THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

ORDER

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 01.09.2023 in IA.No.142 of 2023 in OA.No.3004 of 2010 (Old O.A.No.19 of 2003) passed by the Telangana Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad.

2. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the proposed petitioner Nos.4 to 6. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6 are the respondents and respondent No.4 is the petitioner No.3 in OA.No.3004 of 2010 (Old OA.No.19 of 2003).

Respondent No.5 is not a party to the O.A.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to law and facts of the case, the Tribunal has dismissed the application on the sole ground that the petitioners have not placed on record any document establishing the relationship with the petitioner No.1 (Sri Venugopal Inani). Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have filed their Aadhar cards along with the revision to prove that they are the sons of Late Sri Venugopal Inani. Respondent No.6 and his family members filed a petition in the month of July 2023, admitting that the petitioners, their sisters and their mother are the legal representatives of Late Sri Venugopal Inani and sought the relief to bring them on record in another petition filed by them. The Tribunal ought to have taken the said petition into consideration and ought to have allowed the LR application and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the petitioners are not entitled to come on record as legal heirs of Venugopal Inani as a matter of right like that of a Civil Suit, the same analogy cannot be applied in the matters filed under Section 87(1)(h) of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 30/1987, relied on the decision in the case of Vallabharayeswara Swamy Temple Vs. Bellamkonda Venkata Subrahmanya Sarma, MANU/AP/0964/2014 and prayed to dismiss the CRP.

5. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner: (See K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985).

6.1. Petitioner No.3 has sworn the affidavit in IA.No.142 of 2023 which is filed under Rule 10 of TET Rules r/w 28 and 29 of Civil Rules of Practice r/w Section 151 of CPC. It is stated in the affidavit that Venugopal Inani (petitioner No.1) and others filed the O.A. to declare them as Members of Founder’s Family and Muthawalli of Sri Raghunathji Temple situated at Maharajganj, Hyderabad by setting aside the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad (respondent No.2 herein) in proceedings No.D/4673/95, dated 04.12.1995. Pending O.A. petitioner No.1 died on 29.12.2022 leaving behind the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 as agnatic line of successors of the petitioner No.1 and prayed to permit them to come on record as LRs of petitioner No.1 as just and necessary parties.

6.2. It is mentioned in the cause title of the petition in IA.No.142 of 2023 that respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 are not necessary parties to the petition.

7. Respondent No.6 has filed his counter and contended that the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 cannot come on record as LR’s of petitioner No.1 in the matters filed under Section 87(1)(h) of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 30/1987. Under Section 17 Explanation I of the Act neither the ancestors of petitioner No.1 nor the ancestors of the other petitioners were recognised as Founders for enabling the petitioners-applicants to get themselves recognised as members of Founder’s Family and