Dr. M.V. Soundara Rajan, vs G. Narasimha Reddy 9 Others,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5769 Tel

         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

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.

    (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