2020 Supreme(SC) 444

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRs. & ANR. – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No.2732 of 2020 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11295 of 2011] with Civil Appeal No. 2733 of 2020 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12361 of 2011] and Writ Petition (C) No.518 of 2011 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 493 of 2019 in SLP (C) No. 12361 of 2011
Decided on : 13-07-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Escheat – Unless and until line of succession of Shebaitship and in-charge of administration is completely extinct, there can be no question of escheat.
(2) Legal character of a Shebait cannot be defined with precision and exactitude – Mere factum that no emoluments are attached to office of Shebait would not make any difference to character of right and interest of Shebait.
(3) Succession to Mahantship of a Math or religious institutions is regulated by custom or usage of particular institution, except where a rule of succession is laid down by the founder himself who created the endowment – Rule of custom should prevail in all cases.

Headnote:

(A) Hindu Law – Shebaitship – Legal character of a Shebait cannot be defined with precision and exactitude – Mere factum that no emoluments are attached to office of Shebait would not make any difference to character of right and interest of Shebait – Relation of a Shebait in regard to Debutter property is not that of a trustee to trust property under English law – According to Hindu law, when worship of a Thakoor has been founded, Shebaitship is held to be vested in heirs of founder, in default of evidence that he has disposed of it otherwise, or there has been some usage, course of dealing, or some circumstances to show a different mode of devolution – Unless founder has disposed of Shebaitship in any particular manner and this right of disposition is inherent in founder or except when usage or custom of a different nature is proved to exist, Shebaitship like any other species of heritable property follows line of inheritance from founder. [Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 – Section 61[(Paras 71 and 72)

(B) Hindu Law – Shebaitship – Succession to Mahantship of a Math or religious institutions is regulated by custom or usage of particular institution, except where a rule of succession is laid down by the founder himself who created the endowment – Rule of custom should prevail in all cases – It is not open to Court to lay down a new rule of succession or to alter rule of succession completely – In a Hindu religious endowment entire ownership of dedicated property is transferred to deity or institution itself as a juristic person and Shebait or Mahant is a mere manager – In conception of Mahantship, as in Shebaitship, both elements of office and property, of duties and personal interest are blended together and neither can be detached from other – Personal or beneficial interest of Mahant in endowments attached to an institution is manifested in his large powers of disposal and administration and his right to create derivative tenures in respect to endowed properties; and these and other rights of a similar character invest office of Mahant with character of proprietary right which, though anomalous to some extent, is still a genuine legal right – In absence of an expressly appointed or identified Shebait, law has ensured protection of properties of idol by recognition of a de facto Shebait – In present case, as on day when Covenant was entered into by Ruler of Covenanting State of Travancore, apart from other incidents which normally follow rulership, he was holding office of Shebait of Temple and represented a continuous and unbroken line of successive Shebaits traced from original founder; and being a Shebait of Temple, he was having all rights and interest – Relevant provisions of Constitution of India as well as that of TC Act did not, in any way, upset or abridge status enjoyed by Ruler of Travancore as Shebait of Temple and also did not, in any manner, adversely impact right of administration vested in Ruler of Travancore. (Paras 72, 73, 74 and 86)

(C) Constitution of India – Articles 363A and 366AA – Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 – Sections 18 and 61 – Escheat – Unless and until line of succession of Shebaitship and in-charge of administration, is completely extinct, there can be no question of escheat – “Ruler of Travancore” as appearing in Chapter III of Part I of TC Act must include his natural successors according to law and custom and Shebaitship did not lapse in favour of State by principle of escheat – Definitions of ‘Ruler’ in Articles 363 and 366(22) do not ipso facto have any application to provisions of TC Act, unless TC Act expressly stipulates so or impliedly refers to such definitions either under Article 363 or under Article 366(22) – With deletion of Articles 291 and 362, scope of definition in Article 366(22) to find a particular Ruler for conferral of advantages referred to in both Articles, has ceased to have any significance – However, concept of Ruler and Rulership are still relevant insofar as certain legislations and provisions are concerned – Method of selecting successor under Article 366(22) as it then stood was not by way of any different formula or principle but was rooted in concerned law and custom – Since Shebaitship had vested in Ruler of Travancore, not in his official capacity, normal incident of heritability must get attached to office of such Shebaitship in accordance with governing principles of succession and custom. (Paras 102, 105, 106 and 107)

Facts of the case:

Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma who as Ruler of Covenanting State of Travancore had entered into a Covenant in May 1949 with the Government of India leading to the formation of the United State of Travancore and Cochin, died on 19.07.1991. His younger brother Uthradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma and the Executive Officer of Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple, Thiruvananthapuram as appellants 1 and 2 respectively have filed these appeals challenging judgment and order dated 31.01.2011 passed by High Court1 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.36487 of 2009 and in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4256 of 2010.

Findings of Court:

In light of specific submission made by appellants, the appellant No.1 and his successors shall not be entitled to draw any remuneration for his or their services as the Manager or Trustee. The Executive Officer appointed by the Administrative Committee shall be entitled to a modest and reasonable remuneration to be fixed by the Administrative Committee.

Result : Writ Petition disposed of and Contempt Petition dismissed.