Y GOPAL KRISHNA PRASAD Vs. YENDURI SUBBARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is admittedly a hereditary trustee of Sri Yenduri Subbaraos Vysya Students Hostel Trust, Vijayawada, a notified endowment created by his father. Action was taken to appoint a Board of Trustees under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (17 of 1966), hereinafter called "the Act", and a certificate was issued as required under sub-section (2)(b) of S. 93 of the Act, specifying the property in A and B Schedules. He was directed to deliver possession of them to the successor Board of Trustee and it was served in the manner prescribed. Yet the properties were not delivered by the petitioner within seven days therefrom nor shown any sufficient cause therefor. Therefore, an application has been filed under Section 93(2) of the Act before the lower Court for an order to deliver possession of the property, since the petitioner did not deliver possession thereof. Initially, in Criminal M.P. 750/1979, the Magistrate ordered delivery of possession specifying the period for handing over records, etc. Against that order, Criminal M.P. Nos. 1456 of 1980 and 1458 of 1980 were filed in this Court and while those proceedings were pending, the term of office of that Board expired by efflux of time. Therefore, while disposing of those petitions, this Court has ordered :

(2.) Thereafter, respondent No. 1-Trust Board was constituted. The properties were not handed over to the new Board. Therefore the present Board laid action under Section 93(3) before the trial Court in Criminal M.P. No. 1467/1981 and that petition was dismissed. As against that order, a revision has been filed before the Court of Session at Vijayawada and the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision holding that without obtaining a fresh certificate, the first respondent is entitled to continue the proceedings and that the action initiated is valid in law. As against that order, the present revision case has been filed.

(3.) Sri Srirama Chandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that by efflux of time the term of the previous Board headed by Sri Kasiviswanadham came to an end. The certificate issued to that Board also ceased to have any effect and unless the successor Board obtains a fresh certificate from the Endowments Department and an order is also passed under S. 93(2), the present proceedings cannot be continued. He laid emphasis upon the language employed in sub-section (2)(b) of S. 93 of the Act.