VIJENDRA KUMAR & ORS. versus THE COMMISSIONER, A.P. CHARITABLE & RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS & ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 246 · Decided: 15-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 246 
VIJENDRA KUMAR & ORS. 
v. 
THE COMMISSIONER, A.P. CHARITABLE & RELIGIOUS 
INSTITUTIONS & ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6460 of2008) 
DECEMBER 15, 2017 
[N. V. RAMANA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Hindu Charitable and Religious lllStitutiollS 
and Endowment Act, 1966 - ss. 92, 78, 77 - Nature of a temple -
Public endowment or private property - Appellant seeking a 
declaration that temple is their private place of worship and not a 
public shrine - Department's case that in the Books of Endowment, 
father of the appellants was registered as endower of Wakf(temple) 
- Appellant's case that temple had never been dedicated or endowed 
to the public by their father - Trial court decreed the appellant's 
D 
suit - However, the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the 
High Court held that the temple was a public temple - On appeal, 
held: Entry in the Register of Endowments shows that the father of 
the appellants had endowed tlze suit temple for wakf and the 
document was published in the official gazette - Rebuttable 
E 
F 
presumption of validity of official acts can be permissibly drawn in 
terms of s. 114(e) - Insistent stand of the appellants is that such 
endowment had never been made by their father and that no notice 
with regard thereto had ever been received by them - Also this could 
be the handiwork of some mischievous neighbours and that in a 
suit filed by neighbors for a right of passage, the ownership of the 
temple premises had been established - Furthermore, DW5, who 
exhibited the document, expressed his ignorance as to the manner 
in which it was prepared and there is nothing to show that he proved 
the document with the original records rather in cross-examination, 
conceded that he had no personal knowledge about ihe application 
made for registering the temple in the Book of Endowments - In 
G view thereof, opportunity granted to the parties to adduce all 
evidence, oral and documentary, to determine as to whether the 
temple had been endowed by the father of the appellants -
Appellants directed to file an appropriate representation before the 
concerned authority in support of their claim - Evidence Act, 1872 
H - s. 114(e). 
246 
VIJENDRAKUMAR v. THE COMM.AP. CHARITABLE & RELIGIOUS 
247 
INSTITUTIONS & ENDOWMENT DEPTT. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1 Apropos Exh.B6, it is per se in a prescribed 
form and is an extract from the file of the Endowment Department 
available in 1342 Fasli (year 1933). The entry is of the year 1345 
Fasli (year 1936) and has been made as per the order of the 
Minister, Ecclesiastical Department in the Register of B 
Endowment, maintained by the Director of Endowment. This 
document discloses that the father of the appellants had endowed 
the suit temple for "Wakr', i.e. public/charitable purpose, he being 
shown as the Pujari (Priest) thereof. It is not disputed that this 
document had been published in the Official Gazette, and a copy 
thereof, as the document endorses, had also been forwarded to 
C 
tlie father of the appellants referring to him as the endower of 
the property. On an overall consideration of the features of this 
document, it would prima facie appear, if all legal essentialities of 
procedure in connection therewith had been adhered to, that an 
endowment had indeed been made by the father of the appellants. 
D 
Added to this as well, is the rebuttable presumption of validity of 
official acts which can be permissibly drawn in terms of Section 
114(e) of the Evidence Act, 1872. [Para 18] [255-E-H] 
1.2 This notwithstanding, in course of the hearing, the 
Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, who was present in court 
was enquired as to the legally prescribed procedure prevalent at E 
the relevant point of time for registration of the endowment of 
the kind as involved. This is more so in view of the insistent 
stand of the appellants that such endowment had never been made 
by their father and that no notice with regard thereto had ever 
been received by him or them. They also indicated that this could 
F 
be the handiwork of some mischievous neighbours of theirs. It is 
a matter of record that in between the proceedings with regard 
to the status of the temple, there was also a suit filed by the 
neighbors of the appellants for a right of passage which did end 
in a compromise and as claimed by them (appellants), their 
ownership of the temple premises had been established. [Para G

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