HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CMA.No.1248 of 2008 Date:10.07.2014 Between:
Deshavath Ramulu Bavoji, S/o Late Sri Deshavat Mansingh And:
Lotavat Somla, S/o Bodya and five others.
……Appellant ..…Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Sri D.Prakash Reddy Senior counsel For Sri G.Purushotam Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri M.Vidyasagar Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5: GP for Endowments The Court made the following:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CMA.No.1248 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of order, dated 28.07.2008 in D.Dis.No.11/26602/2008 of respondent No.3, whereby respondent No.1 and 2 have been declared as members of the founder family of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Maddimadugu Village, Amnabad Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District (for short the temple).
The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have approached respondent No.4 under Section 87 (1) (h) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) for a declaration that they belong to members of the founder family of the temple. It is their pleaded case that the temple is a very ancient one situated in the deep forest; that the temple was being maintained by the tribals residing in the nearby villages; that to their knowledge, their forefathers by name Dyaga and Surya were looking after the deity till their death; and that, therefore, the management of the temple has devolved upon them. It is their further case that the father of respondent No.1 by name Bodya has constructed the temple in the year 1960 on the land assigned to him and since then, the family of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been in management of the temple.
Respondent No.4 has invited remarks from respondent No.5. In his remarks, respondent No.5 has submitted that the temple is an ancient one situated in a thick forest called Nallamala forest; that during the year 1960, Bodya Naik, i.e., father of respondent No.1, has applied to the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Ippalapally Village with a request to accord permission for construction of the temple; that the said Bodya Naik paid a sum of Rs.2 under receipt No.51, dated 02.02.1960, towards the cost of the land; and that the management of the temple was vested in the said person. Respondent No.5 has further submitted that his oral enquiries revealed that no temple existed for the deity prior to 1960; that the father of respondent No.1-
Bodya Naik has taken permission from the Sarpanch of Ippalapally Gram Panchayat for construction of the temple; and he has, accordingly, constructed the temple by spending his own funds. Respondent No.5 has also reported that there were no rival claims for recognizing them as members of the founder family of the temple. Though respondent No.5-Assistant Commissioner has submitted a report favourable to respondent Nos.1 and 2, respondent No.4 has conducted a trial, during which, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were examined as PWs.1 and 2, respectively and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. They have also examined one Mundeddula Ram Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, who claimed to be the Sarpanch of Maddimadugu Village from 1959 to 1975, as P.W-3. One Sri C.Raman Goud, the Executive Officer of the temple, was examined as RW.1 and the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Mahaboobnagar, was examined as RW.2.
In his deposition, PW.3 stated that as a Sarpanch, he has accorded permission to the father of respondent No.1 for construction of the temple. The receipt, dated 02.02.1960, issued by PW.3 was marked as Ex.A.2. While mainly relying upon the evidence of P.W-3, respondent No.4 held that Ex.A.2-receipt was issued by Mundeddula Ram Reddy (PW-3), as Sarpanch of Maddimadugu Village, towards permission for construction of the temple and the genealogical tree filed along with the documents would support the plea of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that Bodya Naik is the founder of the temple and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are his legal heirs who have been performing Dhoopa Dheepa Naivedyam by spending money from their personal funds. On the said premise, respondent No.4 has declared respondent Nos.1 and 2 as members of the founder family of the temple.
The appellant, who claims to be from the family of Pujari of the temple, filed this appeal with an application to grant leave of this Court assailing the order, dated 28.07.2008, of respondent No.3. This Court has granted leave by order, dated 15.10.2008.
At the hearing, a strong objection was raised by Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, on the locus of the appellant to file the appeal. He has submitted that the appellant neither comes within the definition of ‘person interested’ under Section 1 (18) of the Act nor he falls under the expression ‘person aggrieved’ within the meaning of Section 88 of the Act.
In my opinion, this issue need not detain this Court for long for the simple reason that this Court has already granted leave to the appellant to file the appeal. Though order, dated 15.10.2008, was passed ex parte, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not questioned the same by availing further remedy. Hence, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled to question the locus of the appellant at this stage.
Coming to the merits of the case, the sheet- anchor of the case of the appellant is that respondent No.4 has committed a grievous error in readily accepting the evidence produced by respondent Nos.1 and 2. He has filed certain documents obtained by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005, as the additional material papers along with CMAMP.No.515 of 2012 secured by him from the office of Ippalapally Gram Panchayat on 28.01.2012 on certain queries made by him. To the query of the appellant as to who were the Sarpanches and Upa-Sarpanches of Ippalapally Gram Panchayat during 1959-75, it was replied that from 1959-64 Junna Nagi Reddy was the Sarpanch and from 1964-75 Mundeddula Ram Reddy was the Sarpanch of Maddimadugu Village.
Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellant, pointed out that Ex.A-2 receipt is dated 02.02.1960, allegedly issued by Mundeddula Ram Reddy, whereas as per the above information, Sri Junna Nagi Reddy was the Sarpanch during the relevant period and that therefore, the question of Mundeddula Ram Reddy describing himself as Sarpanch could not have arisen and consequently, Ex.A.2-receipt shall be held as a fabricated document. Learned senior counsel further submitted that as per the information, dated 28.01.2012, furnished by Ippalapally Gram Panchayat to query No.6, the post of Gram Panchayat Secretary was created under G.O.Ms.No.369, dated 12.12.2001. But, Ex.A-2-receipt, dated 02.02.1960, was shown to have been issued by Sarpanch or Secretary and therefore, as the post of Panchayat Secretary was not in existence in the year 1960, it must be necessarily held that Ex.A.2-receipt is a bogus one.
Trying to meet this submission, Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, has invited this Court’s attention to a copy of the resolution passed by Ippalapally Gram Panchayat on 31.03.1960, filed by the appellant himself, as per which, Mundeddula Ram Reddy, who was one of the members of Gram Panchayat, was permitted/continued to maintain the Gram Panchayat records and issue receipts as was being done earlier. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that though Mundeddula Ram Reddy was not the Sarpanch of Ippalapally Gram Panchayat, Ex.A.2- receipt was issued by him as he was permitted being a member of the Panchayat to maintain the record.
From the above discussed facts, it is evident that the main controversy centers around the authenticity or otherwise of Ex.A.2-receipt.
The genuineness of Ex.A.2-receipt is questioned mainly on two grounds, viz., (1) that it was shown to have issued by Mundeddula Ram Reddy as Sarpanch of Ippalapally Gram Panchayat in the year 1960, when he was not the Sarpanch; and (2) that the receipt contains the designation of Sarpanch/ Secretary when the post of Secretary was allegedly not in existence at that point of time. These aspects did not arise before respondent No.4 as, no one contested the claim of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for remanding the case to the Endowments Tribunal, since been created, for a de novo enquiry into the claim of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that they belong to the founder family of the temple. In the wake of the serious disputes raised by the appellant on the status of respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is necessary that the Tribunal holds a detailed enquiry by recording the evidence from the side of respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as the appellant and the officials of the Endowments Department and adjudicates the claim of respondent Nos.1 and 2 afresh.
Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, submitted that his clients may be continued as the members of the founder family of the temple in view of order, dated 21.02.2011, passed in WVMP.No.6079 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.30972 of 2010.
It needs to be noticed that this Court granted ad interim order, dated 18.10.2008, in CMAMP.No.2306 of 2008 filed in this appeal suspending the order, dated 02.06.2008, assailed in this C.M.A. for four weeks. On respondent Nos.1 and 2 approaching respondent No.3- Commisioner, he has issued memo, dated 01.11.2010, which reads as under:
“The attention of the Executive Officer, Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Maddimadugu, Amarabad, Mahaboobnagar is invited to the references cited. He is directed to allow Sri Lotavat Somla and Lotavat Papya to act as Founder Family Member to the subject temple, subject to outcome of the W.P. pending in High Court.”
This memo was questioned in Writ Petition No.30972 of 2010 by the appellant. On 15.12.2010, while admitting the Writ Petition this Court passed the following order:
“Inasmuch as the order declaring respondent Nos.6 and 7 as members of the founder family is already suspended by this Court and the said order was extended by order, dated 29.12.2008, in CMAMP.Nos.2306 and 2603 of 2008 in CMA.Nos.1248 and 1382 of 2008, there shall be interim suspension as prayed for.”
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed WVMP.No.6079 of 2010 for vacating the said order. This Court by a detailed order passed on 21.02.2011 while observing that the interim order dated 15.12.2010 was passed on a wrong precise that order, dated 18.10.2008, was extended, declined to continue the interim order by holding that elements of balance of convenience and irreparable injury do not lie in favour of the appellant. This order was confirmed in Writ Appeal No.134 of 2011, vide order, dated 19.04.2011.
However, by a subsequent order, dated 04.04.2012, a learned single Judge has extended the interim order, dated 18.10.2008, in favour of the appellant. A perusal of this order shows that the learned Judge has not adverted to the detailed order, dated 21.02.2011, passed in WVMP.No.6079 of 2010 and the order dated 19.04.2011 in Writ Appeal No.134 of 2011 confirming the said order.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interests of justice that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are permitted to be continued as the members of the founder family of the temple in pursuance of the order of respondent No.4 till a fresh decision is taken by the Endowments Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to adjudicate the claim of respondent Nos.1 and 2 afresh as expeditiously as possible.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the appeal, interim suspension granted on 18.10.2008 in CMAMP.No.2306 of 2008 is vacated and CMAMP.Nos.2306 of 2008 and 628 of 2012 stand disposed of as infructuous.
10th July, 2014 DR/LUR
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY