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

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 199

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.G. PRIYADARSINI, J.
T.N. Pradeep Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
N. Narasimha Murthy and Another - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 853 of 2019
Decided On : 07-06-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Pavan Kumar Pujari.
For the Respondent: A. Kranti Kumar Reddy.

The Endowments Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding hereditary rights, and the abolition of such rights does not prevent recognition of individuals as hereditary archakas if previously acknowledged.

Headnote:(A) Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - Section 87(1)(e) - Appeal against the order of the Telangana Endowments Tribunal - Applicants sought declaration as hereditary pujaris and trustees of two temples, claiming ancestral rights and emoluments - Respondent contested the claim, asserting his own rights as hereditary pujari - Tribunal dismissed the application, citing lack of jurisdiction and conflicting statements regarding hereditary rights. (Paras 5, 6, 10, 16)

(B) Jurisdiction of Endowments Tribunal - The Tribunal is empowered to decide disputes regarding hereditary rights under the Act, and the Deputy Commissioner cannot decide such matters post-constitution of the Tribunal. (Paras 10, 11)

(C) Legal principles regarding hereditary rights - The abolition of hereditary rights does not preclude recognition of individuals as hereditary archakas if they were recognized under previous legislation. (Paras 5, 11)

Facts of the case:
The applicants claimed hereditary rights to perform puja at the temples based on ancestral lineage, while the respondent claimed rights based on a certificate issued by the Endowments Department. The Tribunal dismissed the application, leading to the appeal.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's dismissal was based on jurisdictional issues and failure to consider evidence properly.

Issues: The main issues included the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to declare hereditary rights and the validity of the respondent's claim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide on hereditary rights and that the dismissal was improper due to failure to consider relevant evidence and legal principles.

Result: The appeal is allowed, and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. Priyadarsini, J.

Aggrieved by the Order dated 07.06.2019 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned order’) in O.A.No.3 of 2017 passed by the learned Telangana Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad, the applicants filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned Telangana Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad (hereinafter will be referred as “Tribunal”).

3. The facts that lead the applicants to file the present appeal are as under :

    (a) The applicants filed an application under Section 87 (1)(e) of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘the Act’) to declare the applicants and their family members as hereditary pujaris and trustees of Sri Chenna Keshava Swamy Temple and Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple situated at Kodair Village of Nagar Kurnool District (hereinafter will be referred as ‘subject temple’) with a right to receive the emoluments and honorarium like DDNS and others attached to the temple and also for the annulments of the entries in the Section 43 register standing in the name of first respondent by substituting it with applicants and their ancestors names as hereditary Pujaris and trustees of the temple. The brief averments of the application are as under:

    (i) The subject temple is a very small, ancient temple in existence ever since Vijayanagar dynasty having the income below Rs.10,000/- per annum. The ancestors of the applicants were recognized as hereditary pujaris and trustees of the temple. Their great grandfather addressed a letter in the year 1939 to the Chief Engineer of Nizam Government under the capacity of Muthawali wherein, it is appraised that there is no revenue to the temple and it is very much necessary for reconstruction of the temple, which is in dilapidated condition and when there was no reply for that letter, it was renovated with his personal resources.

    (ii) The great grandfather of the applicants used to submit budget proposals every year pertaining to the temple and also used to receive letter from Tahsil Office of Kollapur for submitting budget proposals. To overcome the financial difficulties and for smooth functioning of the temple, the village elders resolved that their grandfather has to do daily puja activities in the subject temple by following traditional rituals for which, it was decided to contribute some yield from their agricultural fields. They have also resolved that in case for any reason, no support is received from them even in such circumstances, their grandfather has to do pujapath and it should be continued.

    (iii) The great grandfather and his successors by overcoming the adverse situations, sustained the pujariship cum trusteeship of the subject temple. After obtaining permission from Tahsil Office, Nagarkurnool, the great grandfather of the applicants constructed a dwelling house at Kodair and he became a permanent resident of Kodair by continuing Pujapath and the maintenance of the temple. The grandfather of the applicants by name Nambi Balakrishnaiah in line of succession served as hereditary pujari cum trustee of the subject temple and the Endowments Department recognized him as such, and he used to receive the notices from the department for submission of income and expenditure of the temple. The grandfather of the applicants used to correspond with the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments in relation to the activities of the temple and he used to receive the acknowledgment for such correspondence. The subject temple was published in the official gazette. At first instance, the great grandfather Pujari Lakshmaiah, thereafter his son Pujari Narasimha, thereafter his son Pujari Balakrishnaiah and thereafter his sons Pujari Lakshmana Swamy, Pujari Srinivasulu used to perform the pujapath in the subject temple and now in the line of succession, the applicants are doing archakatwamu in the subje

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