Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kommuru Appala Swamy Diedsanjeeva … vs Joint Collector, Vizianagaram … on 22 August, 2025
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
1
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
APHC010494652007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3529]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
W.P.No:12893 of 2007; 30145 of 2018 & 2672 of 2020
And
W.A.Nos.641 & 642 of 2021
W.P.No.12893/2007
Between:
Kommuru Appala Swamy (died)sanjeeva Raors and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Joint Collector Vizianagaram District 3 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES
2. CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS
3. M/S INDUS LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES
2. GP FOR REVENUE
2
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
3. T V SRI DEVI
4. O MANOHER REDDY
W.P.No:30145/2018
Between:
Sri Kommuri Appadu Dora Trust, ...PETITIONER
AND
The District Registrar and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K SARVA BHOUMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)
W.P.No:2672/2020
Between:
Sanghamitra Estates, ...PETITIONER
AND
State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. AKULA VAMSI SANGEETH KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)
3
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
W.A.No:641/2021
Between:
Smt. Kommuru Kanakaratnam and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Jami Suresh Kumar and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. M/S INDUS LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SABBAVARAPU SATISH BABU
2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)
3. T V S KUMAR
W.A.No:642/2021
Between:
Smt. Kommuru Kanakaratnam and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Jami Suresh Kumar and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. M/S INDUS LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ...
2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)
3. T V S KUMAR
4
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
The Court made the following Common Order:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
All the above cases arise out of the disputes relating to the ownership
and claims Ac.14.20 cents of land in Sy.No.409/P and Ac.29.73 cents in
Sy.No.438/P of Bogapuram-West Village, Vizianagaram District (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the property’). All these cases relate to the same land and as
the parties involved in these writ petitions are, to a large part common, all
these cases are disposed of by way of this common order.
2. Heard Sri V.R.N. Prashanth, learned counsel assisted by Sri
Guna Sekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Indus Law Firm for
the appellants/petitioners/respondents in all these cases. Smt. T.V. Sridevi,
learned counsel appearing for the implead petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2025, in
W.P.No.12893 of 2007, Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner in W.P.No.30145 of 2018, Sri Akula Vamsi Sangeeth Kumar,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.2672 of 2020 and the
learned Government Pleader for Revenue, and learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents in all these Cases.
3. The property in question was part of the ancestral property,
belonging to a family with the surname Kommuru. In 1952 there was a
partition within this family and the property fell to the share of Sri Appadu
Dora. Apart from this, Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora had been given other
properties. In 1957, Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora established the Appadu Dora
5
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust) for charitable purposes and
registered this Trust on 16.04.1963, with the Sub-Registrar, as Document
No.510/1963. Under this Deed of Trust, Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora
transferred various properties for achieving the charitable purposes set out in
the Deed of Trust itself. However, the property in dispute was not transferred
to the Trust under this Deed of Trust. Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora was
childless and passed away, on 16.07.1989. His brother, who was the 1st
petitioner in W.P.No.12893 of 2007, contends that late Sri Kommuru Appadu
Dora died intestate and consequently, the 1st petitioner, viz., Kommuru Appala
Swamy, became the legal heir to all his properties. The wife of the 1st
petitioner and his son, have continued the writ petition, even after the death of
the 1st petitioner. (the petitioners in this writ petition are hereinafter referred to
as ‘the family members’).
4. The National Highways Authority of India acquired an extent of
Ac.1.35 cents in Sy.No.438/2 and Ac.0.92 cents in Sy.No.409/2 out of this
property, in the year 2002 and paid compensation to the petitioners in
W.P.No.12893 of 2007.
5. Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, who is the 4th respondent in
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 raised a claim that late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora,
had executed a document dated 16.05.1988, appointing him as the Trustee of
the Trust. Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, on the basis of this document,
dated 16.05.1988, approached the revenue authorities and obtained pattadar
6
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
passbooks and title deeds, in the name of the Trust, in relation to the lands
comprising the property. Aggrieved by this, the family members have
approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, by way of an appeal under
Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for
short ‘the ROR Act‘). On 31.12.2006, the Revenue Divisional Officer allowed
this appeal and cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in
favour of the Trust. Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao filed a revision before the
Joint Collector, against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated
31.12.2006. This revision came to be allowed by the Joint Collector, by an
order dated 05.06.2007, setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional
Officer passed on 31.12.2006. Aggrieved by the said order of the Joint
Collector, the family members have approached this Court by way of
W.P.No.12893 of 2007. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated
25.06.2007, had initially suspended the order of the Joint Collector, dated
05.06.2007. The said interim order came to be vacated by order dated
26.09.2012.
6. The family members filed Writ Appeal No.1304 of 2012 against
this order. The writ appeal came to be disposed of on 07.11.2012 granting
liberty to the family members to approach the learned Single Judge for early
disposal of the writ petition. Apart from this, the order dated 07.11.2012 also
directed that status quo existing as on that day, shall be maintained by the
parties. The order further recorded that the learned counsel appearing for the
7
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
respondents in the writ appeal, had undertaken that they would not alienate
the property in question in view of the status quo order granted by the Court.
This undertaking is essentially the undertaking of Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara
Rao, who is the 4th respondent in W.A.No.1304 of 2012.
7. In a parallel proceeding, the Assistant Commissioner of
Endowments addressed a letter to the Commissioner, Endowments
Department, on 21.05.2007, requesting the Commissioner, Endowments, to
notify the Trust under Section 6 (c)(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu
Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Endowments
Act‘) as Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao was alienating the Trust properties.
Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, by an order dated 30.05.2007
appointed a Single Member Trustee to take full charge of the Trust and its
properties. The Endowment Department, on 27.06.2007, issued proceedings,
registering the Trust under Section 6(c)(1) of the Endowments Act. Aggrieved
by the appointment of a Single Trustee, Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao
approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of
W.P.No.25662 of 2008. This writ petition was disposed of on 08.12.2011
setting aside the proceedings dated 30.05.2007 relating to the appointment of
the Trustee. However, the registration of the Trust under Section 6(c)(1) of the
Endowments Act, on 27.06.2007, was upheld.
8. Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, during the pendency of these
proceedings, initiated the process of alienation of the property by executing an
8
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
irrevocable possessory agreement of sale coupled with General Power of
Attorney (GPA) in favour of Sri U. Appala Swamy Dora and his son Sri U.
Venkatachalam. This document was presented for registration on 02.07.2007
and was subsequently, registered on 05.07.2007 as Document No.5362/2007.
The family members contend that they were unaware of this transaction, at
any stage, till a publication was made in Eenadu newspaper in September,
2020.
9. Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao passed away on 01.11.2015 and
his wife Smt. A. Umadevi entered the picture, claiming that she had been
appointed as Trustee by her husband, on 19.09.2015.
10. Smt. A. Umadevi, who is the wife of Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara
Rao, claims to be the Trustee, who succeeded Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara
Rao, and sought registration of a deed of cancellation, dated 05.07.2007,
which is said to have been executed to cancel the earlier GPA executed on
27.06.2007 by Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao. Smt. A. Umadevi, approached
the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of
Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.30145 of
2018 for a direction to the Registration Authorities to register the said Deed of
Cancellation dated 05.07.2007. This writ petition is part of the batch of cases
being disposed of by this order.
11. M/s. Sanghamitra Estates, Developers & Builders have also
approached this Court, in relation to this GPA, by way of W.P.No.2672 of
9
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
2020. The contention of M/s. Sanghamitra Estates, Developers & Builders, in
this writ petition, is that a deed of sale had been executed, in relation to part of
the property, on the basis of the GPA granted on 27.06.2007 and that the said
deed of sale should be impounded and regularized.
12. One Sri J. Suresh Kumar, approached the erstwhile High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.21998 of 2018, claiming that Sri U. Appala
Swamy Dora, who was the GPA holder of the GPA dated 27.06.2007, had
executed an agreement of sale and delivered possession of the land
admeasuring Ac.13.49 cents in Sy.No.409/1 and Ac.26.40 cents in
Sy.No.438/1 and that a direction should be given to the District Registrar to
impound the said unregistered agreement of sale with possession. This writ
petition was disposed of on 20.11.2018 with a direction to the District
Registrar to impound the agreement of sale, dated 19.01.2010 if the same is
produced by Sri J. Suresh Kumar, within four weeks from the date of receipt of
the order.
13. The family members became aware of this order in September
2021 and moved W.A.No.642 of 2021 against this order, claiming that such an
agreement of sale is a void and invalid document.
14. Sri J. Suresh Kumar, again approached this Court by way of
W.P.No.18014 of 2021 contending that he was unable to comply with the
directions of this Court in W.P.No.21998 of 2018, within the stipulated time
10
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
and sought a fresh direction to the District Registrar to impound the
agreement of sale dated 19.01.2010. This writ petition came to be dismissed
on 04.09.2021 by the learned Single Judge, on the ground that an order, in
this regard, had already been passed in W.P.No.21998 of 2018, with a
direction to the District Registrar to comply with the earlier order in
W.P.No.21998 of 2018. This order in W.P.No.18014 of 2021 has been
challenged by the family members in W.P.No.641 of 2021.
15. M/s. Sanghamitra Estates, Developers & Builders moved
W.P.No.2672 of 2020 for a direction to the Joint sub-Registrar to register the
deed of sale, dated 02.10.2015 as the Joint Sub-Registrar, had refused to
register the same on 04.11.2015 and the appeal preferred against the said
order of rejection had been dismissed.
16. Smt. A. Umadevi, claiming to be the Trustee of the Trust, filed
W.P.No.30145 of 2018 seeking registration of deed of cancellation dated
05.07.2007, which is said to have been executed to cancel the GPA dated
27.06.2007. She has also filed an application bearing I.A. No. 2 of 2025 in
W.P.No.12893 of 2007. This application is dismissed, on account of the
findings being set out in this order.
17. The above facts can be simplified in the following manner:
a) The property, is said to the property of the Trust. The family
members dispute the said claim, as the deed of Trust does not show any such
transfer of the property, by late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora to the Trust.
11
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
b) Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, claiming to have been appointed
as Trustee, by late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora, who executed a GPA cum
possessory agreement of sale, dated 27.06.2007 in favour of Sri U. Appala
Swamy Dora and his son Sri U. Venkatachalam. M/s. Sanghamitra Estates,
Developers & Builders and Sri J. Suresh Kumar claim that the GPA holders, of
the GPA dated 27.06.2007, had executed deeds of sale in their favour and
that the registration authorities were placing hurdles in registration of the said
documents.
c) Smt. A. Umadevi, who is the widow of Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara
Rao, claims that she had been appointed, as a Trustee by Sri A. Santhi
Gnaneswara Rao, by proceedings dated 19.09.2015 and filed writ petitions for
registration of a deed of cancellation, dated 05.07.2007, said to have been
executed to cancel the GPA dated 27.06.2007.
d) Apart from this, the Endowment Department claims that Smt. A.
Umadevi cannot act as a Trustee as Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao did not
have any authority to appoint Trustees. Further, the power of appointing
Trustees, stands vested in the Government and the officials of the Endowment
Department, in view of the Trust being notified under Section 6(c)(1) of the
Endowments Act.
Consideration of the Court:
18. The above facts, and contentions raised by the learned counsel
appearing for all these parties, raise the following issues:
12
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
1. Whether the property is Trust property?
2. Whether Smt. A. Umadevi is the properly appointed Trustee of the Trust
and whether her contention, that the deed of cancellation dated
05.07.2007 should be registered, is valid?
3. Whether the GPA cum Possessory Agreement of Sale, said to have
been executed by late Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao is valid or not?
4. Whether M/s. Sanghamitra Estates, Developers & Builders and Sri J.
Suresh Kumar are entitled to claim right and title over the said property
and whether they are entitled to reliefs claimed by them in their writ
petitions?
Issue No.1:
19. The deed of Trust executed by Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora and
registered as Document No.510/1963 has been placed before this Court. The
properties which have been endowed on the Trust have been enumerated in
the Deed of Trust itself. The property, which is the subject matter of this
litigation, is not mentioned in this Deed of Trust. It is contended that this
property came to be endowed by subsequent documentation.
20. I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.2672 of 2020 and I.A.No.1 of 2025 in
W.P.No.30145 of 2018 have been filed by the 6th petitioner W.P.No.12893 of
2007 contending that she is a family member of late Sri Kommuru Appala
Swamy Dora and has a vital interest in the property under dispute. In view of
the findings of this Court in this regard, it is necessary and appropriate to
13
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
implead the petitioners in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.30145 of 2018 as
respondent Nos.7 and 8 in the main writ petition and the petitioner in I.A.No.2
of 2020 in W.P.No.2672 of 2020 as respondent No.5 in the main writ petition.
21. Smt. A. Umadevi had filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 to implead herself as
a respondent in W.P.No.12893 of 2007. She had filed a reply affidavit in this
application. The documents attached to this reply affidavit contains an
agreement of sale dated 16.10.1970 and certain other documents under
which, the property is said to have been transferred to the Trust. The
agreement of sale dated 16.10.1970 is said to have been executed between
Smt. A. Annapurnamma and Sri Appadu Dora. Under this agreement, Sri
Appadu Dora is said to have agreed to sell certain land, including the property,
to Smt. Annapurnamma and her son Sri Gadadhara Prasad. Thereafter, Smt.
Annapurnamma and Sri Gadadhara Prasad are said to have executed a deed
of agency, dated 10.04.1975, in favour of Sri K. Venkateswara Rao. Under
this deed of agency Sri K. Venkateswara Rao was appointed as the agent to
look after the properties set out in the schedule. This schedule mentions
Ac.5.56 cents in Sy.No.169 and Ac.31.14 cents in Sy.No.438. Only a part of
the lands, comprising the property, are shown in the schedule.
22. The next document is a letter, dated 13.07.1986 signed by Smt.
Annapurnamma and Sri Gadadhara Prasad and addressed to the Trust. In
this letter, it is stated that Sri Appadu Dora, who had sold the land to them,
under the agreement of sale, dated 10.10.1970, wanted to buy back these
14
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
lands and paid Rs.1,80,000/- towards sale consideration and sought transfer
of the land to the Trust. Certain written documents are said to have been
executed, on 08.05.1986, between Sri K. Venkateswara Rao acting as agent
of these two persons and Sri Appadu Dora and that the said documents have
been ratified by these two persons. Thereafter, a deed of confirmation dated
08.07.1991 is said to have been executed by Sri K. Venkateswara Rao,
affirming that the land was being given to the Trust. The next document
produced before the Court is said to be a declaration given by
Smt. Annapurnamma, under the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling
on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Land Reforms Act‘). In this
declaration she is said to have declared Ac.31.14 cents in Sy.No.438 and
Ac.5.56 cents in Sy.No.169 to belong to her. Apart from this, a permanent
lease agreement dated 15.07.1962 and agreement of sale of rights over
zeroity land under permanent lease dated 18.05.1984 and a statement said to
have been received from Sri K. Appala Swamy Dora (who is the brother of Sri
Kommuru Appadu Dora) accepting that the property now belongs to Trust,
have also been placed before this Court.
23. The contention of Smt. A. Umadevi is that the property had been
transferred to the Trust by virtue of these documents. The said documents are
all unregistered documents. The transfer of immovable property, can be
affected only by way of written instruments, which are registered and stamped
with proper stamp duty. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, mandates
15
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
that any document affecting transfer of immovable property is compulsorily
registerable. Section 49 of the Registration Act stipulates that no Court can
look into any unregistered document, if such document is compulsorily
registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.
24. In the present case, none of these documents have been
registered and cannot be looked into. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited and Ors., vs. State of Haryana
and Anr.,1, had categorically held that there can be no transfer of immoveable
property, by way of an agreement of sale and that agreement holders cannot
claim title over the land, set out in the said agreement of sale.
25. In the circumstances, as there was no transfer of the property to
either Smt. Annapurnamma or to Sri Gadadhara Prasad, transferof the land to
the Trust, by these persons, would not arise. Further, the alleged transfer of
land by these persons to the Trust is not on the basis of any deed of sale or
clear document of transfer, which is registered. The alleged transfer is by way
of recording certain oral understandings of transfer of the property.
26. This Court, while not going into the question of whether these
documents are genuine or not, has no hesitation to hold that there was no
transfer of property from Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora to Smt. Annapurnamma
or Sri Gadadhara Prasad. This Court is also of the opinion that there was no
transfer of property from Smt. Annapurnamma and Sri Gadadhara Prasad to
1
(2012)1 SCC 656
16
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
the Trust. Declarations, if any, filed before the land ceiling authorities would
not clothe such declarants with title and right over the land. Similarly, any
declaration said to have been given by the 1st writ petitioner, would not create
a right or title, in favour of the Trust.
27. In the absence of any valid documents of transfer, it cannot be
held that the property belongs to the Trust.
Issue No.2:
28. Late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora, had stipulated, in the deed of
Trust, executed by him, that he would be the Trustee for his life time and
subsequently, persons appointed by him would be Trustees. In the event of
Trustees not being appointed by him, his heirs would continue as Trustees
and run the Trust in accordance with the conditions set out in the deed of
Trust.
29. Late Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao and Smt. A. Umadevi have
relied upon a document dated 16.05.1988, in which late Sri Kommuru Appadu
Dora is said to have appointed Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao as Trustee. In
this document, late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora stated that all his rights and
authority as Trustee was being transferred to Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao
subject to the conditions set out in the Trust. Thereafter, late Sri A. Santhi
Gnaneswara Rao, before he passed away, on 01.11.2015, is said to have
executed a deed of appointment dated 19.09.2015, in which he had appointed
Smt. A. Umadevi as the Trustee of the Trust after him.
17
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
30. Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel appearing for Smt. A.
Umadevi, contends that the said letter of appointment is valid on two grounds.
Firstly, the settler of the Trust, late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora, while
appointing Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao as Trustee, had also transferred all
his rights and authority as settler of the Trust and consequently, Sri A. Santhi
Gnaneswara Rao, stepped into the shoes of late Asri Kommuru Appadu Dora
and was empowered to appoint other trustees. Secondly, Section 73 of the
Indian Trusts Act, 1882, provides that in the absence of a person who can
appoint trustees, the existing Trustees would be entitled to appoint new
Trustees.
31. There is a dispute as to whether late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora
had in fact, executed the appointment proceedings dated 16.05.1988. This
issue is not being considered by this Court, at this stage. This Court is only
looking at the power of late Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao to appoint Smt. A.
Umadevi as a Trustee, even if his appointment was valid. Under the
proceedings, of 16.05.1988, late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora, while appointing
Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao as Trustee, had also stated that all his power
and authority, as Trustee, is being transferred to Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara
Rao. In the light of this statement, it cannot be construed that Sri Kommuru
Appadu Dora had transferred his authority, as settler, to Sri A. Santhi
Gnaneswara Rao. The authority said to have been transferred to Sri A. Santhi
Gnaneswara Rao, is only the authority available to a trustee. Further, the deed
18
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
of Trust itself states that the Trustees would be either late Sri Kommuru
Appadu Dora or the persons appointed by him and his legal heirs, if there is
no person appointed by him to act as Trustee. Even if the appointment of Sri
A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, as Trustee, is accepted, the same would not
empower Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao to appoint Smt. A. Umadevi as
Trustee.
32. Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel appearing for Smt. A. Umadevi
contends that Section 73 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 empowers existing
Trustees to appoint new Trustees, if there is no provision available in the deed
of Trust or no appointment has been made in accordance with the deed of
Trust. This contention has two difficulties. Firstly, the Deed of Trust stipulates
that the heirs of late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora would succeed him as
Trustee, if no persons have been appointed by him. At best, Sri A. Santhi
Gnaneswara Rao can claim to be a Trustee. After his demise, it would only be
the heirs of late Sri Kommuru Appadu Dora, who would become Trustees.
33. Even if such power is to be found under the provisions of the
Indian Trusts Act, 1882, the same would not ensure to the benefit of Smt. A.
Umadevi, in as much as, the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 apply to
private Trusts only. The preamble as well as savings clause, in Section 1 of
the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 very clearly stipulate that the provisions of the
Indian Trusts Act, 1882 apply to private Trusts only. The Trust herein is a
19
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
public Trust and consequently, the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act would
not be applicable to this Trust.
34. There is yet another reason as to why Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara
Rao did not have the power to appoint Smt. A. Umadevi as Trustee. The Trust
had already been registered under Section 6(c)(1) of the Endowments Act, on
27.06.2007. This registration has become final as this registration has not
been set aside by any subsequent proceeding of this Court or otherwise.
Once the Trust has been registered as a public charitable Trust, under the
provisions of the Endowments Act, the power of appointment of Trustees
vests in the Government and the officials of the Endowments Act, as provided
under Section 15 to 17 of the Endowments Act. The settler or any other
person, running the Trust, would be divested of the power to appoint Trustees
to a public charitable Trust. Any appointment made by Sri A. Santhi
Gnaneswara Rao, is clearly without authority of law.
35. In that view of the matter, Smt. A. Umadevi cannot claim to be a
Trustee of the Trust nor can she initiate legal action on behalf of the Trust.
Consequently, W.P.No.30145 of 2018 filed by Smt. A. Umadevi, for a direction
to the authorities to register the deed of cancellation, date 05.07.2007, would
not be maintainable, and accordingly, W.P.No.30145 of 2018 is dismissed.
Issue No.3:
36. Though doubts have been expressed, as to whether Sri A. Santhi
Gnaneswara Rao has been appointed as a Trustee of late Sri Kommuru
20
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
Appadu Dora, this Court is not going into this issue as findings of fact would
have to be given in this regard and the same would not be appropriate in the
present proceedings.
37. However, any possessory agreement of sale or GPA given by
late Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao to any person, in relation to the property,
would be valid, if the property belonged to the Trust in the first place. In view
of the findings of this Court, in relation to Issue No.1, it must be held that the
property does not belong to the Trust. Consequently, any agreement of sale or
GPA executed by Sri A. Santhi Gnaneswara Rao, on behalf of the Trust would
not create any rights in favour of any person, including the purchasers or the
GPA appointed under the said document.
Issue No.4:
38. M/s. Sanghamitra Estates, Developers & Builders and Sri J.
Suresh Kumar are claiming rights on the basis of the agreements of sale /
deeds of sale, said to have been executed in their favour, by the GPA holders,
mentioned in the GPA dated 27.06.2007. This claim, could have been gone
into, if the agreement of sale or GPA has been executed by the owner or a
person who had a right over the property. As held above, the Trust is not the
owner of the property and any agreement of sale or GPA granted by the
Trustee would also be invalid and would not bind the property. The
agreements of sale / deeds of sale executed by such GPA would not create
any right or title to any of the beneficiaries of such documents.
21
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
39. Apart from this, the Trust is a public charitable institution, which
had been registered on 27.06.2007. The GPA dated 27.06.2007, was
presented for registration only on 05.07.2007. Section 80 of the Endowments
Act mandates that no property of a charitable institution, falling within the
ambit of the Endowments Act, can be alienated except by way of public
auction or after obtaining the prior written consent of the Commissioner of
Endowments / Government of A.P., before alienation is done in any other
manner. This provision of law also mandates that any alienation, done in
violation of this provision, is void. The status of the Trust, as a public
charitable Trust, is not challenged and in any event, has been accepted since
2007. In such circumstances, even if the property is the property of the trust,
any transaction of private sale, without the prior approval of the Commissioner
of endowments, either by the Trustee or the GPA of a Trustee, would be void.
40. Sri K. Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel appearing for Sri J.
Suresh Kumar, the private respondent in W.A. No. 641 and 642 of 2021 and
Sri A. Vamsi Sangeeth Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in
W.P.No. 2672 of 2020 contend that the refusal, of the registrar concerned, to
register the documents presented to them is violative of the provisions of the
Registration Act, 1908 and the rules made thereunder. Both learned counsel
have sought to stress on the title of the Trust, over the property, which is said
to have been confirmed by orders of the appropriate authority, and contend
that the registering authority has no authority to go into the question of title,
22
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
once the persons seeking registration , of a document, produce prima facie
proof of ownership. Sri A. Vamsi Sangeeth Kumar has also relied upon the
following judgments:
3. R. Hanumaiah & Anr., vs. Secretary to Government of Karnataka
Revenue Department & Ors.,4
4. B. Sridevi vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh Criminal Petition No.4976 of
2022 dated 14.07.2022
6. Smt. Sridevi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, W.P.No.8017 of 2022
41. The aforesaid judgments are on the issues of the validity of
section 22A of the Registration Act; the rights of a person, under Article 300A
of the Constitution of India, in the context of compulsory acquisition of land;
the rights of private persons over private tanks and the weight to be given to
revenue records; principles for grant of bail; the principles to be applied for
determining whether a trust is a private or public trust ; and whether assigned
land would continue to be assigned land when it is sold in auction by the
mortgagee bank. This Court has not found any relevance in these judgments
except in the case of Deoki Nandan vs. Muralidhar. In this case, the
2
(2005) 12 SCC 77 = AIR 2005 SC 3401
3
AIR 2013 SC 565
4
2010 (4) SCR 904
5
AIR 1957 SC 133 = 1956 SCJ 75
23
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether the temple, in
dispute, was a private temple or a public temple. The Hon’ble Supreme court,
after laying down the guidelines for deciding such an issue, had gone into the
facts of the case to determine the nature of the temple. This case does not
present any such difficulty. The Trust deed itself states that the trust is being
set up for assisting students and for other charitable purposes. The Trust has
been registered, under Section 6(1)(c) of the Endowments Act, as a
Charitable Trust. Further, this registration was way before the transactions
between these persons and the General power of Attorney holder, said to
have been appointed by the Trustee had taken place. This court has already
held that, the property does not belong to the Trust, as the documents of
transfer placed before this court are unregistered documents said to be
recording oral transfers of immovable property. Even if the property is to be
treated as Trust property, there can be no transfer of title or property, in view
of Section 80 of the Endowment Act, by way of a private sale, without prior
approval of the Commissioner, Endowments. This Court has no hesitation in
holding that even if the property is to be treated as a property of the Trust,
neither M/s. Sanghamitra Estates Developers & Builders nor Sri J. Suresh
Kumar, would acquire any title over the property even if such deeds of sale
are registered. Any such registration would only create an unnecessary cloud
over the title.
24
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
42. In accordance with the above views, I.A.No.1 of 2025 in
W.P.No.30145 of 2018 is allowed and W.P.No.30145 of 2018 is dismissed.
Similarly, I.A.No.2 of 2020 is allowed and W.P.No.2672 of 2020 is dismissed.
W.A.Nos.641 and 642 of 2021 are allowed.
43. I.A.No.2 of 2025 and W.P.No.12893 of 2007 are allowed and the
order of the Joint Collector, dated 05.06.2007 is set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the Joint Collector to exercise his power under Section 9 of
the ROR Act, for ascertaining the true owners of the land, in accordance with
the observations of this judgment and to direct necessary entries to be made
in the revenue records and for consequential actions of issuance of title deeds
and pattadar passbooks. The said exercise should be completed within a
period of six weeks. In the event of the Joint Collector having any difficulty in
deciding any questions, which are in conflict, it would also be open to the Joint
Collector, to refer the parties to civil litigation, for ascertaining the ownership of
the land. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J
____________________
T.C.D.SEKHAR, J
Js.
25
RRR, J & TCDS, J
W.P.No.12893 of 2007 & batch
THE HON’ABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
W.P.No:12893 of 2007; 30145 of 2018 & 2672 of 2020
And
W.A.Nos.641 & 642 of 2021
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
22nd August, 2025
Js