DWARAPUDI BRAHMA REDDY Vs. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ENDOWMENTS,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: There are two temples, by name, Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Temple at G. Mamidada Village and Sri Umamaheswara Swamy Temple at Ubalanka, constructed by two brothers, by name, Sri Subbi Reddy and Sri Rami Reddy, and the properties were set apart by the founders as well as their family members by executing Settlement Deeds on 23.07.1939, 23.07.1948 and 06.07.1951; that all family members acted as founder trustees; that after the death of Sri Rami Reddy, his adopted son, Sri Ramachandra Reddy, continued to represent that branch; that on the demise of Sri Subbi Reddy, his sons, Sri Adi Reddy, Sri Ramakrishna Reddy, Sri Ramachandra Reddy and Sri Brahma Reddy continued to act as founder trustees; that Sri Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o Adi Reddy, submitted representations on 16.03.2002 and 07.01.2003 to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, to recognize his son, Sri Srinivasa Reddy, as Founder Family Member of the subject temples, in his place, as he is unable to discharge his obligations on account of his old age, and the said request was acceded to by the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Kakinada, vide his order, dated 18.02.2003, recognizing Sri Srinivasa Reddy, as Founder Family Member of the subject temples; that the said Srinivasa Reddy died on 26.03.2003 and thereafter, his wife, Smt. Sridevimahalakshmi, the fifth respondent herein, approached the Deputy Commissioner seeking her to be declared as Founder Family Member of the subject temples; that after considering the legal heir certificate produced by her, the third respondent vide proceedings, dated 02.06.2003, declared her as Founder Family Member in the place of her deceased husband and that aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, who is the son of Subbi Reddy, filed Revision Petition No.185 of 2004 under Section 92 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') before the second respondent - Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Endowments Department, Kakinada, who in turn, vide order, dated 30.09.2005, dismissed the same confirming the order, dated 02.06.2003 of the third respondent. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

(2.) Sri T.S. Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds raised before the second respondent contends that as per the wishes of the founders of the subject temples and as mentioned in the Settlement Deeds, only male member should be appointed as trustee and therefore, recognizing the fifth respondent as Founder Family Member is contrary thereto as well as the bar contained in Section 19(1)(i) of the Act, as she is below 30 years and her date of birth is 08.03.1974; that on account of the language employed in Explanation II to Section 17(1) of the Act, only a male member should be recognized as Founder Family Member, as such, the fifth respondent being the female member, though belonging to the family of the founders, is not fit to be appointed as trustee and that the second respondent passed the order impugned without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable.

(3.) Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the fifth respondent, submits that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the age of the fifth respondent was not raised at any point of time before the authorities concerned and thus, there was no occasion for the authorities to deal with the same. He further submits that in terms of Section 19 of the Act, the disqualification is not with respect to the person to be recognized as Founder Family Member but with respect to the appointment of trustee. He further submits that in terms of Explanation II to Section 17(1) of the Act, the children, grandchildren can be declared as Member of the family of the founder and for others, who are not children and grandchildren, the stipulation with respect to the agnatic line of succession is applicable and thus, there is no embargo with respect to the recognition of the fifth respondent as Founder Family Member. He also submits that the fifth respondent, who was recognized as Founder Family Member, is none other than the granddaughter as well as the daughter-in-law of Sri Satyanarayana Reddy. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.