SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(AP) 315

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Seetharama Kalayana Mandapam – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 19474 of 2016
Decided On : 18-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: J.V. Phaniduth.
For the Respondents: Padmavathi Padnavis, D.V. Sasidhar.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the Endowments Department's authority is not subject to review without explicit statutory provision, and prior judgments regarding property rights are binding.

Headnote:

Writ - Endowments - A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - The court interpreted provisions regarding the authority of trustees and the jurisdiction of civil courts, concluding that the orders made by the Endowments Department were valid and not subject to review without statutory provision.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged an order by the Commissioner of Endowments regarding the management of a Kalyana Mandapam, asserting that previous legal decisions established their rights over the property, while the respondents contended that the orders were valid under the Endowments Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the earlier judgments and orders regarding the property were binding and that the Endowments Department acted within its authority, dismissing the petitioner's claims as speculative and improper.

Issues: Whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Endowments was valid and whether the petitioner had any rightful claim over the Kalyana Mandapam.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Endowments Department's orders were valid and that the petitioner failed to establish any legal right to the property, emphasizing the lack of jurisdiction for civil courts in matters governed by the Endowments Act.

Result: The Writ Petition is dismissed.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

    “.......to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 2nd respondent i.e. Commissioner of Endowments vide its proceedings Memo in R.C. No. B2/24390/2014, dated 30.03.2015 as illegal, arbitrary, abuse of power and against the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other orders.....”

2. Heard Mr. J.V. Phaniduth, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 to 3; Ms. Padmavati Padnavis, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent and Mr. D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel for the 5th respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that one Sri Gopaluni Purushothama Sharma Pakyaji purchased an extent of 583½ sq. yds at Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada through a registered sale deed dated 07.11.1940 with the funds of donors as a Trustee for construction of temple called Sri Kasi Annapurna Sahita Visweswara Swamy, but the same could not be done, as one Siripurapu Venkata Ramanaiah was constructing the Visweswara Swamy idol along with other deities adjacent plot No. 36. Therefore, a resolution passed to construct a Kalyana Mandapam under the name and style of Sri Seetharama Kalyana Mandapam in the said plot and appointed Sri Bhogeswara Sharma, the son of Purushothama Sharma Pakayaji as Trustee after his death, who constructed the Kalyana Mandapam. One Smt. T. Seethamma @ Kausalyamma styling herself as the owner of the same plot in which Kalyana Mandapam was constructed by Bhogeswara Sarma and others, executed a Will Deed in the year 1957 bequeathing the property in favour of T. Sri Rama Sarma, her adopted son without any manner of right and title. In fact, Smt. Seethamma was not the owner or donor of the land on which 4th respondent is constructed and she is only donor of Sivalingam in the premises of Prasannanjaneya Swamy temple and donated her agricultural land an extent of Ac. 2.28 cents out of Ac. 5.28 cents situated Muchellapadu Village, Guntur District to the temple and later said Prasannanjaneya Swamy Temple terms as Sri Kasi Visweswara Temple. Therefore, the said Seethamma or her adopted son does not get any right, title or possession and she also executed a Trust Deed in the year 1957. The said T. Sri Rama Sarma, representing himself as Trustee of Kasi Visweswaraya Swamy Temple, basing on the Will Deed executed by Smt. Seethamma filed a suit in O.S. No. 2023/1974 on the file of I Additional District Magistrate’s Court, Vijayawada against one Sri Dammalapati Rama Rao, who was doing medical practice in part of the Kalayana Mandapam for eviction by showing Sri Rama Rao as tenant, which was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, A.S. No. 45 of 1977 filed on the file of District Judge, Vijayawada, which was disposed of in terms of compromise in between the parties on 28.02.1981 holding that Kasi Visweswara Swamy Temple is different and Kalyanamandapam is different entities with regard to administration, management etc., Before compromise, the Trust Board passed resolution under the Charimanship of Sri Maturi Koti Ratnam dated 16.04.1980 resolved to give power to Sri B.S. Samabasiva Rao, with the assistance of Department for purpose of recovering the possession of Ac. 2.28 cents in D. No. 211/2 of Kuchallapadu which was donated by late Smt. Tadepalli Kausalyamma @ Seethamma to the temple and to lease the land to collect lease amounts etc.

4. Sri T. Sri Rama Sasrma representing as Hereditary Trustee of Sri Kasi Visweswara Swamy Temple filed O.A. No. 46 of 1976 before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, seeking eviction of Sri D. Rama Rao and Sri G. Bhogeswara Sarma from 583 1/3 Sq.yds, in which Kalyana Mandapam

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          Judicial Analysis

          AI

          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top