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

                         [2017] 12 S.C.R. 246


A                     VIJENDRA KUMAR & ORS.
                                     v.
      THE COMMISSIONER, A.P. CHARITABLE & RELIGIOUS
      INSTITUTIONS & ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT & ANR.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 6460 of2008)
B                         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
c 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
  presumption of validity of official acts can be permissibly drawn in
E 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
F 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
19] [255-A-C]
       13 The exercise as prescribed tor registering any
endowment, under the Regulations clearly accords with the
procedure, contemplated in law having regard to the consequence
                                                                        H
248            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2017] 12 S.C.R.



A of endowment of a private property for public/charitable purposes.
  In view of the above Regulation, and noticing the persistent stand
  of the appellants that their father had not endowed the suit
  premises to render the temple a public temple and that neither
  he nor they had ever received any notice in connection therewith,
  in the backdrop of the series of litigation including the suit filed
B
  by the neighbours of the temple premises, it would be in fitness
  of things that an opportunity be granted to the parties to adduce
  all evidence, oral and documentary, at their disposal available to
  them to finally and conclusively determine as to whether the
  temple and its premises had been endowed by the father of the
c appellants, as otherwise evidenced by Exh.B6 or otherwise in
  accordance with the law and the procedure prescribed therefor
  for further consequential action, as warranted. The inclination to
  adopt this course is in view of the equally balanced oral evidence
  on record and the formidable significance of Exh.B6, the entry in
D the Register of Endowments, which if has been prepared by
  following the procedure, as prescribed by law then prevalent,
  would seal the issue in favour of the respondents. [Para 20-
  21)(257 -C-Gl
             1.4 It is worthwhile to mention that DW5, who exhibited
      this document, however, expressed his ignorance as to the
 E    manner in which the same had been prepared. There is no
      indication as well that this document had been proved by him
      with reference to the original records. In cross-examination, this
      witness has conceded as well that he had no personal knowledge
      about the application made for registering the suit temple in the
 F    Book of Endowments and that he was not aware as to when the
      "Muntaqab" had been issued. In this view of the matter, the
      assertion on behalf of the appellants that the Gazette Notification
      of this document per se in absence of the proof of complaint the
      procedure of making of this entry as required in law, would not
      be decisive, cannot be lightly brushed aside. As it is, the
G     presumption of validity of official a•_·ts, is essentially rebuttable
      and can be dislodged by convincing evidence to the contrary.
      [Para 22] [257-H; 258-A-C]
            1.5 On a consideration of the totality of the facts and
      circumstances of the case, the appellants are directed to file an
H     appr.opriate representation before the concerned authority under
   VIJENDRA KUMAR v. TIIE COMM. A.P. CHARITABLE & RELIGIOUS                     249
       INSTITUTIONS &ENDOWMENTDEPTT. [AMITAVA ROY,J.]


 the Act in support of their claim that the temple and its premises             A
 are the exclusive private property of theirs and their family and
 had not been endowed for wakf or charifable/public purposes.
 Needless to say, the authority concerned would issue notice to
 the Department to file their response and thereafter afford
 adequate opportunity to both the sides to adduce evidence and                  B
 decide the issue as to whether the temple and the premises
 involved are private or public in nature b: recording reasons.
 The exercise, as ordered, should be completed within the
 stipulated period. The impugned judgment and order is set-aside.
 [Para 23-24] [258-C-F, G]
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6460                      C
 of2008.
       From the Order dated 10.07.2007 of the High Court of Judicature,
· Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in LPA No.393 of 1992.
       V.V. S. Rao, Sr. Adv, _D. Bharat Kumar, Tadimalla Baskar G.,
 Abhijit Sengupta, Ad vs for the Appellants.                                    D
      P. Venkat Reddy1 Prashant Kr. Tyagi, M/sVenkat Palwai Law
 Associates, Ad vs for the Respondents.
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .
       . AMITAVA ROY, J. 1. The appellants in their relentless pursuit          E
 for a declaration.that the temple, which is the subject matter of the lis is
 their private place of worship and not a public shrine, has put to challenge
 the determination to the contrary made by the High Court vi de impugned
 judgment and order dated 10.07 ,2007 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal
 No. 393 of 1992. Thereby the verdict of the Single Judge in the writ
 petition filed by the appellants had been affirmed.                            F
       2. We have heard Mr. V.V.S. Rao, learned senior counsel for the
 appellants and Mr. P. V~nkat Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.
         3. The background facts in short need be outlined at the threshold
  for the desired comprehension of the issue seeking resolution. The flow
 .of events demonstrate that the grandfather of the respondents, Ram            G
  Barak Tiwari (since deceased) had acquired the premises in question
  from one Kondaiah by sale deed dated 18.12.1302 Fasli corresponding
  to 18.12.1893 (as per English Calendar) and as claimed by them had
  installed the family idol of Shri Hanuman Ji made of silver which was
  movable and not attached to the earth exclusively for the worship by the      H
                                                r·
250              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017] 12 S.C.R.



A   family members. The suit temple, as is asserted by the respondents,
    came to he registered in the Books of Endowment (Muntakab of Registry
    of Endowment) recording the name of Goka·rnath Tiwari, the father of
    the appellants as the endower of Wakf (that is the temple) on l 6'h Aban ·
  . 1345 Fasli (corresponding to the year 1936 as per the English Calendar).
    The extract from the Registry of Endeiwment discloses that the entry
B
    had been made as per the order of the Minister, Ecclesiastical Department
    as contained in File No.60/1 of 1945 Fasli (corresponding to the year
    1933) of the Directorate of Endowment. This document also indicated
    that itl!ad been published in the contemporacy Official Gazette. According
    to the appellants, the initial structure was temporary in nature being a tin
c   shed and was Jilter on converted into a permanent one with RCC roof
    by obtaining due sanction from the concerned municipal authority..
            3 .. As the matter stood at that, in the year 1965 the appellants
     received a letter from th.e Endowment Department requiring them to
     submit an account/budget of the temple on the ground thatthe same had
 D ·been e·ndowed by their father for public purpose. The appellants filed
     their counter in case No.28 of1968 before the Deputy Commissioner,
     Andhra Pradesh Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments,
     Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyder<:!bad, instituted by one Mr.
     Laxmanrao and another, where they denied that the temple had ever
     been dedicated or endowed to the public by their father. They claimed
 E as well that all the investments inade in the structure/premises were
   · with the funds of the family and with the due sancti.on of the municipal
     authorities.         .r
           4. After the death of their father, Gokarnath Tiwari on 21.06.1969,
   · the appellants continued to manage the affairs of the temple and conduct
 F . the worship therein as an exclusive family affair.
          . 5. The appellants ther~aft~r in the·y~ar 1975 filed an application
        under Section _77 of th~ Andhra Pradesh Hindu Charitable and Religious .
      . Institutions and Endowment Act of 1966 (hereafter to be. referred to as
        "-the Act") with the same contention.·     ·
 G ·.         · 6. This proceeding, later on, under Section 92 of the Act,.was
        transferred to the Deputy Commissioner (Endowment) at Guntur for
        disposal and was numbered as OA 66of1975. By order dated 28.2.1971,
        this application of the appellants was dismissed with the observation tqat
        the suit temple was a public temple.

 H
  VIJENDRA KUMAR v. THE COMM. A.P. CHARITABLE & RELIGIOUS                   251
      INSTITUTIONS & ENDOWMENTDEPIT. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]


       7. Situated thus, the appellants instituted the suit being OS 58 of· A
1977 in the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under
Section 78 of the Act praying for an affirmation that the suit temple was
a private property and claimed for a decree, inter alia for a declaration:
       a) That the order dated 28.2.1977 of the Deputy Commission,
Endowment, Guntur proclaiming the temple to be a public temple was B
null and void and inoperative in law; .
       b) That the entry in the Register of Endowments dated 11.11.1342
Fasli on the basis of which the respondents claim that the suit temple has
been endowed by their father was null and void and not binding on them.
       8. In the plaint, the appellants while restating the above facts and C
reaffirming their claim that the temple was their private property,
elaborated that they had been paying the taxes for the property along
with the electricity charges and that they did not receive/collect any
donation or accept any offerings from the public for the maintenance of
the suit temple and that the same had never been dedicated to the public.
They thus, reiterated that the temple was their exclusive private property D
from the time of their grand-father.
       9. In their written statement, the respondents contended that the
grand-father and the father of the appellants were only the Pujari
(Worshipper/Priest) of the suit temple and that the same was public in
nature, where large number of devotees daily visited and worshiped the · E
deity by making variety of offerings.They asserted that the temple had
been endowed by the father of the appellants for charitable purposes for
the benefit of the public and that such endowment had been registered
in the Book of Endowment ·in the year 1342 Fasli (corresponding to
1933) pursuant to which "Muntaqab" had been issued and have been
duly published in the Hyderabad Gazette. They also pleaded that the suit F
was beyond time. According to them, the temple being registered as
Public Endowment, the appellants were obligated in faw to submit the
budget of income and expenditure thereof to the Endowment Department.
       10. In the suit, both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence
in support of their rival stands, elaboration whereof is inessential. It is, G ,·
however, significant to refer to the documen~ Exh.B6, the extract of the
entry in the Register ofEndowmen~ as sought to be introduced by DW5,
an erstwhile staff of the Directorate ofEndowment. The said document,
the Gazette publication whereof is not in dispute, prima facie appears to
                                                                            H
252             SUPREME. COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 12 S.C.R.


A     be one on the basis of an extract from File No. 60/2 of the Endowment
      Department of the year 1342 Fasli (correspondingly year 1933) and has
      been made on the order of the Minister, Ecclesiastical Department
      conveyed through letter of the Secretary, Judicial and Police etc. dated
      11 Mehar 1345 Fasli (corresponding to year 1936). · The above
      endorsement seems to be subscribed by the then Superintendent,
B
      Endowments. This document, amongst others, records the name of P.
      Gokarnath Tiwari, the father of the appellants to be the endower of the
      premises identified to be the suit temple with the object of "Wakf'. The
      father of the appellants has been described therein to be the (Pujari/
      Priest) of the temple. A copy of the extract also appears to have been
c     forwarded to the father of the appellants describing him to be the endower
      apart from the other public authorities, as mentioned therein. An
      endorsement by the Superintendent Endowments to this effect also is
      available on the document.
               11. Suffice it to state that this document appears to be in a
D       prescribed form with the necessary columns to register the particulars
       -0f a public endowment, if made, to be entered in the Register of
      . Endowment, maintained by the Director of Endowments, Govt. of
        Hyderabad (as it was then). As a corollary, if this document is admissible
        in law with all its probative worth, it would determinatively clinch the
        issue in favour of the respondents.
 E
              12. The Trial Court, however, by the judgment and order dated
      20.7 .1981 decreed the s.uitof the appellants whereupon the respondents
      have filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code before
      the High Court. The Trial Court qua Exh.B6 was of the view that though
      it contained an entry in the Book of Endowments indicating that the
 F    father of the appellants had endowed the property in the Lis for Wakf, as
      the Ecclesiastical Department did not take steps for exercising its
      supervision for over four decades and therefore the appellants and their
      predecessors had continued to treat the same as their private property,
      the validity of the entry was doubtful. It however noted that the entry
 G    had remained unchallenged within one year, it could not be expunged as
      well. }'lventually, however the Trial Court held the entry as null and void
      for the sole reason that till 1965, the Department did not bother to supervise
      the suit temple and the appellants continued to treat the same as their
      private property by paying municipal tax, remodeling the structures with
      two permissions from the Municipality etc.
 H
   VIJENDRA KUMAR v. THE COMM. A.P. CHARITABLE & RELIGIOUS                       253
       INSTITUTIONS & ENDOWMENT DEPTT. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]


          13. The learned Single Judge, on an assessment of the materials        A
· on record, reversed the findings of the Trial Court and held that the
  temple was a public temple, both in view of the proved fact that it was
  being visited by the members of the public in profuse numbers daily with_
  offerings in cash and kind, but also in view of the entry in the Register of
  Endowment, Exh.B6, which even otherwise in view of Section l 14(e) of
  the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permitted a presumption of validity of           B
  official acts pertaining thereto. The learned Single Judge, on this
  consideration, negated the plea of the appellants that neither such an
  endowment had been made by their father nor any notice had been
  received by them with regard thereto at any point of time. Mentionably,
  the appellants in the suit had contended that their father did not apply to    C
  the Ecclesiastical Department for the endowment, as alleged and it could
  have been the mischief of some of their neighbours to make such an
  application under the forged signatures of their father. According to
  them, the temple was their family place of worship, which of course in
  view of its location, used to be visited by the members of the public for      D
  which, however, the same did not get transformed into a public temple.
         14. The appellants preferred Letters Patent Appeal before the
 Division Bench of the High Court, which rendered the judgment impugned.
 As the text thereof would demonstrate, the Hi~h Court dwelt upon the
 decisions cited at the Bar, amongst others on the characteristics and
 determinants to ascertain the true nature of a temple, private or public        E
 and eventually affirme~ that the temple involved as held by the learned
 Single Judge was indeed public in nature. In arriving at this conclusion,
 the High Court, inter alia recorded that the evidence established, that the
 members of the public do visit the temple as a matter of right with no
 restriction to their access at any point of time and that there was no          F
 material to prove that the endower had left extensive properties belonging
 to him or the family for the purpose of maintenance of the temple for
 their exclusive purposes and instead it was being run arid maintained by
 public offerings. Apart from taking note of the entry in the Register of
 Endowments, published in the Official Gazette, the High Court also
 minuted that there was nothing on record to authenticate that there was         G
 any prohibition to the acceptance of public subscriptions or offerings for
 the temple. The presumption of validity ofofficial acts in terms of Section
 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as drawn by the learned Single
 Judge, was affirmed as well ·qua Exh.B6 . The temple was thus
 proclaimed to be a public temple.                                               H
254            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 12 S.C.R.


'A          15. Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellants has
     strenuously argued that the temple property had been and is the exclusive
     asset of the appellants and their family as is amnly established hy the
     materials on record and thus, the finding to the contrary being against
     the weight thereof, is palpably illegal and unsustain&ble in law and on
     facts. According to the learned senior counsel, the private temple is a
 B
     place of worship of the appellants and their family members and by
     virtue of its present location due to the alteration in the topographical
     orientations from time to time, it is situated by the public thoroughfare
     for which the members of the public, while passing by the way, do worship
     and offer their services without any further involvement. The learned
 c senior counsel has insisted that such association of the members of the
     public solely due to religious sentiments per se would not convert the
     temple, which is otherwise an exclusive family r~'Jperty of the appellants,
     into a public institution. Mr. Rao in categorical terms denied that the
     temple had ever been endowed by the father of the appellants as it
 D sought to be represented by the entry in the Register of Endowment,
     Exh.B6 and urged that no notice ever had been served on the appellants
     or their father at any point of time which therefore, renders this instrument
   . non est in Jaw and of no probative worth. According to him, mere
     publication of this document in the Official Gazette is not of any decisive
     significance whatsoever.. Mr. Rao has urged that the overall finding that
 E the temple is a public temple is patently erroneous and is liable to be set-
     aside.
             16. The learned counsel for the respondents, to the contrary has
     asserted that not only the appellants have failed to demonstrate by
   · adducing cogent and convincing evidence that the temple and the premises
 F thereof had not been endowed to the public, the contemporaneous entry
     in the Register of Endowments maintained in the official course of
     business and published in the Official Gazette leaves no manner of doubt
     that the temple is a public temple. The concurrent findings to this effect
     being based on credible evidence on record, no in.terference is called for,
     he maintained.
 G
             17. We have extended our thoughtful consideration to the rival
      assertions. Noticeably, though the appellants had throughout contended
      that the temple and its premises are their private property, they admit
      that they had received a notice/letter from the Endowment Department
      in the year 1965 asking them to submit the account/budget of the
 H
   VIJENDRA KUMAR v. THE COMM. A.P. CHARITABLE & RELIGIOUS                      255
       INSTITUTIONS & ENDOWMENT DEPTT. [AMITAVA ROY, J.]


  expenditure thereof. Though, they did file their counter in Case No. 28 A
  of 1. 968 instituted by one Mr. Laxman Rao and another in the office of
  the Deputy Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Charitable Hindu Religious
  Institution and Endowments, Govt. of An.dhra Pradesh contending that .
  the ,temple had never been dedicated or endowed to the public at any_
  point of tinw, they chose to file the application under Section 77 of the
                                                                            B
  Act before the Deputy Commissioner,Hyderabad only in the year 1975.
  This is inore so inspite of the fact that their stand was not accepted by
. the Endowment Department in the earlier proc~eding. c- ·
        18. Be that as it may, the Deputy Commissioner, Guntur on the
proceedi!Jgs registered on their application urider Section 77 of the Act,
having declared the temple to be a public temple, they instituted the suit C
for setting-aside the said determination, which has eventually culminated_
in the order impugned in the present appeal.
        Otl an analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties, the attention
to which had been drawn in.course of the arguments it .is obvious;that
the document Exh.B6 has the potential ofbejng of definitive significance.       D
to decide the issue as to whether the temple is a private temple or a
public one. The oral evidence adduced by the parties are more or less
evenly balanced and therefore does not d\:mand any dilation. Apropos
Exh.B6; to reiterate, it is per se in a prescribed form and is an extract
from File No. 6012 of the Endowment Departmen't available in 1342               E
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 Endowment, maintained by the Director of Endowment,
Govt. of Hyderabad. This document discloses that P. Gokarnath Tiwari,
the father of the appellants had endowed the suit temple for "Wakf', i.e.
public/charitable purpose, he being shown as the Pujari (Priest) thereof.       F
It is not disputed that this document had been published in the Official
Gazette, ·a copy thereof, as· the document endorses, had also been
forwarded to the father of the appellants referring to him as the endow er
of the property. On an overall consideration of the features of this
document, it \\IOUld prima facie appear, if all legal essentialities _of        G
proceelure in connection therewith had been adhered to, that an
endowment had indeed been made by the fatherof the appellants. 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 Indian
EvidenceAct, 1872.
                                                                                H
256            SUPREME COURT 'REPORTS                        [2017] 12 S.C.R.


 A          19:This notwithstanding, we, in course of the hearing, had enquired
     from the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, ~ho was present in
     court as to the legally prescribed procedure prevalent at 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
 B
     regard thereto had ever been received by him or them. They also indicated
     that this. could b~ 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
 c compromise and as claimed by them (appellants), the ownership of the
     temple premises had been established.
              20. The officer concerned accordingly laid before us a copy of
       the Endowment Regulations, sanctioned by the Nizam of Hyderabad in
       1349 Fasli (1940 AD), which amongst others laid down' the procedure
. D for compilation-of the Book of Endowments, as per Regulations 3 to 8.
       In substance these provisions stipulated that the Book of Endowments
       would be prepared in the office of the Endowment Department and
    ·· would contain all endowm~nts which are in force or which would be ·
       broµght into force in future under the relevant rules. It made it to be the
       duty for every trustee or endower of an endowment to inform in writing
   E with regard to an endowment, in case it was an immoveable property
       which had not been entered in the "Book of the Endowments", to the
       Director of the Endowments concerned. As per Regulation 5, every
       person.had the right to inform the Director of Endowment Department.
       of the Taluq with regard to awendowment which had not been entered
   F in the Book of Endowments and to the Director of Endowments in case
       .the property was situated in Hyderabad. Regulation 6 predicated that
       on the. receipt of every such intimation or.any other reliable information
       in some other way, the Director of Endowment of the Taluq if satisfied
       prima facie about any property to have been endowed but not entered in
       the Book of Endowments, would publish a notification in the Tehsil Office
   G and if the property was imn'10vable, to p!!blish it in any prominent place
       and also at the place where the endower resided_, in addition to other
     . places where he thought fit and also have the same published in the
       Gazette. As per Regulation 7, if no person raised objection within the
        period mentioned in the notification and if the property was foul)d to be
  'H legally endowed, the same would then be registered. In case, however
  VIJENDRA KUMAR v.THECOMM.A.P.CHARITABLE&RELIGIOUS                            257
      INSTITUTIONS & ENDOWMENTDEPTI'. [AMITAVA ROY,J.]


any objection was made within the period specified by any person, who          A
was interested or was concerned with the endowed property in any
capacity, the Director of Endowments of the Taluq was required to hold
an enquiry as to whether the property had been legally endowed or not
and if proved to have been endowed legally, to enter the same in the
Book of Endowments, together with intimation to be given to the Director
                                                                               B
of Endowment Department, Hyderabad Govt. Remedies to the person
aggrieved have also been provided. Incide:itally, however, these
Endowments Regulations are of 1940 AD, i.e. subsequent to the year
of entry contained in Exh.B6. On being queried by us, the Assistant
Commissioner, Endowment apprised the Court that the same procedure
prevailed under the earlier regulations which are in Urdu language and         c
are being presently in the process of getting translated. This position has
not been disputed on behalf of the appellants. The exercise as prescribed
for registering any endowment, under the aforementioned Regulations
clearly accords with the procedure, contemplated in law having regard
to the consequence of endowment of a private property for public/              D
charitable purposes. For obvious reasons, we refrain from elaborating
further in absence of better particulars.
       21. In view of the above Regulations however, and noticing the
persistent stand of the appellants that their father had not endowed the
suit premises to render the temple a public temple and that neither he
nor they had ever rec;eived any notice in connection therewith, we are         E
of the considered opinion, in the backdrop of the series of litigation
including the suit filed by the neighbours of the temple premises, that it
would be in fitness of things that an opportunity be granted to the parties
to adduce all evidence, om! and documentary, at their disposal available
to them to finally and conclusively determine as to whether the temple         F
and its premises had been endowed by the father of the appellants, as
otherwise evidenced by Exh.B6 or otherwise in accordance with the
law and the procedure prescribed therefor for further consequential
action, as warranted. We are inclined to ~dopt this course, to reiterate, in
view of the equally balanced oral evidence on record and the formidable
significance of Exh.B6, the entry in the Register bf Endowments, which         G
if has been prepared by following the procedure, as prescribed by law
then prevalent, would seal the issue in favour of the respondents.
      22. It is worthwhile to mention that DW5, who exhibited this
document, however, expressed his ignorance as to the manner in which
the same had been prepared. There is no indication as well that this · H
258                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 12 S.C.K


A     document had been proved by him with reference to the original records.
      In cross-examination, this witness has conceded as well that he had no
      personal knowledge about the application made for registering the suit
      temple in tlie Book of Endowments and that he was not aware as to
      when the "Muntaqab" had been issued. In this view of the matter, the
      assertion 011 behalf of the appellants that the Gazette Notification of this
B
      document per se in absence of the proof of the procedure of making of
      this entry as required in law, would not be decisive, cannot be lightly
      brushed aside. As it is, the presumption of validity of official acts, is
      essentially rebuttable and can be dislodged by convincing evidence to
      the contrary.
c          23. In the wake of the above and on a consideration of the totality
    of the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is disposed of
    with a direction to the appellants to file an appropriate representation
    before the concerned authority under the Act in support of their claim
    that the temple and its premises are the exclusive private property of
D theirs and their family and had not been endowed for wakf or charitable/
    public purposes. This should be done within a period of four weeks
    herefrom. Needless to say, the authority concerned would issue notice
    to the Department to file their response and thereafter afford adequate
    opportunity to both the sides to adduce evidence and decide. the issue as .
    to whether the temple and the premises involved are private or public in
E nature by recording reasons., It is too trite to mention that in undertaking
    this exercise, the adjudicating authority would take note of all relevant
    facts and the law applicable. The exercise, as ordered, should be
  . completed within a period of six months from the date of filing of the
    representation by the appellant5. In the attendant facts and circumstances,
F we direct that.the status quo of the property involved, as on date shall be
    maintaineo till the :fdjudication, as directed, is over. The parties are
    hereby directed to co~operate so as to .enable the authority to meet the
    deadline of time fixed by this Court.
          · ·24. The impugned judgment anil order is set-aside. We make it
      clear that we have not offered any final comments on the merits of the
G     case and the authority would adjudicate the issue without being influenced
      by any observation made hereinabove.
              25. The appeal is thus, allowed in these terms. No costs.

      Nidhi Join                                                    Appeal allowed.
                       ·-,