Vijendra Kumar And Ors. vs The Commissioner A.P. Charitable And ...

3. The background facts in short need be outlined at the threshold for the desired comprehension of the issue seeking resolution. The flow of events demonstrate that the grandfather of the respondents, Ram Harak Tiwari (since deceased) had acquired the premises in question from one Kondaiah by sale deed dated 18.12.1302 Fasli corresponding to 18.12.1893 (as per English Calendar) and as claimed by them had installed the family idol of Shri Hanuman Ji made of silver which was movable and not attached to the earth exclusively for the worship by the family members. The suit temple, as is asserted by the respondents, came to be registered in the Books of Endowment (Muntakab of Registry of Endowment) recording the name of Gokarnath Tiwari, the father of the appellants as the endower of Wakf (that is the temple) on 16th Aban 1345 Fasli (corresponding to the 3 year 1936 as per the English Calendar). The extract from the Registry of Endowment discloses that the entry had been made as per the order of the Minister, Ecclesiastical Department as contained in File No.60/1 of 1945 Fasli (corresponding to the year 1933) of the Directorate of Endowment. This document also indicated that it had been published in the contemporary Official Gazette. According to the appellants, the initial structure was temporary in nature being a tin shed and was later on converted into a permanent one with RCC roof by obtaining due sanction from the concerned municipal authority.

4. As the matter stood at that, in the year 1965 the appellants received a letter from the Endowment Department requiring them to submit an account/budget of the temple on the ground that the same had been endowed by their father for public purpose. The appellants filed their counter in case No.28 of 1968 before the Deputy Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Charitable Hindu Religious 4 Institutions and Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, instituted by one Mr. Laxmanrao and another, where they denied that the temple had ever been dedicated or endowed to the public by their father. They claimed as well that all the investments made in the structure/premises were with the funds of the family and with the due sanction of the municipal authorities.

5. After the death of their father, Gokarnath Tiwari on 21.06.1969, the appellants continued to manage the affairs of the temple and conduct the worship therein as an exclusive family affair.

7. This proceeding, later on, under Section 92 of the Act, was transferred to the Deputy Commissioner (Endowment) at Guntur for disposal and was 5 numbered as OA 66 of 1975. By order dated 28.2.1977, this application of the appellants was dismissed with the observation that the suit temple was a public temple.

9. In the plaint, the appellants while restating the above facts and reaffirming their claim that the temple was 6 their private property, elaborated that they had been paying the taxes for the property along with the electricity charges and that they did not receive/collect any donation or accept any offerings from the public for the maintenance of the suit temple and that the same had never been dedicated to the public. They thus, reiterated that the temple was their exclusive private property from the time of their grand-father.

13. The Trial Court, however, by the judgment and order dated 20.7.1981 decreed the suit of the appellants whereupon the respondents have filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code before the High Court. The Trial Court qua Exh.B6 was of the view that though it contained an entry in the Book of Endowments indicating that the father of the appellants had endowed the property in the lis for Wakf, as the Ecclesiastical Department did not take steps for exercising its supervision for over four decades and therefore the appellants and their predecessors had continued to treat the same as their private property, the validity of the entry was doubtful. It however noted that the entry had remained unchallenged within one year, it could not be expunged as well. Eventually, however the Trial Court held the entry as null and void for the sole reason that 10 till 1965, the Department did not bother to supervise the suit temple and the appellants continued to treat the same as their private property by paying municipal tax, remodeling the structures with two permissions from the Municipality etc.

24. In the wake of the above and on a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the 24 appellants to file an appropriate representation before the concerned authority under the Act in support of their claim that the temple and its premises are the exclusive private property of theirs and their family and had not been endowed for wakf or charitable/public purposes. This should be done within a period of four weeks herefrom. Needless to say, the authority concerned would issue notice to the Department to file their response and thereafter afford adequate opportunity to both the sides to adduce evidence and decide the issue as to whether the temple and the premises involved are private or public in nature by recording reasons., It is too trite to mention that in undertaking this exercise, the adjudicating authority would take note of all relevant facts and the law applicable. The exercise, as ordered, should be completed within a period of six months from the date of filing of the representation by the appellants. In the attendant facts and circumstances, we direct that the status quo of the property involved, as on date shall be 25 maintained till the adjudication, as directed, is over. The parties are hereby directed to co-operate so as to enable the authority to meet the deadline of time fixed by this Court.

25. The impugned judgment and order is set-aside. We make it clear that we have not offered any final comments on the merits of the case and the authority would adjudicate the issue without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove.

26. The appeal is thus, allowed in these terms. No costs.

DECEMBER 15, 2017.