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
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 :
(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
G. Rajendranadh Goud vs. State of A.P.
A.B. Seshadri v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana and Andhra Pradesh)
Swarna Gadhadhara Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana and Andhra Pradesh)
M. Penchala Swamy and another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Kum. Shashikala and four others v. Smt. Babita Sharma and three others
The court affirmed the hereditary trusteeship of defendants, ruling that plaintiffs failed to prove mismanagement or entitlement to non-hereditary trusteeship under the Hindu Religious Charitable End....
Hereditary trusteeship is not property within the meaning of Art. 19 (1) and Art. 31 of the Constitution of India and consequently the right of hereditary trusteeship is not property within the meani....
The court affirmed that while trusteeship can be hereditary, poojariship is not, as per the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, emphasizing the secular nature of appointments.
The judgment clarified that the abolition of hereditary rights under the Act precludes claims to Archakatvam service based solely on lineage without meeting statutory criteria.
The court established that hereditary trusteeship exists among family descendants, but poojariship must be appointed through proper authority, as hereditary rights were abolished under the Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.