Back
1999 Supreme(AP) 874
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.S.RAIKOTE, V.ESWARAIAH
Government of A.P. - Appellant
Versus
G.Rajendranath Gound - Respondent
Decided On : 09-30-99
Section 16 of the Endowments Act, 1987 abolished all kinds of hereditary rights, including the right to receive honorarium by such a hereditary trustee.
Headnote:
ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1987 - HEREDITARY TRUSTEE - HONORARIUM - ABOLITION - SAVING OF HONOUR - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a hereditary trustee of a temple, claimed an honorarium of Rs. 4,00,000.00 per year as emoluments and perquisites. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments declared that the petitioner was entitled to honors and pujas in perpetuity as a member of the founder's family, but negatived the claim for honorarium. The petitioner appealed to the Additional Chief Judge, who remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner with an observation that the petitioner would be entitled to the same benefits and to claim the honorarium as claimed by other hereditary trustees in Andhra and Telangana areas. The Deputy Commissioner, on remand, held that the petitioner was entitled to an honorarium of Rs. 3,000.00 per month from the date of filing of the petition. The Government challenged the order in revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to any honorarium as a hereditary trustee. The court observed that Section 16 of the Endowments Act, 1987 abolished all kinds of hereditary rights, including the right to receive honorarium by such a hereditary trustee. The court further observed that Section 142 of the Act, which saved the "honour" of participating in the religious worship and ceremonies of the institution, did not save the honorarium. The court also held that the impugned orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the appellate authority were liable to be set aside.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was a hereditary trustee of the temple? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to honorarium as a hereditary trustee?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was a hereditary trustee of the temple, as he had been declared as such by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in an earlier order. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to honorarium as a hereditary trustee, as Section 16 of the Endowments Act, 1987 abolished all kinds of hereditary rights, including the right to receive honorarium by such a hereditary trustee. The court further observed that Section 142 of the Act, which saved the "honour" of participating in the religious worship and ceremonies of the institution, did not save the honorarium.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the appellate authority. The court also dismissed the writ petition as being infructuous.
( 1 ) VIDE order dated 25-6-1999, the writ petition was ordered to be posted along with CRP No. 2037 of 1998 and accordingly both the revision petition as well as the writ petition are now posted before us. By this common order, we are disposing of both of them, since they involve common questions of facts and law.
( 2 ) CRP No. 2037 of 1998 is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 16-12-1997 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on his file in CMA No. 261 of 1994. By this order, the appeal filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh was dismissed by confirming the order No. 8 dated 12-9-1994 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments. It has to be noted at this stage itself that by the said order No. 8 dated 12-9-1994, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments has declared that the respondent No. 1 in the revision petition G. Rajandernath Goud, s/o Jaganath Goud, was entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,000. 00 as honorarium per month, being the hereditary trustee of the temple by name Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Devasthanam, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, made as respondent No. 3 in the writ petition. It has also to be noted at this stage itself that neither before the Deputy Commissioner of, Endowments, nor before the appellate authority, this Devasthanam was a party. We have also noticed from the cause title of the revision petition that this temple is not made as one of the respondents.
( 3 ) THE writ petition in WP No. 26985 of 1998 is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not implementing the order dated 16-12-1997 passed in CMA No. 261 of 1994, as illegal and void, which order is the subject matter in CRP No. 2037 of 1998. In other words, the writ petition is filed for implementing the impugned orders in the revision petition. Therefore, the fate of the writ petition would depend upon the result in the revision petition. Hence, we propose to consider the revision petition first.
( 4 ) IN CRP No. 2037 of 1998, the Government of A. P. is the revision petitioner. It has challenged the orders of both the Courts below awarding an honorarium of Rs. 3,000. 00 per month to the respondent No. 1 G. Rajandernath Goud as the hereditary trustee of the temple in question. The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration strenuously contended that Rajandernath Goud was not the hereditary trustee of the temple as per Section 43 Register of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Endowments Act, 1987 ) (which is equal to section 38 Register of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 and hereinafter referred to as the Endowments Act, 1966 ), in which entries are made regarding the nature of the temple and the endowment and the Rajendernath Gaud s grandfather has not been noted as founder trustee for the temple in question. There is no mention of any honorarium fixed for either the founder trustee or his successors. On this basis, he contended that the findings recorded by both the Courts below that Rajandernath Goud was the founder trustee is illegal. He further submitted that assuming for the sake of argument that Rajendernath Goud and his predecessors in title were trustees of the temple in question, but such hereditary rights stood abolished by the Endowments Act, 1987. He further submitted that as a hereditary trustee, Rajandernath Goud cannot claim any honorarium after the commencement of the Endowments Act, 1987. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1-Rajandernath Goud contended that notwithstanding the abolition of hereditary rights under Sections 16, 34 and 144 of the Endowments Act, 1987, the said Act has specifically saved the "honour" of such trustees, and the honorarium which the respondent No. 1 is claiming goes with the "honour", therefore, all other rights might have been abolished by the Endowments Act, 1987, but the honor
