Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : I.P.RAO
Commissioner, Andh.Pra.Charitable and Religious Institutions and - Appellant
Versus
Vijendra Kumar - Respondent
Decided On : 10-27-92
PUBLIC TEMPLE - A. P. CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT - S. 2 - Whether Hanuman Temple situated at Bade Chowdi, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad is a public temple or a private temple.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur, holding that the Hanuman Temple situated at Bade Chowdi, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad is a public temple, is null and void. The defendants opposed the suit by pleading that the temple is a public temple as defined u/s. 2 of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the temple is a public temple, but not a private temple as held by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Issues: Whether the Hanuman Temple situated at Bade Chowdi, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad is a public temple or a private temple.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles to arrive at its decision: * There is a presumption that temples in South India are public and the onus of proof is on the party asserting its private nature to prove that it is a private temple. * The test to determine whether a temple is a public temple or a private temple is to show whether the members of the community worship in the temple as of right. * The fact that the temple had the appearance of a residential house does not in any manner militate against the contention that the temple in question is a public temple. * The fact that the plaintiffs obtained permission from the Municipality and made alterations from time to time and paid property tax to the premises does not show that it is a private temple.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O. S. No. 58/87 and declaring that Hanuman Temple situated at Bade Chowdi, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad is a public temple.
( 1 ) THE defendants are the appellants in this appeal. The respondents filed a suit for declaration that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Gun-tur, dated 28-2-1977 in O. A. No. 66/75 holding that the Hanuman Temple situated at Bade Chowdi, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the Temple ) is a public temple, is null and void, inoperative and that the entry dated 11-11-1342 Fasli registering the temple in the Books of Endowments and the subsequent publications made are null and void, unauthorised, illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs.
( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiffs in brief is that their grand-father, Ram Harak Tiwari has purchased the site on 18-12-1302 Fasli from one Kondaiah under Ex. A-42, sale deed, constructed a super-structure with tin roof, which is used as his residence and has installed Hanuman idol in the said premises bearing No. 170, Residency Bazar, Hyderabad, which is now re-numbered as Municipal No. 4-2-123, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. Accoridng to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs grandfather during his lifetime and after his death the plaintiffs father Gorakhnath Tiwari performed pooja and that after the death of plaintiffs father the plaintiffs are performing the pooja since 1969 and are managing the temple; they have re-modelled and re-shaped the super-structure by replacing R. C. C. roof with the permission of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. No donations were collected and no offerings are accepted from the public and the temple has not been dedicated to the public. Therefore they claim it to be a private temple, but not a public temple. Consequently they pray for a declaration that the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur, dated 28-2-1977 in O. A. No. 66/75 is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
( 3 ) THE defendants opposed the suit by pleading that the grandfather and father of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are only the poojaris of the temple; they have no rights in the temple; that large number of devotees daily visit the temple and worship the deity; that the temple is not used as a residential place and that therefore it is a public temple as defined u/s. 2 of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as the act* ). They denied the allegation that the plaintiffs have constructed the temple with their personal monies and that they are in management of the temple as poojaris. Since the temple was entered and registered in the Book of Endowments as long back as in 1342 Fasli in pursuance of which Munthakab has been issued and has been duly published in the Hyderabad District, they contend that the order of the Deputy Commissioner Endowments, Guntur in O. A. No. 66/75 is perfectly-correct and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
( 4 ) THE learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before him, came to the conclusion that the Hanuman temple in question is a private temple, but not. a public temple and therefore the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur, dated 28-2-1977 passed in O. A. No. 66/75 is liable to be set aside. The Chief Judge further held that till 1965 the Endowment Department did not bother about the supervision of the temple and the plaintiffs admittedly continued to treat the suit property as their private property by paying the Municipal tax and remodelling the structures in the temple after getting due permission from the Municipal authorities and therefore the entry in the Book of Endowments made on 19 Mehar 1345 Fasli as a public temple, is null and void. Basing on those findings the learned Chief Judge has decreed the suit as prayed for. Challenging the said decision, the defendants have preferred the above appeal.
( 5 ) SRI Krishna Kowndinya, the learned counsel, representing the learned Advocate General argued that the plaintiffs contention that the t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
