Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
The Secretary, Home (Endowments) Department, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and another, Appellants
Versus
Digyadarsan Rajendra Ram Dasjee Varu, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 2586 of 1966,
D/-3-5-1967.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. P. Ram Reddy, Senior Advocate, (Mr. A. V. V. Nair, Advocate with him), for Appellants; M/s. V. Rangacharya, B. Parthasarthy and P. C. Bhartari, Advocates for M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., for Respondent.
HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1951 - SECTION 53 - VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF TRUSTEE - DISPUTE REGARDING SUCCESSION - JURISDICTION OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TO ASSUME MANAGEMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute arose regarding the succession to the office of the Mahant of Sri Swami Hathiramji Math, Tirumalai, Tirupati, after the death of the then Mahant, Prayag Dossji, in 1947. An agreement was reached on October 29, 1947, laying down the procedure for choosing a successor to the office of the Mahant. The respondent claimed to have succeeded as Mahant in his own right after the death of the presiding Mahant, Chetam Doss, on March 18, 1962. The Assistant Commissioner, H. R. and C. E., took action under Section 53 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Act 19 of 1951), and assumed charge of the Math and its properties on March 24, 1962, due to a dispute about the person who was to succeed as Mahant. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the assumption of charge under Section 53 of the Act. The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the respondent had succeeded as Mahant on March 18, 1962, and that there was no vacancy in the office of the trustee of the Math.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the respondent had succeeded as Mahant on March 18, 1962, on the death of Chetam Doss by virtue of the Panchayat Agreement, of October 29, 1947, and the compromise agreement, dated July 15, 1961. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any vacancy in the office of the trustee of the Math, so as to enable the appellant to take action, under Section 53 of the Act. The High Court quashed the order passed by the State Government dated September 9, 1966, placing the petitioner, under suspension.
Issues: Whether the Assistant Commissioner, H. R. and C. E. had jurisdiction to assume management of the Math, in question, under Section 53 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: For the Assistant Commissioner to take action under Section 53(1) of the Act, two conditions must be satisfied: (a) a vacancy must have occurred in the office of the trustee of a math; and (b) there must be a dispute respecting the right of succession to such office. In this case, there was a dispute respecting the right of succession to the office of the Mahant, but there was no vacancy in the office of the trustee of the Math because the respondent had succeeded to the office on the death of Chetam Doss. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to assume management of the Math under Section 53 of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the High Court quashing the order of the State Government placing the respondent under suspension was upheld.
Key Points: - Dispute arose over succession to Mahant of Sri Swami Hathiramji Math after Prayag Dossji's death in 1947, leading to a Panchayat Agreement on October 29, 1947, and later compromise on July 15, 1961, after which respondent succeeded Chetam Doss on March 18, 1962 (!) [1000131770001][1000131770002] - Assistant Commissioner assumed charge of Math on March 24, 1962, under Section 53 due to reported dispute, prompting respondent's writ petition challenging jurisdiction [1000131770002][1000131770006] - High Court held respondent succeeded as Mahant on March 18, 1962, per agreements, creating no vacancy in trustee office, thus no jurisdiction under Section 53 (!) [1000131770008][1000131770012] - Section 53(1) requires both (a) vacancy in trustee office of Math and (b) dispute over succession for Assistant Commissioner to act; here, no vacancy as respondent succeeded (!) (!) (!) [1000131770011][1000131770022] - Supreme Court upheld High Court, dismissing appeal, ruling government's suspension order invalid as respondent held office in own right, not solely by government appointment [1000131770014] (!) (!)
Judgement
VAIDIALINGAM, J.:- This appeal, by certificate, is directed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, allowing a writ petition, filed by the respondent, under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. The facts leading up to the filing of the Writ Petition, by the respondent, may be briefly indicated. In respect of Sri Swami Hathiramji Math, Tirumalai, Tirupati, disputes arose regarding the succession to the office of the Mahant of the Math, after the death, in 1947 of the then Mahant, Prayag Dossji. An agreement seems to have been arrived at, on October 29, 1947, laying down the procedure for choosing a successor to the office of the Mahant, when a vacancy arises. The Akada Panchayat appears to have been constituted the Supreme authority, in such matters. That agreement also provided, as to who, among the respondent, and one Chetam Doss, was to succeed to the office of the Mahant, on the death of one Narayan Doss. Narayan Doss died on December 9, 1958, and Chetam Doss succeeded as Mahant. The respondent filed O. S. 84 of 1958, in the Subordinate Judge s Court, Chittoor, for a declaration that he is entitled to succeed to the office of Mahant. The suit was resisted by Chetam Doss, on the basis that under the agreement of October 29, 1947, he was legitimately entitled to succeed as Mahant. . Sometime later, the respondent and Chetam Doss, entered into a compromise, by virtue of an agreement, dated July 15, 1961. Both of them agreed that Chetam Doss was entitled to continue as Mahant, and that after his death, the respondent was to succeed as Mahant. In view of this agreement, the respondent got dismissed, as settled, O. S. 84 of 1958.
3. Chetam Doss died, on March 18, 1962, and the respondent claims to have succeeded as Mahant, in his own right. But according to the appellant, the Commissioner, H. R. and C. E., Andhra Pradesh, received telegram stating that there was a dispute about the person who was to succeed as Mahant. The Assistant Commissioner, H. R. and C. E., took action, under Section 53 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Act 19 of 1951), (hereinafter called the Act), which is applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh, and assumed charge, on March 24, 1962, of the Math and its properties. The respondent filed, on March 26, 1962, O. S. 24 of 1962, for a declaration that he is the rightful successor to the office of the Mahant of the Institution, in question. The Commissioner, H. R. and C. E., was made a party to the suit. The respondent also filed a revision, before the Government, on April 18, 1962, challenging the assuming charge of the Math, under Section 53 of the Act, by the Assistant Commissioner. The Government stayed further proceedings; and, in consequence, O. S. 24 of 1962, was withdrawn, by the respondent on April 24, 1962. The Government also passed an order, on June 5, 1962, stating; that it was necessary to take action, for making suitable arrangements for the proper administration of the Math and its endowments, till the civil court decided as to who should succeed to the office of the Mahant. In this connection, the State Government referred to an objection, received, from one Devendra Doss, stating that he is the proper person entitled to succeed to the office of the Mahant. Ultimately, by the said order, the Government appointed the respondent, as an interim Mahant, subject to the various conditions, laid down therein. Devendra Doss filed writ petition No. 602 of 1962, on June 21, 1962 in the High Court, challenging this order of the State Government, dated June 5, 1962. That writ petition was dismissed on August 27, 1962. In the meanwhile, Devendra Doss, who was a minor had instituted two suits, O. S. Nos. 50 of 1962 and 57 of 1962, to declare him as the person entitled to succeed to the office of the Mahant, on the death of Chetam Doss. In the first suit he was represented, by one Mukund Doss, as next friend, and in the second suit he was represented by one
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
