Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1598 (AP)

Narhar Raj v. Chennammachari (died) by LRs.

2001-12-10

P.S.NARAYANA

body2001
P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) DEFENDANTS 5, 6, 10 to 13 and the wife of the 7th defendant had preferred this appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 2-8-1982 made in OS No. 32 of 1959 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. . ( 2 ) IT is made clear that for the purpose of disposal of this appeal all the details of the pleadings and also the evidence may not be essential. However, to be brief, OS No. 32 of 1959 was instituted as a scheme suit by the respondents-plaintiffs for the purpose of framing a scheme for administration of the temple belonging to Sri Keshava Swamy Maharaj and the properties belonging to the said temple. The said suit had undergone a very chequered career in various stages and ultimately on 2-8-1982, the learned II Additional Judge was pleased to frame a scheme and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal was preferred. ( 3 ) HEARD Sri Vilas Afzulpukar, the learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri Srinivasa Rangachary, one of the parties in person and also Sri Jagannadha Sarma, the learned Government Pleader for appeals. ( 4 ) SRI Vilas Afzulpurkar, the learned Counsel representing the appellants had contended that all the other factual details involved in the present dispute need not be gone into inasmuch almost all the conditions stipulated in the scheme are contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter in short referred to as the Act for the purpose of convenience) and hence, in the light of the overriding effect of Section 42 of the Act, all these questions may have to be decided by the authorities under the Act. Learned Counsel also had pointed out several clauses in the scheme, which are totally contrary to the provisions of the Act. Learned Counsel had further strenuously contended that in view of the provisions of the Act as such, the entire management and administration of the temple and all other connected and also the ancillary aspects may have to be decided by the authorities under the Act and the administration and management of this institution is governed by the provisions of the Act. ( 5 ) SRI Srinivasa Rangachari, a practising advocate and also incidentally one of the parties in person had drawn my attention to several factual aspects including pouranic and historical importance of the temple. Learned Counsel, in fact, had traced the history of the litigation, commencing from the preliminary decree dated 23-10-1961 and also the series of events. Learned Counsel also had no doubt raised a controversy relating to the founders and Archakas of the temple. But, however, contended that questions whether a particular set of persons are the founders of the temple or Arachakas of the temple or in which capacity they had served or which branch to represent in relation to such rights, are all matters, which may have to be decided by the authorities under the Act. Learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to a very crucial aspect that a Receiver-Commissioner has been managing all the affairs of the temple in pursuance of the directions of the Court even to this day. Learned Counsel had drawn my attention to Section 142 of the Act and also placed strong reliance on Government of A. P. v. G. Rajendranath Goud, 1999 (6) ALD 147 . ( 6 ) SRI Jagannadha Sarma, the learned Government Pleader for Appeals also while making submissions in the present dispute had contended that it cannot be in dispute that the subject temple is governed by the Act and the authorities may have to decide all these questions and in view of the overriding effect stipulated by Section 42 of the Act, it can, be said that the scheme framed as such no longer can be continued. Learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to several clauses of the scheme and also different provisions of the Act. ( 7 ) HEARD the learned Counsel on record and also perused the material available on record. ( 8 ) IN the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal. (A) Whether the scheme already framed in the suit continues to survive in the light of the provisions of Section 42 of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (Act 30 of 1987)? (B) Whether in the facts and circumstances, the Commissioner-Receiver can be any longer permitted to continue the affairs of management of the subject temple? (c) To what relief? (B) Whether in the facts and circumstances, the Commissioner-Receiver can be any longer permitted to continue the affairs of management of the subject temple? (c) To what relief? ( 9 ) POINTS (a) and (b) are interconnected and for the purpose of convenience can be discussed together. ( 10 ) AS already stated supra, the factual matrix and the details relating thereto need not be discussed any further for disposing of this appeal. Section 42 of the Act deals with the overriding effect of the provisions of the Chapter over the existing corresponding provisions and in fact this provision corresponds to Section 36 of Act 17 of 1966. Section 42 of the present Act, Act 30 of 1987 reads as follows:"overriding effect of the provisions of this Chapter over the existing corresponding provisions :-- (1) Notwithstanding any scheme, judgment, decree or order of a Court, Tribunal or other authority or any custom or usage, governing any charitable or religious institution or endowment, the provisions of this Chapter shall, with effect on and from the date of the commencement of this Act prevail insofar as they relate to the matters governed by the corresponding provisions in any such scheme, judgment, decree or order or any custom or usage and such corresponding provisions, shall thereafter have no effect. " ( 11 ) THE words, notwithstanding any scheme, judgment, decree or order of Court, Tribunal or other authority or any custom or usage and also the words shall thereafter have no effect assume lot of importance in deciding the present dispute. It is not in dispute that the temple and the properties of the temple will come within the purview of the Act. All the other questions including the legal rights of the parties, if any, the privileges, who, in fact, are the founders or Archakas of the temple, as the case may be, and all other relevant questions are all matters to be decided by the competent authorities under the Act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Under which category the temple falls also may be a matter which may have to be gone into by the authorities under the Act. In fact, all the parties, who had addressed the Court, had not seriously disputed as far as this question is concerned. Under which category the temple falls also may be a matter which may have to be gone into by the authorities under the Act. In fact, all the parties, who had addressed the Court, had not seriously disputed as far as this question is concerned. It was also suggested that hereafter the management by the Commissioner-Receiver should come to an end and the whole management and administration of the temple and the properties should be taken over by the Endowments Department as such to be managed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is needless to point out that the authorities under the Act also may have register this temple in accordance with the provisions of the Act. I have no hesitation to be in total agreement with the contentions raised by the respective parties including the learned Government Pleader for Appeals in this regard. ( 12 ) HENCE, in the light of the foregoing discussion, it is made clear that the Commissioner-Receiver can no longer continue to be in management of the affairs of the temple or the properties. But, however, it is brought to my notice that it may take some time for the Endowments Department to take over the management of the temple as such. Byway of an interim arrangement, the Commissioner-receiver may continue by maintaining proper accounts till the Endowments department takes over the management, which I hope will be done at the earlier point of time. ( 13 ) POINT (c): In view of the foregoing discussion, it is made clear that the scheme no longer exists and it is for the authorities under the Act or take appropriate steps in the fight of the observations made above. It is also made clear that the Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, as suggested by both the parties, shall take appropriate steps at the earliest point of time to get the said temple and properties be registered under the provisions of the Act, in accordance with law. ( 14 ) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.