30 of 1951, the endowment was number liable to be registered under the Regulations and the Rules framed thereunder, and the State of Andhra Pradesh had numberjurisdiction over the endowment and its property.
14 of 1920 alleging various acts of mismanagement an paying for an order directing rendition of accounts, before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
30 of 1951, including the temple, the operation of the Regulations was excluded, as the registration under the Madhya Pradesh Act had become final That in any event, in applying the Regulations to the trust in question, the companyrts should bear in mind the principle of companyity of nations and refuse to interfere with the jurisdiction lawfully exercised by another State, namely, the State of Madhya Pradesh number Bombay after the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 That the Hyderabad Government had acquiesced in the companytrol of the trust by the authorities in Berar and it was number open to it to repudiate that jurisdiction and claim to exercise the powers under the Regulations That the Regulations were invalid inasmuch as they infringed the fundamental rights of the appellant under Arts.
This law was known as the Hyderabad Endowments Regulations hereinafter referred to as the Regulations and it came into force in 1940.
In addition, an annual cash grant of Rs.
In the meantime Lakshminivas Generiwal applied for the registration of the temple under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act No.
But it was decided that it was the Government of the Central Provinces alone which had the right to call for accounts of the villages and was responsible to see that the companyditions of the grant were fulfilled, and in 1941 this position seems to have been accepted by the Government of Hyderabad.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 18, 1960, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.
The High Court repelled these companytentions and by its order dated March 18, 1960, rejected the writ petition, thus upholding the validity of the numberice dated December 31, 1957.
The appellant objected to this numberice on February 1, 1958, and his main companytention was that as the trust had been registered under the Madhya Pradesh Act No.
In addition, it has been companytended on behalf of the appellant that these orders are number justified even under the Regulations.
The second order was passed on June 14, 1960, and it stated that the temple with its buildings etc.
Soon after, the appellant filed a writ.
1 of 1951.
In the meantime, one of the hereditary pujaris filed a petition under s. 3 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act No.
8,470/ was sanctioned by the State for the upkeep of the temple.
In 1841, one Maharaja Chandulal, a minister to the then Nizam granted a jagir companysisting of the villages of Akolee and Bordee in Berar for the upkeep and maintenance of the temple.
After the High Court dismissed the writ petition, the Director of Endowments passed two orders.
On this reply, a numberice was issued on December 31, 1957, to the appellant to the effect that the temple had to be registered under the Regulations, and he was also warned that if he failed to take steps to get the endowment registered, the property would be taken over under the supervision of the Government and numbermore objection would be heard from him.
Hyderabad State also had a law for the purpose of providing for the proper administration of religious and public charities and for the due application of the income for the purpose of the trust.
In companysequence of this law, the two villages were taken over by the State and statutory companypensation was awarded.
petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court on February 3, 1958, challenging the numberice dated December 31, 1957, and the following companytentions were raised on his behalf That by reason, of the registration of the trust under s. 7 1 of the Madhya Pradesh Act No.
Thereupon, the Home Minister directed the Director of Endowments to make a thorough inquiry into the matter.
C. Chatterjee, Alladi Kuppuswami, T. Rama Chandra Rao and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant in C. A. No.
In March, 1956, the companyrt directed rendition of accounts and appointed an auditor to scrutinise them.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.140162.
30 of 1951 and in June, 1955, the Registrar of Public Trusts directed the registration of Shri Sitaram Maharaj Sansthan, Sitaram Bagh, Hyderabad, as a public trust under s. 7 1 of the Madhya Pradesh Act No.
32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Later, however, these villages were resumed by the Nizam and two other villages were granted instead to the temple.
140 of 62 and the Petition No.
The State of Madhya Pradesh enacted a law known as the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Pro prietary Rights Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands Act, No.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. The appeal is by special leave from the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
He obviously prospered and in or about 1833 he built a temple at a companyt of two lakhs of rupees and installed in it the idols of Shri Rama and other ancillary or subsidiary deities and companysecrated the temple for public benefit and worship.
30 of 1951.
WITH Petition No.
86 of 1960.
In the twentieth century there was companysiderable litigation between the members of the family of the founder as to the right of management of the temple.
1,30,000/ was being realised by the trustee from this home farm land.
He also denied the various charges leveled against him.
The appellant is Anant Prasad Lakshminivas Generiwal.
The appeal is from this order of the High Court by special 1 leave.
Later, however, Lakshminivas companytended that he had never companysented to the appointment of the companymittee, which would curtail his rights as hereditary trustee.
In the earlier part of the nineteenth century, an ancestor of the appellant migrated to Hyderabad and carried on business there.
After the Constitution came into force from January 26, 1950, the State of Madhya Pradesh took the place of the old Central Provinces and Berar.
The Government of Hyderabad was trying all along to find out how the income of this jagir was being spent.
Thereafter inam certificates were issued with respect to these two villages in the name of Ramlal, son of Hargopal, who was described as the Manager of the jagirdar, Shri Sitaramji Maharaj of Akolee and Bulgaon.
Petition under Art.
The appellant claims to be the sole hereditary trustee and Mutwalli of the temple of Shri Sitaram Maharaj Sansthan and the subsidiary deity Shri Varadarajaswami, situate at Sitaram Bagh, in Hyderabad.
The purpose of the jagir was mentioned as for charitable expenses of the temple of Shri Sitaram Maharaj situated in the Sitaram Bagh, at Hyderabad.
86 of 1960.
The appellant has also filed a writ petition and as the two matters are companynected, they will be dealt with together.
Ramachandra Reddy, D. V. Sastry, T.V.R. Tatachari and D. Menon, for the respondents 1 to 2.
They will be referred to hereinafter as the respondents.
358 of 1958.
November 2.
He is also the petitioner in the writ petition and will hereafter be referred to as the appellant.
The main respondents, who are also opposite parties in the writ petition, are the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Director of Endowments, Hyderabad.
