THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3885 OF 2006
ORDER:
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the judgment dated 07.08.2006 in A.S.No.115 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereunder the appeal filed by the revision petitioner herein challenging the order dated 01.05.2006 in O.A.No.50 of 2005 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, as confirmed by the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad vide order dated 12.05.2006, was dismissed.
2. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein filed the aforesaid OA i.e., O.A.No.50 of 2005 seeking for a declaration that they are the successors of founder of Sri Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, Chilkur Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said OA was allowed and the same was confirmed by the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad vide his order dated 12.05.2006. Aggrieved by the same, 2 ML,J Crp_3885_2006 the second respondent therein filed A.S.No.115 of 2006 and the same was dismissed.
3. The case of respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein is that they are the descendants of Gunnala Madhava Reddy, who was the devotee of Lord Sri Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy. He was frequently visiting the Tirumala every year for darshan of Lord Sri Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy. When he became old, he was unable to go to Tirumala. While so, one night he had a dream in which it was revealed that idol of Lord Sri Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy was existing nearby his village (Chilkur). Next day morning, he along with villagers, went to the place where idol was revealed to exist in his dream and found an idol of Lord Sri Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy. Later, the idol was installed and consecration (prana prathista) was done and a Temple was constructed there. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 have given genealogical tree of family of Gunnala Madhava Reddy.
4. It is the further case of respondent Nos.1 to 6 that every day, Archana was being performed in the Temple in the name of their family. During Brahmostavams, the 3 ML,J Crp_3885_2006 family members of Gunnala Madhava Reddy used to present dhothi and saree to the Lord at the time of kalyanotsavam. Procession of the Lord used to start from the house of respondent Nos.1 to 6 and they used to offer harathi. Such a practice was from immemorial. The said Temple is historical one and it is of 500 years old.
5. It is the further case of respondent Nos.1 to 6 that revision petitioner herein (respondent No.2 in the OA) is the Archaka of the Temple. Originally, his forefathers belonged to Tamil Nadu and they came to Chilkur to perform poojas to the Lord and they are not the founders of the Temple. While so, the ancestor of the revision petitioner herein claiming himself as a Muthavalli of the Temple registered the Temple in collusion with the officials. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein were not aware of issuance of Munthakab in favour of forefather of the revision petitioner herein. According to respondent Nos.1 to 6, even if the Munthakab is issued, it is not binding on them. On the above pleadings, they sought declaration that they are successors of founder of the Temple.
4 ML,J
Crp_3885_2006
6. The case of the revision petitioner herein is that Gunnala Madhava Reddy was not the founder of the Temple and he did not install the idol of Lord Sri Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy and he did not construct the Temple. The genealogical tree was not properly proved by respondent Nos.1 to 6 and they are not the successors of Gunnala Madhava Reddy. As per the revision petitioner, the idol of Lord Sri Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy in the Temple is Swayambhu (self-revealed image); there is no need for consecration for the self-revealed idol; the Temple is of 500 years old; and there is no founder of the Temple.
7. It is the further case of the revision petitioner that his ancestors have developed the Temple and they were in exclusive management and administration of the Temple for several centuries. Vide proceedings in File No.23 of Endowments Branch in 1323 Fasli, the ancestors of the revision petitioner were recognized as Muthavallies-cum- Heriditary Archakas and Service Inamdars. Later, Munthakab was also issued in favor of Mr. Shatagopa Chary, the grandfather of the revision petitioner herein, and 5 ML,J Crp_3885_2006 after his death, the Munthakab was issued in favour of C.M.Venkata Raghava Chary, the father of the revision petitioner. The ancestors of revision petitioner have enjoyed the benefits of Sulse Sulsana by virtue of Farman issued by H.E.H. Nizam. The revision petitioner was recognized as a hereditary trustee, being the member of family of trustee. He denied the averments that during Brahmostavams, the family members of Gunnala Madhava Reddy used to present dhothi and saree to the Lord; procession used to start from the house of respondent Nos.1 to 6 and also harathi, sevas and chanting were done in the name of Gunnala family in day-to-day Archanas. As per the revision petitioner, he and his forefathers have been managing the Temple from immemorial times. The grandfather of the revision petitioner registered the Temple as per the Hyderabad Endowment Regulations and Munthakab was also granted in the year 1965 in favour of the father of the revision petitioner. His grandfather was recognized as inamdar and trustee of the Temple. The revision petitioner admits that he is the editor of VAK Magazine. On the above pleadings, he prayed to dismiss the OA.
6 ML,J
Crp_3885_2006
8. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Ranga Reddy District (respondent No.7 herein) filed a report stating that the ancestors of the revision petitioner are the inamdars and they have been doing Archakatvam services and are taking care of management of the Temple. He also stated that as per the magazines published by the revision petitioner, G.Madhava Reddy is the person who founded the deity, constructed the Temple and started poojas, but no records are available to show that respondent Nos.1 to 6 are the descendants of G.Madhava Reddy. He has further stated that forefathers of the revision petitioner migrated from Tamil Nadu State and they have been doing Archakatvam and holding inam lands and managing the Temple. He further stated that neither revision petitioner nor his forefathers were declared as hereditary trustee or founder trustee either under the old or new Act of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act.
9. The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, after perusing the evidence of both the parties 7 ML,J Crp_3885_2006 and also the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, had declared that respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein are the successors of Gunnala Madhava Reddy, who was the founder of the Temple. Accordingly, OA was allowed and the same was confirmed by the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad vide order dated 12.05.2006. Challenging the same, respondent Nos.1 to 6 preferred the aforesaid A.S., but were unsuccessful there. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.
10. Heard both sides.
11. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 91 of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, the Act). The scope of revision has been prescribed under Section 91 which reads as under:
"91. Revision - The High Court may call for the record of any case: -
(i) which has been decided by a court and in which no appeal lies thereto;
(ii) which has been decided by the District Court in an appeal under Section 88;
(iii) which has been decided by the Government in an appeal under Section 90;
8 ML,J
Crp_3885_2006
(iv) which has been decided by the Government under sub- section (1) of Section 28.
If such Court or the Government appears:-
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or them by law;
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its or their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit."
12. A glance of the above provision clearly makes out that interference in the Revision is very limited. If the impugned order suffers from exercise of jurisdiction not vested with or failure to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or order suffers from illegality or material irregularity.
13. Hence, this Court is required to see whether the revision petitioner made such grounds to interfere by this Court with the impugned order.
14. Sri P.Sree Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad (original authority) and the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (appellate Court) have not properly appreciated the evidence before them in coming to the 9 ML,J Crp_3885_2006 conclusion that respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein are the successors of Gunnala Madhava Reddy, the founder of the Temple. He has further submitted that the idol of Lord Sri Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy is a self-revealed one. As per the Vedas, in respect of self-revealed (Swayambhu) idol, no consecration (prana prathistha) is performed and there cannot be any founder. Therefore, the question of Gunnala Madhava Reddy becoming the founder does not arise.
15. It is also his submission that there is no evidence to show that respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein are genealogically related to Gunnala Madhava Reddy family. Further, there is no evidence like sthala purana or other contemporary evidence to show that Gunnala Madhava Reddy was the founder of the Temple. It is also his further submission that original authority and the appellate Court have wrongly treated certain admission with reference to magazines relied upon by respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein to hold that the revision petitioner has admitted that Gunnala Madhava Reddy was the founder of the Temple and respondent Nos.1 10 ML,J Crp_3885_2006 to 6 are his successors. Such findings are not based on record.
16. Lastly, he has submitted that the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein for declaration to successorship to the founder is not maintainable in the light of amendment made to the Act by way of Amendment Act No.33 of 2007, which came into force on 03.01.2008, whereunder the founder definition has been given and the hereditary trustee who has been recognized under the Act of 1966 alone falls under the definition of founder. Though the proceedings in the present case commences prior to coming into force of Amendment Act No.33 of 2007, it has retrospective effect by virtue of decision of this Court in Sri Vallabharaveswara Swamy Temple v. Bellamkonda Venkata Subrahmanya Sarma1.
17. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6, has submitted that revision petitioner has not made out any grounds as required under Section 91 of the Act so as to interfere with 1 2014 (5) ALT 801 11 ML,J Crp_3885_2006 the concurrent findings of the original authority and the appellate Court. According to him, both the original authority and the appellate Court, on appreciation of the claims set up by both the contesting parties and also considering sthala puranam, customary practice of presentation of dhoti and saree by the family of Gunnala to the Lord in Brahmostavam, commencement of procession, giving harathi daily and chanting of the names of Gunnala family in the daily prayers, found that Gunnala Madhava Reddy discovered the idol and constructed the Temple after consecration. Accordingly, original authority and the appellate Court held that Gunnala Madhava Reddy was the founder of the Temple.
18. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the own magazines of the revision petitioner or his son clearly demonstrate that Gunnala Madhava Reddy had a dream, whereunder it was revealed that idol of Lord Sri Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy was existing nearby his village; that next day morning, he along with villagers went to the place where idol was revealed in his dream and found 12 ML,J Crp_3885_2006 an idol of Lord Sri Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy; and that thereafter, poojas were performed to the idol and a Temple was developed by constructing sanctum sanatorium. Apart from the legend history, origin of Temple and sthala puranam, the villagers who were examined as witnesses, clearly spoke about the practices that were being adopted in the Temple at the time of Brahmostavams, kalyanams and the procession of Lord in the village. Such evidence clearly shows that Gunnala family was given preference in the Temple festivals. R.W.1 also admitted with regard to his own belief and knowledge that Gunnala Madhava Reddy was the founder and there are 30 to 40 family of Gunnala in the village of Chilkur and he being the villager of Chilkur knows that Gunnala family members Chilkur village are the descendants of Gunnala Madhava Reddy. These admissions clearly show that Gunnala Madhava Reddy was the founder of the Temple.
19. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that it was the self-claim of the ancestor of the revision petitioner and himself that they were Muthavalli/trustee or hereditary 13 ML,J Crp_3885_2006 trustee since no competent authority has recognized them as the Muthavalli/trustee of the Temple. He has further submitted that it is not clear from the documents produced by the revision petitioner to show that which authority has recognized his ancestor as Muthavalli/trustee. It was his self-claim. However, his ancestors were granted inam to perform poojas in the Temple, by way of Munthakab. Such grant of Munthakab cannot be viewed as an appointment of Muthavalli or trustee by the competent authority. According to the learned Senior Counsel, having considered such evidence, original authority and the appellate Court came to the conclusion that the respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein are entitled for declaration that they are the successors of Gunnala Madhava Reddy, founder of the Temple.
20. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that by the time the amended Act of 33 of 2007 came into force, the original authority and the appellate Court confirmed the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein. The amended Act has no retrospective effect. Even if it is retrospectively 14 ML,J Crp_3885_2006 applied, the same has no application to the present case. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of this Court in K.V.Krishna Rao v. State of A.P.2. He has lastly submitted the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said decision, the proceedings were pending before the original authority and meanwhile, the amendment Act came into force. In the said circumstances, it was held that as the proceedings were still pending before the original authority, the jurisdiction of the original authority was ceased and vested with the Tribunal created under the Act. While interpreting the maintainability of the claim before the Tribunal, a finding has been given to the effect that only hereditary trustee recognized under the Act of 1966 alone is entitled to be recognized as founder. In the said circumstances, such observation was made by this Court which does not mean that the amendment Act applies retrospectively.
2
(2012) 5 ALD 650
15 ML,J
Crp_3885_2006
21. The undisputed evidence on record shows that the subject Temple is of 500 years old one. The evidence also discloses that the revision petitioner or his ancestors are not the founders. The Munthakab and inam registers show that inam was granted for religious purpose subject to the condition of rendering services. Prior to coming into force of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, the Temples and endowments were regulated by the Hyderabad Endowment Regulations. Regulation 2 of the Hyderabad Endowment Regulations shows that every transfer of property made for religious purpose or for the purposes of charity or public utility other than estate granted subject to condition of rendering of service (Maash Mashruthul Khidmath) was called as 'Endowment', and the property transferred is called as 'Endowment Property'. The person transferring the property is called as Endower (Vaqif). Kitb-ul-Avkhaf (book of endowment) contains all estates or properties endowed under the Regulation.
16 ML,J
Crp_3885_2006
22. The Regulation also defines that estate conferred by the sovereign government for religious purpose or public utility subject to the condition of rendering service and details of such grants were made in the book of estates subject to condition of service i.e., Maash Mashruthul Khidmath. The Regulation also defines Muthavalli (trustee). Muthavalli/trustee is the person appointed by endower for the purpose of management of the property and fulfillment of the objects of the endowment. It included any person appointed by competent authority.
23. Succession proceedings under the Munthakab were relating to grants. The registration certificate of the Temple shows that it is the self-claim of the revision petitioner that he was the Muthavalli/Trustee of the Temple. It is not in dispute that originally, Shatagopa Chary, the grandfather of the revision petitioner was granted Munthakab by granting certain cash remissions/inam. Later, succession was also granted in favour of his son i.e., who is the father of the revision petitioner.
17 ML,J
Crp_3885_2006
24. It is also not in dispute that grant was accorded with a condition of rendering service to Lord Sri Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, Chilkur. By virtue of grant of estate with service condition, the person cannot said to be Muthavalli or trustee. The definition of Muthavalli, as defined under the Hyderabad Endowment Regulations, shows that he is the person appointed by the endower and not otherwise. It is no one's case that any such appointment was done by the endower appointing the ancestors of the revision petitioner as Muthavalli/trustee. It was the claim made under the document submitted for registration of Temple. Except Temple registration extract of the register, no material has been placed to show that how the revision petitioner or his ancestors were appointed as Muthavalli/trustee. There is also no evidence that they were appointed by any endower or the competent authority under the Hyderabad Endowment Regulations. It is the self-claim of the persons who subjected the Temple for registration that they are in the management of the Temple in the capacity of Muthavalli/Trustee on the basis of their services being rendered for the Temple with the support of 18 ML,J Crp_3885_2006 Munthakab or grant of inam. Grant of inam estate itself shows that it was given to render services to the temple and the word 'service' has not been defined whether the service includes management and administration of the Temple.
25. The fact remains is that the Temple is of 500 years old. The revision petitioner or his ancestors were the Archakas from the inception of the Temple and the ancestors of the revision petitioner were migrated to the Temple village subsequently, and they have been doing Archakatvam ever since their migration.
26. It is to be noted that in a Temple of 500 years old, it is highly difficult to find the direct evidence to know the actual founder. In respect of such Temples, it is the history, contemporaneous material, the practices which are being adopted in the festivals and sthala puranam are helpful to decide the actual founder of the Temple. It is a fact that neither the revision petitioner nor his ancestors are the founders of the Temple.
19 ML,J
Crp_3885_2006
27. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the revision petitioner is that consecration is not required for the self-revealed idols (Swayambhu) in terms of sanskirt text. It is also his contention that founding is different from discovery. He has not produced any material to show that the idol which is discovered cannot be consecrated or no prana prathista can be made.
28. The appellate Court has considered the dictionary meaning of 'founder' and found that it includes establishment. Such findings are based on the dictionary meaning. The appellate Court found that acts of the person who found the idol consecrating and establishing it by constructing the Temple come under the definition 'founder'. Such findings cannot be said to be illegal or suffer from any material irregularities or lack of jurisdiction or excessive jurisdiction.
29. The original authority and the appellate Court have taken note of Exs.A-1 to A-4. Exs.A-1 and A-2 are the VAK magazines. The publisher and editor of Exs.A-1 and A-2 is the revision petitioner. He has fairly admitted that in the 20 ML,J Crp_3885_2006 articles published in Exs.A-1 and A-2, there was mention that Gunnala Madhava Reddy was the founder of the Temple and he explained in detail in the said articles how the idol was discovered, its consecration, performing poojas and construction of Temple. Exs.A-1 and A-2 were shown to the revision petitioner, and in the cross-examination, he clearly admitted that he published the said articles in his magazines, after satisfying himself about the truthfulness of the contents therein. However, he disputes the truthfulness of such contents subsequently on account of litigation. His admission also shows that his son published Ex.A-3 in the year 1995 and it also discloses that Gunnala Madhava Reddy was the founder of the Temple. There is also another article published under Ex.A-4 which also shows that the founder is one person from Reddy Gunnala. All the above material was considered by the original authority and the appellate Court in declaring the succession to the founder of the Temple.
30. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that such admission of 21 ML,J Crp_3885_2006 the revision petitioner cannot be taken as admission as per the provisions of the Act, has no merit. When the direct evidence is highly difficult, the evidence like history, practices which are being adopted in the festivals and other sthala puranam are the helpful material to decide the actual founder of the Temple. When the revision petitioner himself admits that there is truth in the articles published by him which support the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 6, such admission cannot be completely brushed aside and the said evidence has some value.
31. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the villagers of Chilkoor, show that the ancestors of respondent Nos.1 to 6 were given preference in the festivals and poojas of Lord Sri Balaji Venkateshwara Swamy. From such evidence, it is clear that it is the existing custom and usage in the Temple to give preference to Gunnala family. Such a treatment is given on account of some reason. This is one piece of material to support other material like historical notings by various books and articles.
22 ML,J
Crp_3885_2006
32. The Munthakab only shows that the ancestors of the revision petitioner are the Archakas initially, but in the Temple registration, they were shown as Muthavalli/trustee. As per the Hyderabad Endowment Regulations, it is clear that Muthavalli/trustee can only be appointed by either endower or sovereign.
33. In the present case, no document has been produced to show that before the Temple was being subjected for registration by the ancestors of the revision petitioners claiming as Muthavalli/trustee, they were appointed as such either by the endower or sovereign. Contrarily, they were only granted estate with the condition of rendering service. Such a condition of service cannot be taken to mean that they were discharging the duties of Muthavalli/trustee.
34. The undisputed fact is that they were doing Archakatvam, which is also a service to the religious institution. There is no defined duty of management and administration of the religious institution for which inam is granted. Simply because inam is granted, it cannot be said 23 ML,J Crp_3885_2006 that they were also declared as Muthavalli/trustee of the Temple. For the first time such a description was mentioned under the extract of register of registration of Temple. The fact is that such a registration was done by the ancestors of the revision petitioner.
35. Except the claim of Muthavalli/trustee in the registration, the other details like how the Temple has been established and how the festivals and other customs were being followed are not mentioned in the registration certificate. Such details are required to furnish in the application as per the provisions of the old and new Acts. Such details are omitted and no reasons are given for such omission. Therefore, this Court feels that both the original authority and the appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly gave the finding with regard to declaration of claim over the founder of the Temple. Such findings do not suffer from lack of jurisdiction or excessive jurisdiction or illegality or material illegality so as to interfere by this Court.
24 ML,J
Crp_3885_2006
36. Coming to the retrospective effect of Amendment Act of 27 of 2002, the proceedings before original authority were commenced in the year 2005. The Amendment Act of 27 of 2002 came into force on 23.12.2002. Section 17 of the Amendment Act 27 of 2007 is relevant and it reads as under:
"Section 17: Procedure for making appointments of trustees and their term:
(1) In making the appointment of trustees under Section 15, the Government, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, shall have due regard to the religious denomination or any such section thereof to which the institution belongs or the endowment is made and the wishes of the founder:
Provided that the founder or one of the members of the family of the founder, if qualified as prescribed shall be appointed as one of the Trustees.
Explanation I:- 'Founder' means a person who has founded an institution or endowment and recognized as such by the authority competent to appoint Trustees under section 15.
Explanation II: "Member of his family of the founder" means children, grand children and so in agnatic line of succession for the time being in force and declared or recognized as such by the relevant appointing authority."
37. The Amendment Act 33 of 2007 came into force on 03.01.2008, which brought amendment to Section 17 and it reads as under:
25 ML,J
Crp_3885_2006
"Section 17: Procedure for making appointments of trustees and their term:
(1) In making the appointment of trustees under Section 15, the Government, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, shall have due regard to the religious denomination or any such section thereof to which the institution belongs or the endowment is made and the wishes of the founder:
Provided that the founder or one of the members of the family of the founder, if qualified as prescribed shall be appointed as one of the Trustees.
Explanation I:- 'Founder' means:-
(a) in respect of Institution or Endowments existing at the commencement of this Act, the person who was recognized as Hereditary Trustee under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 or a Member of his family recognized by the Competent Authority;
(b) In respect of an Institution or Endowment established after such commencement, the person who has founded such Institution or Endowment or a member of his family and recognized as such by the competent authority.] Explanation II:- 'Member of the family of the founder' means children, grand children and so in agnatic line of succession for the time being in force and declared or recognized as such by the relevant appointing authority. Explanation III:- Those persons who founded temples by collecting donations partly or fully from the public as well as those who founded them on public lands shall not be recognized as founder trustees by any means.
38. Prior to coming into force of amended Act 27 of 2002, Section 17 in the original Act 30 of 1987 reads as under:
26 ML,J
Crp_3885_2006
"Section 17: Procedure for making appointments of trustees and their term:-
(1) In making the appointment of trustees under section 15 the Government, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner as the case may be, shall have due regard to the religious denomination or any section thereof to which, the institution belongs or the endowment is made and the wishes of the founder:
Provided that the founder or one of the members of the family of the founder, if qualified as prescribed shall be appointed as one of the Trustees."
39. A combined reading of above provisions contained under Section 17 of the Act of 1987, original Act of 1987 does not contain any definition of founder, but it contains the definition of Trustee and Hereditary Trustee. However, in the Amendment Act 27 of 2002, the word 'founder' has been defined first time, as per which, founder is a person, who has founded an institution or endowment and recognized as such by the authority competent, as trustees under Section 15. By way of amendment Act 33 of 2007, new definition has been given to the founder. As per said provision, only the Hereditary Trustee recognized under the Act, 1966 was alone treated as founder for the institutions existing as on the date of coming into force of Act of 1987.
27 ML,J
Crp_3885_2006
40. On the strength of above provisions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that respondent Nos.1 to 6 are not recognized as hereditary trustees under the Act of 1966, and hence they cannot claim any rights by relying upon the definition contended under the Amendment Act 27 of 2002, which was amended by the Government pending this revision and it has retrospective effect. In support of his contention, he relied upon Vallabharaveswara Swamy Temple's case (supra).
41. A reading of the facts of the above decision shows that it was a case while the application to adjudicate the rights of the claimants as founder was pending before the Deputy Commissioner, amendment was brought to Sections 17 and 87 of the Act, taking away the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate such an issue by conferring the same with the Tribunal created under Act. In such a situation, the question arose therein was whether in the light of the amendment to Section 17, claim for declaration as successor to the founder can be adjudicated before the Tribunal? This Court found that the amended provision 28 ML,J Crp_3885_2006 under section 17 of the Act has narrowed down the definition of founder and only hereditary trustee who is recognized as such under Act 1966 is treated founder and there was no consequential amendment to Section 87(h) of Act, 1987 and the Tribunal could not deal with such an issue in the light of restricted meaning to the word 'founder'. Section 87(h) was read down to harmonize Sections 17 and 87 and held that there was no authority for Tribunal to adjudicate the claim therein in the backdrop of Amendment Act.
42. Another single Judge of this Court in K.V.Krishna Rao's case (supra) has not accepted the contention that the amendment Act of 33 of 2007 has retrospective effect.
43. This Court is not inclined to go into the larger issue of retrospective effect or prospective effect of amended act of 33 of 2007, since the facts in the present case disclose that when the amendment Act came into force, the original authority as well as the appellate Court already adjudicated the rights of respondent Nos.1 to 6. The proceedings are pending in this Court in the form revision. The validity of 29 ML,J Crp_3885_2006 those orders are neither annulled nor taken away by the amendment Act. The amendment to Section 17 has no relevance to the facts on hand. This Court is adjudicating the validity of the orders in the context of law prevailing when the orders have been passed. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and his contention regarding retrospective effect has no relevance to the present case on hand. In the circumstances, this contention is rejected. This Court finds that there are no grounds to interfere in the matter and the present Revision is liable to be dismissed.
44. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 07.08.2006 in A.S.No.115 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ M. LAXMAN, J DATE: 07.11.2022 TJMR