1973 Supreme(SC) 332

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
19-10-1973.
K.K. MATHEW, M.H. BEG AND A.K. MUKHERJEA, JJ.
Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal, Appellant
Versus
His Holiness Sri La Sri Kasivasi Arulnandi Thambiran Swamigal, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1677 of 1969, D/- 19-10-1973.

Headnote:

Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 2 (h) - Nominated as Elavarasu - Cancelled Nomination - Suit for a Declaration - Whether appellant had been nominated by defendant as Elavarasu of Kasi Mutt - Whether, by virtue of nomination, appellant was holding an office or had acquired any right or status - Whether appellant was guilty of misconduct which disentitled him to continue as Elavarasu - Whether appellant s nomination as Elavarasu was validly cancelled by defendant - Whether, by virtue of nomination, appellant obtained a status or a right in law or became holder of an office - Whether defendant was competent to cancel nomination without good cause - Whether junior might be relied upon as a competent successor - Whether ceremonies were performed - Whether, by nomination, appellant acquired a status in law, and, if he acquired a status - Whether it was liable to be put an end to by defendant at his whim - Whether junior Pandara Sannandhi or Second occupies a status, has to be decided with reference to law relating to Hindu Religious Endowments - Whether, according to law of Hindu Religious Endowments, they acquire a status in law - Whether head of Mutt has power to make a nomination during his lifetime - Whether nomination would confer a status upon junior heads so nominated is a matter for court - Whether or not a particular condition or relationship is one of status depends primarily on existence - Whether a particular condition does or does not involve a sufficient degree of social interest to be characterised as status, assuming that all other features of status are present - Whether condition of status will be imposed as result of a private contract or private or public act depends on public interest - Whether or not status will be imposed or conferred as result of private contract – Whether, by nomination, junior gets a contingent interest in office or in properties of Mutt - Held, Learned judge did not say that Achariya Abhishekam has effect of investing junior head with an indefeasible right to succeed to headship of Mutt - In other words, if revocability is otherwise a characteristic of nomination, it would not cease to be so by virtue of religious ceremony of Achariya Abhishekam - Even if it be assumed that Achariya Abhishekam would invest a junior head with power to ordain Tambirans which he would not otherwise have, it would not follow that by virtue of Acharya Abhishekam he would obtain a right, much less an indefeasible right, to succeed if nomination per se has no such effect - Looking at matter from another angle, Court come to same conclusion – Court have already said that power of nomination must be exercised not corruptly or for ulterior reason but bona fide and in interest of Mutt and Hindu community - It then stands to reason to hold that power to revoke nomination must also be exercised bona fide and in interest of institution and community - It other words, power to revoke can be excercised not arbitrarily, but only for good cause – Court do not pause to consider what causes would be good and sufficient for revoking a nomination as defendant had no case before Court that he revoked nomination for a good cause – Court hold that a nomination when made can be cancelled or revoked only for a good cause and, as admittedly, there was not good cause shown in this case for cancellation of nomination by Exhibit B-9, cancellation was bad in law - There-fore, it must be held that appellant was holding status of Elavarasu of Kasi Mutt during lifetime of defendant – Court have to mould relief to suit altered circumstance - If defendant had been alive, it would have been sufficient if Court had declared, as learned single Judge has done, that appellant was Elavarasu of Kasi Mutt - Now that defendant is dead, Court make a declaration that appellant was holding position of Elavarasu during lifetime of defendant, that revocation of nomination of appellant as Elavarasu by Exhibit B-9 was bad, and that appellant was entitled to succeed to headship of Mutt on death of defendant - Appeal allowed.