Hereditary Trusteeship Abolished, Child Of Temple's Founding Member Can't Automatically Be Declared As Founding Family Member: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that the child of a founding member of a Temple is not automatically entitled to be declared as a member of the founding family, merely because he is the child of the Founder.

The order was passed by Justice M.G. Priyadarsini in a Civil Miscellaneous appeal, which also upheld the action of the Tribunal in taking away the 'founding member' status of a respondent who had wrongly been declared as the founding member previously, in a claim initiated by a third party.

The Bench noted in the present case that, the appellant derived his right from his father who had been declared as the 'Founder' of the Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Khammam District. The Bench further noted, that the 'founding' status of the father of the applicant was also under question.

Thus, it was held that when the founder of the temple is disentitled or facing disqualification, the child stepping into the shoes of the father will not have any right to be declared as the 'Founding Member' merely because of the status given to his father.

“When the father of the appellant by name Tirupathaiah, who was alleged to have been recognized as founder of the temple, is disentitled or suffering from disqualification covered by explanation III of Section 17 (incorporated in view of circular No.40/97 in Rc.No.L/36330/97, dated 04.10.1997) to be recognized as Founder, his son i.e., the appellant alleged to have stepped into the shoes of his father, will not have any right to declare him as member of founder family, more particularly in view of abolition of hereditary trusteeship.”

Background:

Initially, the older brother of the appellant herein initiated proceedings before the Endowments tribunal praying that he may be declared as a founding member of the Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Khammam District. He claimed that his father had constructed the temple way back in his lifetime with his own funds and the same was recognised by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in an OA filed in 1995.

After the hereditary trusteeship was abolished, the younger brother of the appellant applied for trusteeship of the Temple, and the same was granted by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments in the year 1996. The founding status was given to the younger brother solely on the ground that his father was a founding member of the Temple.

The Temple Management on the other hand contended that the Temple was not constructed by the father of the applicant but was in fact a 'Swayambhoo'. It was further contended that none of the revenue records point to the applicants being the owners and thus the claim could not be sustained.

The Tribunal, after considering the facts of the case, not only dismissed the claim of the applicant, but also took away the 'founding member' status granted to the younger brother of the applicant therein.

Challenging the said order, the younger brother of the applicant before the tribunal filed the present Appeal.

The appellant/ younger brother argued that the tribunal could not have taken away his 'founding member' status in an application filed by a third party without as much as issuing him a notice. Further he contended that the right of his father had been solidified in the OA filed in 1995 and could not be set aside arbitrarily by the tribunal.

The Bench referring to Chenchu Rami Reddy and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others and pointing out the socio-economic importance of an Endowment noted that an endowment should be jealously protected.

Shifting her attention to the contents of Section 17 of the Endowments Act and a Circular issued in 1997, the Bench noted that a founding member status cannot be given to every individual who has contributed towards setting up the temple.

Justice Priyadarsini emphasized that as per section 17, the founding member status could only be given to an individual who constructed or reconstruct the temple without the aid or contributions or otherwise received from any other persons or body including the public.

The bench noted that nothing had been placed on record to show that the father of the applicant had donated the land for the temple or set-up the temple with his own funds. In facts, to the contrary, the Bench points towards admissions made by the applicant herein in the OA filed in 1995, wherein, it is admitted that the idol of the temple appeared on the land in the form of a huge rock (Swayambhoo).

“The evidence of PWs 2 to 3 and RW2 in their cross examination clearly discloses that the deity of Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy is a swayambhoo in the rock and not any idol installed and temple constructed there and in fact for swayambhoo temples the question of recognition of Founder Family does not arise by virtue of Explanation III of Section 17, which was incorporated in the Act by following the circular instructions No.40/97 in Rc.No.L/36330/97, dated 04.10.1997 and as per the said circular a founder should either construct or reconstruct the temple without the aid or contributions or otherwise received from any other persons or body including the public.”

Lastly, the Bench also noted that no Civil Suit had been initiated by the applicant herein to determine the actual owner of the land.

Thus, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the findings of the Tribunal.

Case no.: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.424 OF 2013

Counsel for Appellant : N.M. Krishnaiah Counsel for Respondents : M. Srinivasa Rao G.P. for Arbitration J.R.Manohar Rao

Click Here To Read/Download Order