COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS AND ORS. versus VITTAL RAO AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 374 · Decided: 25-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS AND ORS. 
v. 
VITT AL RAO AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 25, 2004 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and 
Endowments Act, 1987; Ss. 1(3) 14, 16, 42, 80(/)(a) and (b)/Andhra 
Pradesh (Telengana Areas) Wakf Rules; Rule 156 : 
Donation of land by one person to another for the purpose of 
construction of a temple-Right of Successor of donee as trustee of the 
temple-Held : Nature of an endowment, public or private, could be 
ascertained by applying certain tests/guidelines-Division Bench of the High 
D Court rightly held that since the gift made in respect of the temple land 
in favour of ancestor of respondent was absolute, temple constructed thereon 
was a private temple-Since the land not endowed, provisions of the Act 
not attracted-State Government could not claim any interest on it-Since 
offering of a compromise proposal by the counsel of the State for consent 
E 
F 
G 
by the other partyldonee does not amount to concession on point of law, 
the findings of the High Court binding-Failure to frame a formal issue 
would not invalidate/dilute binding character of the proceedings-Since no 
appeal was preferred, the order attained finality-No good grounds shown 
to interfere with the judgment-A.P. Writ Proceeding Rules, 1977; Rule 
24. 
'Public trust' and 'private trust '-Distinction between-Discussed. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
Order XXJIJ Rule 3 and Section 141 
Applicability of same procedure in regard to suits in the proceedings 
under Article 226 of the Constitution-Held : Not applicable-Constitution 
of India, 1950-Article 226. · 
H 
Section 11 : 
374 
COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS v. VITT AL RAO 
375 
Doctrine of res judicatalconstructive res judicata-Applicability of-
A 
Held :Since the issue as to nature and scope of gift deed in the earlier 
round of litigation though not formally framed but determined as it was 
material and essential, bar of res judicata applies. 
A person donated 5 bighas of land to the ancestor of respondent 
No. 1 for construction of a temple. Donee started construction of the 
temple but before its completion, he died and the construction got 
completed by his sister. Later, in the year 1939, the State Government 
of Andhra Pradesh constituted a Supervisory Committee to regulate 
management of the temple under the provisions of A.P. Wakf Rules, 
since then the temple affairs had been managed by the Committee. In 
the year 1962, father of respondent No. 1 applied for transfer of 
towaliatship in his name. Registration Officer allowed the claim and 
accordingly ordered for amendment in the Revenue records in terms of 
Hyderabad Endowment Rules. Aggrieved, the Committee filed an appeal 
which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. However, Revision 
Petition was allowed by the State Government. Father of respondent No. 
1 filed a declaratory suit. Trial Court dismissed the suit. Appellate 
Court allowed the appeal. The Committee preferred an appeal which 
was dismissed by the High Court holding that since the land in question 
was gifted absolutely to the ancestor of respondent No. 1, the Government 
could not claim any interest on it. The State Government and the 
Committee filed appeals which were dismissed by this Court. 
State Government issued a Memorandum to compromise the dispute 
on certain terms in the interest of the temple. Accordingly, authority 
concerned issued instructions to the tenants in the temple premises to 
pay to respondent No. 1 the rent due. However, the Deputy Commissioner 
of Endowments set aside the instruction on the ground and terms of 
compromise had not been reduced into a deed of compromise. Respondent 
No. I/successor filed a writ petition to quash the order and also filed an 
affidavit stating that he was ready to accept the terms of compromise. 
Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the writ petition by recording 
the terms of compromise as agreed by both the parties. Authorities 
concerned did not prefer any appeal. However, respondents/purchaser 
of the land, filed writ appeal which was dismissed by the Division Bench 
of the High Court holding that the Judgment of the Supreme Court in 
the matter had attained finality. State Government filed Review Petition 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
376 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A which was dismissed by the High Court. In the meantime, father of 
respondent No. 1 filed a Contempt Petition against 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.