SRI GODELA SATCHIDANANDA MURTHY (D) BY LRS. versus DY. COMMNR., ENDOWMENTS DEPTT., A.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 762 · Decided: 15-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SRI GODELA SATCHIDANANDA MURTHY (D) BY LRS. 
v. 
DY. COMMNR., ENDOWMENTS DEPTT., A.P. AND ORS. 
MAY 15, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.) 
Religious and Charitable Institutions: 
,_ 
1-. 
c 
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and 
Endowment Act, 1966; ss. 2(22), 2(26), 38, 39, 77: 
Hindu religious Institution and Endowment-Nature of-Private or 
public-Held: Not only plaintiff but the public also helped in constructing 
the temple in question-Though Samadhiltomb by itself may not be a 
D permanent dedication involving public character of religious institution but 
it acquires such character if it is Samadhiltomb of a Saint-It was clearly 
not a case where Shastraic basis held to be the sine qua non for declaring 
the institution a religious institution-Members of the public were regular 
visitors in the institution/temple in question-They were paying their 
obeisance offering pujas-Members/public could visit the temple offering 
E pujas on payment of amount itself is indicative of the fact that they could do 
so as of right-The institution in question was established with the help 
extended by the disciples of the guru and member of public and not by the 
family members of the plaintiff alone as a private place of worship-Fae/um 
of issuance of entry tickets/pamphlets as also contents of certain documents/ 
F letters containing certain vital admissions not denied by the plaintiff-Such 
conduct of on the part of the plaintiff could clearly go to show that the 
Judgment of the High Court determining the institution in question as a 
public institution and therefore requiring registration does not suffer from 
-1" 
any infirmity-Rule of estoppel attracted-Besides, the dedication was made 
prior to its using for residential purpose-Merely because, the plaintiff has 
G a residential house in the portion of the trust property, the same is not 
outside the purview of the Act-Evidence Act, 1872-Estoppel. 
Father of plaintiff no.I-appellant owned a piece of land and after his 
death, his dead body was buried in the same property. A Samadhi was 
:"' 
.... 
constructed thereon by Plaintiff No.I, who later shifted his residence therein. 
H 
762 
GOOELA SATrnIDANANOA MURTHY fDJ BY LRS_ i· DY. COMMNR .. ENDOWMENTS OF.PIT .. A.P. 
763 
On the said property, he installed statutes of his father, his guru and also A 
idol of Godess Gayatri Devi. He named it as "Shri Simha Saila Puri Virat 
Guru Mandiram" and "Sri Simha Saila Puri Gayatri Peetam". When his 
mother died in the year 1979, her dead body was buried by the side of her 
husband in the same compound. A tomb was also constructed thereon. 
Respondent No. I - Authority issued a notice to the plaintiff for registration 
of the temple/ institution as a public institution within the meaning of Sections B 
38 and 39 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and 
Endowment Act, 1966. An application for deletion of the said institution from 
the list of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment was 
filed by plaintiff No.I before the Author. The application was dismissed by the 
Authority. Aggrieved, plaintiff No.I filed a suit, which was decreed by the trial C 
Court. Authorities filed first appeal before the High Court which was allowed 
by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the order of the Deputy Commissioner is a 
nullity being violative of the principles of natural justice; that in view of the 
fact that the District Judge had inspected the property personally and recorded D 
his observations, the High Court should not have interfered therewith; that 
no member of the public having been examined by the respondents to prove 
public participation in the affairs of the trust nor the public character thereof 
having been proved, the High Court committed an error in arriving at its 
findings; and that no preaching of any religious tenets to disciples being E 
undertaken by them and the suit property being not a place of worship for the 
general public but one for the family, it should have been held to be a private 
institution. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Not only the plaintiffs, as would appear from the evidences F 
brought on record but also the public had also made contributions for 
construction of the temple. For the purpose of entering into the temple, tickets 
used to be sold. A Hundi meant for public donation was also installed. A Medical 
Unit meant for t

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