.A. Nos. g16, 819, g23, g24, 818, 820, 821, aIZ aird 8t5 of 2Ot4 in O.A. Nos. 737, 240,243, 744, 739, 741, 742,73g and 236 of 2013 respectively, filed by the revision petitioners under Order MI Rule 1l C.p.C. to reject the O.As. for want of cause of action.

¶105

The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Warangal and Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Ramannapeta, warangal, represented by its Executive officer, which is registered with the Endowments Department, have approached the Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, by filing various applications being O.A. Nos. 737, Z4O,243,744, Z3g, 74I, 742, 738 and 236 of 2Ot3 against different individuals

¶106

¶107

¶108

under Section^{S3(1) of the TelanganaCharitableand Hindu} Religious^{Institutions and EndowmentsAct'1987 (for short' the} Da7 ActJ alleging^{that the respondentstherein have} encroachedthecommercialpropertybelongingtotheapplicant No. 2-Temple^{and enjoyingthe same for a long time withoutany} leasehold^{rights granted by competentauthorityand wit\out} paying any^{amount to the Temple' Accordingto the applicants'} after calling^{for objectionsfrom the public'by way of publication} of notice,^{a MuntaquabNo' 212 of 1351 Fasli was also issued in} favouroftheTempleregisteringtheTempleanditsproperties. Further,^{in O.S. No. 2 of 1985 frled by one K' GurulingaMurthy'} against the^{Endowments Departmentand others seeking} declarationofhereditaryTrusteetotheTemple,theDistrict Judge at^{Warangalmarked the Muntaquab as an exhibit and} gave a hnding^{that the Templeis holding the properties'} including^{the propertiescovered by the O'As'Therefore'the} applicants^{sought for declarationofthe respondentsas} encroachersoftheo.A.schedulepropertiesandtoevictthem from the^{saidpremisesand to handover ttre vacant physical} possession^{to the Temple' Pending the O'As'' the respondents} have filed^{I.A. Nos' 816, 819' a23'a24' 818' 820' 821' 817 and} 815 of^{2Ol4 in O'A' Nos' 737' 74O' 743' 744' 739' 741' 742'} 738 and^{736 of 2013 respectively'under Order VII Rule 11}

¶109

¶110

¶111

C.P.C. to reject the O.As. on the ground that except mentioning that the property was encroached by the respondent and enjoying the same since a long time, the O.A. does not disclose any cause of action as to the particulars or any specihc date of encroachment. The Tribunal, by even orders dated 30.06.20|Z dismissed all the I.As. holding that rejection of the O.As. cannot be made by invoking Order VII Rule ll(a) of C.p.C. when the O.A. is disclosing the cause of action in brevity. That apart, the learned Tribunal also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Ghanshaam Jaju v. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Nizamabadr wherein it was herd that the procedure prescibed. in tl.Le Rules made bg tlrc Gouentment alone are applicable and the otLter proui.sions of CpC cannot be inuoked uhile deating taith the petitions filed. before tLrc Endouments Tfibunal. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the I.As., ttre respondents are before this Court by way of Civil Revision Petitions.

¶112

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Standing counsel for Endowments. perused the material available on record.

'2016(5) ALT 331

I I

The learned counsel^{for the revision petitioners submitted} that the learned Tribunal^{havingobservedthat the applicants in} the O.As. did not detail^{aboutthe cause of action to file the} O.As. against the^{respondents,revision petitionersherein,} grossly erred in dismissing^{the I.As. on the ground thatthe} cause of action is disclosing^{in brevity.The observationsof the} Tribunal in holding that^{the I.As. are filed at the belated stage} i.e., when the evidence^{is at the conclusionstage and it is only} to protract tJle litigation^{are unwarrantedfor the reasonthat no} limitation is^{prescribedfor filing such an applicationseeking} rejection of O.A. Even the findings of the^{Tribunal in} dismissing the I.As.^{on the ground that that the Rules} prescribed by the Government^{alone are applicationand the} provisions of C.P.C cannot^{be invokedbeforethe Endowments} Tribunal is erroneous^{for the reasons that whena Statuteand} the Rules made thereunder^{are silenton a particularaspect, the} provisions of CPC are applicable^{mutatismutandis'Thus,the} Iindings of the Tribunal^{in dismissingthe I.As' are erroneous,} unjust and unsustainable^{and therefore, liable to be set aside'}

¶118

On tfre other hand,^{the learned StandingCounselfor the} Endowments, appearing on^{behalf of the respondents-Temple} sebmitted that the Tribunal,^{on appreciationof ttte entire} pliadings \ in^{the O.As., rightly held that a combined reading} _.^of

¶119

¶120

the contents of the O.As., it is appearing that the cause of action arose to sue, when the Temple noticed that the revision petitioners are continuing in the property of the Temple as encroachers. F\rrther, the revision petitioners did not choose to file the I.As. immediately after service of notice and after filing of the counters, but they filed the I.As. leisurely only after framing the issues and when the matter is posted for further evidence of the Executive Oflicer of the Temple to mark the documents and therefore, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the I.As. are filed only to protract the litigation. Moreover, the Tribunal has rightly held that the provisions of C.P.C have no application to the O.As. hled before the Endowments Tribunal.

¶121

Admittedly, the Temple filed the O.As. against the revision petitioners seeking their eviction from its properties under Section 83(1) of the Act, 19g7. The revision petitioners put up appearance and contested the O.As. by frling their counters without raising any such preliminary objection. Necessary issues were framed and on behalf of the Temple, an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination of Executive Officer of the Temple was filed and the O.As were posted for furtl,rer evidence of Executive Officer to mark the documents. It is at that stage, the tmpugned I.As. came to be filed by the revision petitioners to

¶122

I lr/

¶123

¶124

reject the^{O.As.taking the preliminary objectionthat the O'As} did not disclose^{anycause of action'}

¶125

It is, no-doubt,^{true that where a plaint does not disclose} cause of^{action, suchplainthas to be rejected' It is also} no-doubt^{true that inthe O'As'' nospecific date of} encroachment^{has been mentioned' However' the pleadings'} put together,^{disclosethat the cause of action has arisen to sue} when the Temple^{had noticedthat the revision petitioners are} continuing^{in the O'A' schedule premises withoutany} approved/^{authorizediease by the Temple' Such beingthe} case,theTribunalwasrightinholdingthatthepleadingsinthe O.A., in brevity,^{are disclosing the cause of action'}

¶126

g. Admittedly,^{the o.As. are lrled under Section 83(1) of the} Telangana^{Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutionsand} EndowmentsAct,lg8T.Therevisionpetitioners,seeking rejection of^{O.As.on the preliminary objection of non-disclosure} of cause of^{action, have hled the impugnedI'As' under Order VII} Rule 11 C.P.C.^{In this regard, itis to be observedttrat} considering^{the Rules made under the Act' this Court in} Ghanshaam Jaju^{(supra)categoricallyheld thatthe} under Order^{VII Rule 11 C'P'C'or suchsimilar} applications applications^{de hors the Rules, but under the Provisionsof}

¶127

¶128

C.P.C., cannot be entertained by the Tribunal and that the procedure prescribed in the Rules framed by the Government alone are applicable. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal in holding that the applications, as have been frled by the revision petitioners, cannot be entertained requires no interference by this Court. Thus, the well reasoned impugned orders passed by the rearned Tribunal in dismissing the I.As. need no interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶129

In the result, all the Civil Revision petitions stand dismissed confirming the orders of the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 30.06.2017 in dismissing I.A. Nos. 816, 819, a23, a24,818, 820, 82t,8tZ and 815 or 2Ot4 in O.A. Nos. 737, 74O,243,244,23g,241,242,738 and 236 of 2Ot3 respectively. As the O.As. are pending for more than a decade, the Tribunat is directed to expedite the proceedings and shall dispose of the same within a period of four (O4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶130

Pending Miscellaneous petitions, if arry, shall stand

¶131

closed

¶132