HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 407 OF 2011 DATED----------November, 2011 BETWEEN L.S.Appa Sundaram …Appellant And Srikalahasti Eswara Swamy Vari Devastanam, Rep. by its Executivke Officer, at present G.V.Narasimha Murthy, Srikalahasti Eswara Swamy Temple premises, Srikalahasti. ….Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 407 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Section 88 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) is directed against the Judgment (Award) dated 16.03.2011 passed in O.A.No.933 of 2010 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the application filed under Section 87 of the Act was allowed. Brief case of the respondent devasthanam is that Sri Kalahastiswara Swami temple was constructed with several towers, mandapams, prakarams, vacant sites, lands and choultries within and without prakarams, which are set apart for the large number of devotees, worshipping together at the time of festivals and other religious functions. It is averred that as per the available records in the temple, the properties including the lands and choultries of temple, were managed by several trustees. It is further averred that the trustees of the temple with a view to provide proper free accommodation, shelter and heading to the devotees constituted nearly 8 choultries in the four streets of Srikalahasti town, which are very nearer to the temple (one among the 8 choultries is Ranipeta choultry) and that all the choultries had been under the management of some trustees and these trustees used to render accounts to the temple. On the strength of these pleadings, the respondent devasthanam filed the said application seeking a declaration that the petition schedule property is a Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution but not a private property and a consequential declaration that Sri Kalahasteeswara Swamy Devasthanam is having right, title, interest and possession over the same. The appellant herein filed a counter denying the averments made in the application filed by the respondent devasthanam and contended that he has no knowledge about the so-called mismanagement by the Rajas and some of the trustees. It is inter alia contended that the appellant erected and let out the shops in the petition schedule property to several persons and the contention of the respondent devasthanam to the contrary is misconceived. He therefore pointed out that there is no cause of action for the respondent devasthanam to file the application and that it failed to produce any document to show possession or title over the petition schedule property. Thus, he asserted that the petition schedule property is a private property but not endowment and that his ancestors bought the property under the registered sale deeds dated 15.12.1928 and 25.10.1931 and that he is continuously in possession and enjoyment of the same being an absolute owner. As such, he rightly executed the registered sale deeds dated 09.02.2007 in favour of one J.Narasimhulu and N.Bharatamma for lawful consideration and alienated the property and therefore they are the necessary parties having been in possession of the petition schedule property and their non-joinder is bad in law and that the provisions of the Act have no application to the case on hand and that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the application filed by the respondent devasthanam as the registered trust deed, Ex.A.9, was executed in the State of Tamil Nadu and the expenses for maintenance of the petition schedule property are being met with the income of the properties referred to in Ex.A.9 registered trust deed which are situated in the State of Tamil Nadu. He therefore prayed that the application filed by the respondent devasthanam be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the petition schedule property situated a t Nehru street Kalahasthi Town of the building Door No.3/606, 607 & 608, Ranipet Vari Satram with the measurements of 52’ x 110’ bounded by East-Ganji Muniswamy Setty property; South- Residential houses; West-Srinivasa Photo Studio premises and North-Nehru Street is the Charitable/Religious Endowment under the Act, 30/1987 ? 2. If so, the applicant-temple is in possession and entitled to continue in possession with any right or title under the Act 30/1987? 3. If so, the applicant-Temple is consequently entitled to permanent injunction relief against the respondent restraining him and his men including any person claiming under him in any manner from alienating or interfering in any manner with the petition schedule property ? 4. Whether this Tribunal has no jurisdiction inherently and otherwise territorial to decide the subject manner of the lis? 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the alienees of respondent for the schedule property covered by Ex. A2-4? 6. To that relief? On behalf of the respondent devasthanam, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked while the appellant himself examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were marked. Exs.C.1 and C.2 were also marked through Court. Considering the evidence adduced before it, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent devasthanam. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is preferred. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the material placed on record. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the petition schedule property was never entrusted to the respondent devasthanam and that there was no document to show that the private persons had handed over the same to the respondent devasthanam. He sought to make a reference to the admissions of P.Ws.1 and 2 made in their cross-examination before the Tribunal to the effect that the petition schedule property was constructed by private persons and that the respondent devasthanam did not provide any funds for construction of the said property. He further argued that the petition schedule property was purchased under Exs.B1 and B3 dated 14.12.1928 and 25.10.1931 respectively by the ancestors of the appellant. He therefore contended that the trust created under registered trust deed dated 26.05.1942 is purely a private trust and the appellant had never admitted that the trust created therein is a public trust. He finally submitted that as the registered sale deed dated 09.02.2007 was executed by his client in favour of one J.Narasimhulu and N.Bharatamma for lawful consideration and alienated the property, they are therefore the necessary parties having been in possession of the petition schedule property and their non-joinder is bad in law and that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the present case and accordingly the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the application filed by the respondent devasthanam for the reason that Ex.A.9 registered trust deed was executed in the State of Tamil Nadu and the expenses for maintenance of the petition schedule property are being met with the income of the properties referred to in Ex.A.9 registered trust deed which are situated in the State of Tamil Nadu. He therefore submitted that the present appeal is liable to be allowed by setting aside the Judgment (Award) dated 16.03.2011 passed by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondent devasthanam contended that the trust created under the registered trust deed dated 26.05.1942 is a public trust. He further submitted that the Tribunal considered the entire material brought on record in the proper perspective and accordingly allowed the application filed by the respondent devasthanam, which does not warrant interference by this Court in this appeal. He therefore sought for the dismissal of the appeal. In view of the rival contentions, the point that arises for my determination in this appeal is as to whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal under the impugned Judgment (Award) are justified or not? Admittedly, the respondent devasthanam represented by its Executive Officer filed the application before the Tribunal. One of the reliefs sought for by the respondent devasthanam was to declare that the respondent devasthanam is having right, title, interest and possession over the petition schedule property, apart from other reliefs. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence, held that the respondent devasthanam has no title to the petition schedule property as it failed to produce proper evidence to prove the same. Notwithstanding the same, the Tribunal held that the respondent devasthanam has right to continue in possession by virtue of the public trust possession and management taken away from the appellant by the endowments authorities and handed over the same to the respondent devasthanam. In effect, it held that the petition schedule property is a Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and it is not a private property. The Tribunal also granted permanent injunction in its favour. The main grievance of the appellant is that when respondent devasthanam has no title over the petition schedule property and the same is not vested therein, it is not entitled for permanent injunction and that the petition schedule property is only a private property being managed from out of the income received from the properties referred to in Ex.A.9 which are situated in the State of Tamil Nadu. Needless to mention, if the trustee of the institution fails to discharge his duties, there is a prescribed procedure under Section 28 of the Act. In the present case, there was no finding under any of the proceedings of the Endowments Department to substantiate that the trustees failed to discharge their duties as contemplated therefor. Therefore, the mandatory procedure as envisaged under Section 28 of the Act should necessarily be followed [See AIR 1984 AP 39 (DB)]. A careful look at the material on record reveals that this prescribed procedure was obviously not followed in this case. This inaction on the part of the authorities of the Endowment Department clearly manifests that the petition schedule property is a private property. Ex.A.1 is the notice dated 02.05.1990 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Chittoor, which was addressed to all persons in-charge of choultries to produce the connected records, documents and accounts on 22.05.1990 at the time of enquiry. Ex.A.10 is the list of institutions published under the provisions of the Act. Ex.A.11 is the orders dated 03.03.2002 of the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, directing the Assistant Commissioner, Chittoor, to take possession of petition schedule property and hand over the same to the Executive Officer of the respondent devasthanam. Ex.A.12 is the proceedings dated 03.03.2002 of the Assistant Commissioner, Chittoor, whereby the petition schedule property was said to have been handed over pursuant to Ex.A.11 proceedings to the respondent devasthanam. A careful reading of the aforestated documents would suggest that the respondent devasthanam is alleged to have taken possession of the petition schedule property only on 03.03.2002 and from then it has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same but no material was brought on record to show that the petition schedule property was in fact handed over to the respondent devasthanam. Even otherwise, the case of the respondent devasthanam, as is evident from its pleadings, is that it was not in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property before 03.03.2002. If it is the case of the respondent devasthanam that the petition schedule property did belong to it, there was no occasion for the Assistant Commissioner, Chittoor, to have issued Ex.A.1. This action on the part of the Assistant Commissioner, Chittoor, would, on the other hand, show that the appellant had been in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. Further, it is not discernible from the material placed on record that as to what had happened to the alleged enquiry initiated pursuant to the proceeding issued under Ex.A.1, till the date of issuance of Exs.A.11 and A.12, i.e., 03.03.2002. No record is filed and no explanation is also forthcoming in this regard. As can be seen from the material placed on record, it is thus obvious that the Endowments Department had not followed the procedure contemplated under the Act while dealing with the petition schedule property. In NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. JUGAL KISHORE [(1988) 1 SCC 626], the Supreme Court held thus: “10. … This Court has consistently emphasised that it is the duty of the party which is in possession of a document which would be helpful in doing justice in the cause to produce the said document and such party should not be permitted to take shelter behind the abstract doctrine of burden of proof. This duty is greater in the case of instrumentalities of the State such as the appellant who are under an obligation to act fairly. …” [Emphasis added] Be that as it may, in the cross-examination of P.W.1, he admitted that the petition schedule property was constructed by private persons and that the respondent devasthanam did not provide any funds for construction of the same. P.W.2 in his chief-examination categorically deposed that the Commissioner of Endowments D e p a rtme n t, Hyderabad, subsequently appointed Executive Officer of the respondent devasthanam as Executive Officer of the petition schedule property and 8 other choultries vide order RCO E3/6891/2007 dated 02.03.2007. This action on the part of the Commissioner would nullify the contention of the respondent devasthanam that the petition schedule property was handed over to it in the year 2002 under Exs.A.11 and A.12. If that be really so, there was no need for the Commissioner of Endowments Department to have issued the aforestated proceedings dated 02.03.2007. Further, P.W.2 in his cross-examination admitted that there was no record with the respondent devasthanam as to the alleged handing over possession of the petition schedule property by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowment Department, Chittoor. The respondent devasthanam also failed to produce any document before the Tribunal that the trustees of the petition schedule property were submitting the accounts prior to the year 1990, when for the first time the Endowments Department was said to have issued Ex.A.1 notice dated 02.05.1990. The respondent devasthanam also did not make a mention of the petition schedule property in the list of properties owned by it as contemplated in the Rules framed under the provisions of the Act. If the petition schedule property is the property of the respondent devasthanam, as contended by it, at the cost of repetition, it may be stated here that there was no need for the Endowments Department to have issued Ex.A.1 notice in the year 1990. It appears that basing on the proceedings of the Endowments Department, the respondent devasthanam filed a suit in O.S.No.29 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, against the appellant and others for permanent injunction. However, at the stage of trial, the said suit was withdrawn by the respondent devasthanam for the reasons best known to it. It is manifest that the appellant denied the title of the respondent devasthanam to the petition schedule property in the said suit and claimed that it is only a private property. Ex.B.1 dated 14.12.1928 and Ex.B.3 dated 25.10.1931 are the registered sale deeds. On the basis of these two registered sale deeds, the appellant contended that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. As can be seen from the record, Ex.A.9 appears to be a clinching document which is registered trust deed dated 26.05.1942 in respect of the petition scheduled property. The dispute in this case appears to be centered around Ex.A-9, which is in vernacular (Tamil) language and a true translated copy of the same in English language is also brought on record, which inter alia reads to the following effect: “ XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXxX XXXXX XXXXX Executing the Trust Deed as follows: I have constructed two choultries in the North Meda Street of Srikalahasthi for my personal use, for performing Annadhanam to Sadhus during Svarathri for stay of piligrims and for use by our family people. Because I have attained old age, after my life time the choultries shall be managed as follows: By persons belonging to my family safe guarding by carrying out repairs and doing other acts persons to light up the choultries to feed the poor during the festivals. You 5 persons shall run the trust subject to the above conditions. This is the trust deed executed by me with my consent. xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx I have appointed you who belong to my family as Trustees. For the expenses of the choultries I have left (dedicated) the schedule mentioned properties worth Rs.1500 (Rupees one thousand five hundred). Hence you shall take possession of the schedule properties after my life time, hold the properties without subjecting them to any encumbrance, with the income from them effect repairs etc for the choultries, appoint person for lighting, feed the poor during festivals and give place to stay pilgrims and run the Trust. Only 5 persons detailed above and their Sandhadhis (successors) shall have the right to administer the choultries and the schedule properties given for the trust. No outsider shall have any right either in the properties or the management. This is not a public trust. This is a private trust of myself and my family. The 5 of you should run the trust unitedly. After me C.Masnikka Mudhaliar the fourth person shall collect the income from the property. Other works shall be done by the 5 persons together. In case of difference of opinion works should be done as per the view of the majority. C.Manikka Mudhaliar should keep proper accounts and hand over to the other four persons. You 5 persons should look after the trustee work till your life time. Incase of respective ill health or death, one person through male or female successors shall be appointed. Xxxxxx xxxxx Xxxxxx xxxxx” A perusal of the above excerpted portion, it is inter alia perspicuous that Ex.A.9 registered trust deed was executed in the State of Tamil Nadu; and that the petition schedule property is being maintained from the income received from the properties shown in the schedule to Ex.A9, which are situated in the State of Tamil Nadu; and that the petition schedule property is not a public trust but it is a private trust. It is further reflected that the properties referred to in the schedule to Ex.A.9, which are situated in the State of Tamil Nadu, shall not be subjected to any encumbrance as the income derived therefrom is being utilized for the maintenance of the petition schedule property. While these are the facts emanating from the record, the contention of the respondent devasthanam is that it is a public trust whereas the contention of the appellant is that it is an out and out private trust and therefore the Endowments Department has no jurisdiction to interfere with the private trust as stipulated under clause (a) of sub- section (3) of Section 1 of the Act. In essence, private trusts/private properties are not covered by the provisions of the Act. It appears that the Tribunal, while taking note of these contentions, did not consider Ex.A.9 in the proper perspective and thereby failed to follow the settled legal preposition enunciated by the Apex Court pertaining to Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act to the effect that when a registered trust deed is brought on record, which is admitted by the parties, no oral evidence could be adduced to contradict the recitals in the so-called registered trust deed. In this regard, a reference may be made to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in S. SAKTIVEL v. M. VENUGOPAL PILLAI, [(2000) 7 SCC 104] wherein it was held: “7. In view of the aforesaid legal position on interpretation of proviso (4) to Section 92 we have to examine as to whether settlement deed Ext. A-1 was required to be in writing under the law or not. It is not disputed that by settlement deed Ext. A-1, which is a disposition, Muthuswamy Pillai passed on right to property to all his sons, who acquired right in the property. Where there is such conferment of title to the property, law requires it to be in writing for its efficacy and effectiveness. A document becomes effective by reason of the fact that it is in writing. Once under law a document is required to be in writing, parties to such a document cannot be permitted to let in parol evidence to substantiate any subsequent arrangement which has effect of modifying earlier written document. If such parol evidence is permitted it would divest the rights of other parties to the written document. We are, therefore, of the view that the subsequent oral arrangement set up by the defendant-appellant cannot be proved by the parol evidence. Such an evidence is not admissible in evidence.” [Emphasis added] It is evident from the record that the Tribunal misread the Ex.A.9 registered trust deed which is simple and clear in its language and came to an erroneous conclusion. The Tribunal also failed to take note of the fact that there is no divestiture of ownership of the petition schedule property in favour of the Endowment Department and there was no dedication to it, and that presumption of dedication could only be raised in the absence of such a deed of dedication (Ex.A.9). Obviously, in the case on hand, the Tribunal failed to follow the law governing this aspect. In KULDIP CHAND v. ADVOCATE-GENERAL TO GOVT. OF H.P. [(2003) 5 SCC 46], the Supreme Court succinctly held thus: “38. A dedication for public purposes and for the benefit of the general public would involve complete cessation of ownership on the part of the founder and vesting of the property for the religious object. In absence of a formal and express endowment, the character of the dedication may have to be determined on the basis of the history of the institution and the conduct of the founder and his heirs. Such dedication may either be complete or partial. A right of easement in favour of a community or a part of the community would not constitute such dedication where the owner retained the property for himself. It may be that right of the owner of the property is qualified by public right of user but such right in the instant case, as noticed hereinbefore, is not wholly unrestricted. Apart from the fact that the public in general and/or any particular community did not have any right of participation in the management of the property nor for the maintenance thereof any contribution was made is a matter of much significance. A dedication, it may bear repetition to state, would mean complete relinquishment of his right of ownership and proprietary. A benevolent act on the part of a ruler of the State for the benefit of the general public may or may not amount to dedication for charitable purpose.” [Emphasis added] The Supreme Court in KULDIP CHAND v. ADVOCATE-GENERAL TO GOVT. OF H.P. (referred to supra) while considering the guidelines necessary to determine whether an endowment is of a public or private, pithily held thus: “47. This Court laid down the following tests as sufficient guidelines to determine on the facts of each case whether an endowment is of a public or private nature: (1) Where the origin of the endowment cannot be ascertained, the question whether the user of the temple by members of the public is as of right. (2) The fact that the control and management vests either in a large body of persons or in the members of the public and the founder does not retain any control over the management. Allied to this may be a circumstance where the evidence shows that there is provision for a scheme to be framed by associating the members of the public at large. (3) Where, however, a document is available to prove the nature and origin of the endowment and the recitals of the document show that the control and management of the temple is retained with the founder or his descendants, and that extensive properties are dedicated