The petitioner, who is no other than the adopted son of Smt. K. Hymavathamma, the 4th respondent herein, is challenging the recognition granted in her favour as Founder Trustee perorders Rc.No.A1/4682/96, dated 1.10.1996 of the 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department, Nellore, which was concurrently confirmed by the 2nd respondent-Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-II, Endowments Department, Tirupati, and the 1st respondent-State Government vide R.P.No.20 of 1999, dated 17.6.2000 and Memo.No.75921/Endts.IV(1)/2000, dated 25.8.2003, respectively.

2. The undisputed facts are that Kamisetti Sundara Ramaiah Setty Choultry and Sri Mahalakshmamma Temple are registered religious institutions under the provisions of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity “the Act”). The temple was constructed by late Kamisetti Onnuri Setty and the Choultry was constructed by late Sundara Ramaiah, s/o. late Kamisetti Onnuri Setty. The past history as to the hereditary rights as trustees of these institutions is unnecessary for the disposal of the controversy in this writ petition. Suffice it to note that after the death of Sundara Ramaiah, the management devolved firstly, on his second wife Lakshmi Nancharamma; and upon her death, on his son Subbarayudu, who was born through his first wife. On the death of Subbarayudu, his son Adi Seshaiah succeeded to the management. The 4th respondent herein is the wife of late Adi Seshaiah and the petitioner is their adopted son. Late Adi Seshaiah nominated his wife, the 4th respondent herein, as a Trustee of the subject institutions even during his life time. He also executed a registered Will dated 2.3.1987, in that regard. He died on 25.2.1993. In the meanwhile, an enquiry was undertaken by the Endowments Department for verification and registration of these institutions as a consequence of the Repeal of the Endowments Act No.17 of 1966 and enactment of new Act No.30 of 1987. The 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Endowments herein conducted an enquiry and found the 4th respondent herein eligible for recognition as the Trustee. Accordingly, orders dated 01.10.1996 were issued recognising her as Trustee of the subject institutions and the same has been confirmed by respondent Nos.2 and 1. The said orders are under challenge in this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri V. Rajagopal Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri Karthik Pavan Kumar, counsel representing Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

4. The appointment of the 4th respondent as Founder Trustee is challenged on the sole substantive ground that her appointment is illegal, being contrary to Explanation-II to Section 17(1) of the Act.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, children in the agnate line of succession and who are declared or recognised as such alone are entitled to be recognised as Founder Trustees. Under the said provision, no female is eligible for appointment as Trustee. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner, though an adopted son, alone is eligible for Trustee as he comes within the agnatic line of succession.

6. Sri Karthik Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, however, submits that the said provision has no application to the facts of the case. According to him, the 4th respondent was rightly recognised as Founder Trustee as per the provisions that existed when the appointment was made and that she has been recognised as a Founder Trustee and was acting as such even during the life time of her husband and subsequent thereto as per the rights accrued to her by virtue of the Will dated 2.3.1987 executed by her husband in her favour. He, therefore, submits that the 4th respondent has been validly recognised as Founder Trustee and the same does not warrant