JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri T.Surya Satish, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rajesh Kumar Heroor, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for respondent No.1.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2018 in O.A.No.101 of 2017 passed by the Telangana Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad, the applicants filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned Assistant Commissioner.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

4. The brief facts as borne out from the record are as under:

a) The applicants filed an application under Section 87 (1)(h) of the Act, 30/1987 to declare the applicant No.2 as a founder family member of the respondent No.2 institution in place of applicant No.1. It is alleged that applicant No.1 is a founder family member of respondent No.2 institution and he has been recognized by respondent No.1 vide proceedings dated 14.12.1998. The age of the applicant No.1 was 85 years and due to old age and ill health, he was unable to manage the affairs of the temple. It is further alleged that the sons of applicant No.1 are doctors, who are very much busy with their profession at Hyderabad. In this regard, the applicant No.1 made a request with the respondent No.1 to accept the applicant No.2 as the founder family member of the institution by nominating the name of applicant No.2. In turn, the respondent No.1 submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Warangal for necessary action. On 16.03.2017 the authority issued proceedings intimating that only the Endowments Tribunal got jurisdiction to declare a person as founder trustee/founder family member and advised to approach the Tribunal. The respondent No.2 published as Sec. 6(c) institution and it is registered under Section 43 of the Act, 30/1987. Hence, the applicants approached the learned Tribunal by filing the application.

b) Though, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 entered their appearance before the learned Tribunal, they failed to file counter within the stipulated period of 90 days. Consequently, the learned Tribunal was constrained to forfeit their right to file the counter.

c) In order to substantiate the claim applicant No.2 filed a statement affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is a copy of the proceedings in Dis. No.A/2266 of 99 dated 14.12.1998 issued by then the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Warangal. Ex.A2 is a copy of the proceedings in RC No.A1/1104/2016 dated 22.02.2017 issued by 1st respondent. Ex.A3 is a copy of the proceedings dated 16.03.2017 addressed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Warangal to the Commissioner of Endowments at Hyderabad. Ex.A4 is the office copy of the application dated 27.06.2018 submitted under the RTI Act, to the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments at Warangal.

II. FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:

5. Upon consideration of the material placed on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the applicant No.2 perfectly fits himself as a person in the agnatic line of succession of the founder of the respondent No.2 institution, as such, his request was liable for rejection.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant Nos.1 and 2 filed the present appeal seeking to set aside the impugned order. During the pendency of the appeal, applicant No.1 stated to have expired on 25.05.2020, whereupon applicant No.2 has continued to prosecute the appeal and pursue the reliefs sought therein.

III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the applicants:

7. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the learned Tribunal erred in appreciating the fact taht the applicant No.2 was already managing the affairs of the respondent No.2 institution for the past so many years as power of attorney holder of applicant No.1. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the application on the ground that the genealogy was filed as in the first instance t