Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.CHANDRA REDDY, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
Mahant Narayana Dessjivaru - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 11-19-58
HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS - TIRUMALA-TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS ACT, 1933 (MADRAS ACT XIX OF 1933) - MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1951 (MADRAS ACT XIX OF 1951) - VALIDITY - WHETHER INCONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION - WHETHER HEREDITARY RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT OF THE MAHANT OF SRI HATHIRAMJI MUTT IS A PROPERTY WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF ARTICLE 19 (1) (F) OF THE CONSTITUTION - WHETHER THE RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT OF THE MAHANT WAS EXTINGUISHED BY THE OPERATION OF ACT XIX OF 1933 - WHETHER THE PETITIONER COULD INVOKE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The Mahant of Sri Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupati, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a declaration that the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1923, Madras Act I of 1925. Madras Act II of 1927, Madras Act XIX of 1933, Madras Act XIX of 1951 and Andhra Act VII of 1954, in so far as they are inconsistent with the Constitution, are ultra vires and inoperative.
Finding of the Court:
1. The hereditary right of management which was vested in the Mahants of Sri Hathiramji Mutt by the sanad of 1843 and also by Act XX of 1863, which is a species of property, was taken away by the enactments of 1933 and 1951 and consequently these legislations must be struck down as they are opposed to the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner and his predecessors under Article 19 of the Constitution. 2. The right of management which the Mahants had would not constitute property, as the office of the Mahants vis-a-vis the temple of Lord Venkate-shwara was not a hereditary tenure. 3. The arrangement envisaged in the sanad of 1843 and in Act 20 of 1863 should not be equated to a scheme framed by the Court under Section 92 of the Code cf. Civil Procedure. 4. The alleged right ceased to exist long before the Constitution came into effect. The Constitution is not retro-active but is only prospective in operation and consequently, the rights which were extinguished prior to the inauguration of the Constitution cannot be revived by the Constitution. 5. The petitioner had accepted nomination from the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Act 19 of 1933 on the latter and had received a benefit under the Act and had acquiesced in it. Consequently, it was not open to him to challenge the validity of that Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the hereditary right of management of the Mahant of Sri Hathiramji Mutt is a property within the purview of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the right of management of the Mahant was extinguished by the operation of Act XIX of 1933? 3. Whether the petitioner could invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The office of the Mahants vis-a-vis the temple of Lord Venkate-shwara was not a hereditary tenure. The Mahants had only been Vicharanakarthas, an office different from dharmakarthaship. 2. The arrangement envisaged in the sanad of 1843 and in Act 20 of 1863 should not be equated to a scheme framed by the Court under Section 92 of the Code cf. Civil Procedure. 3. The alleged right ceased to exist long before the Constitution came into effect. The Constitution is not retro-active but is only prospective in operation and consequently, the rights which were extinguished prior to the inauguration of the Constitution cannot be revived by the Constitution. 4. The petitioner had accepted nomination from the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Act 19 of 1933 on the latter and had received a benefit under the Act and had acquiesced in it. Consequently, it was not open to him to challenge the validity of that Act.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs, two sets--Advocates fee in each being fixed at Rs. 250. 00.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Mahant, Sri Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupati, for a declaration that the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1923, Madras Act I of 1925. Madras Act II of 1927, Madras Act XIX of 1933, Madras Act XIX of 1951 and Andhra Act VII of 1954, in so far as they are inconsistent with the Constitution, are ultra vires and inoperative. In order to appreciate the contentions urged in support of this petition, it is useful to notice the historical background of the case.
( 2 ) ON a range of hills called Tirumali hills, the ancient and the famous shrine of Lord Venkatesh-wara is situate, This was founded in the hoary past and it is not known when exactly it came into existence. Originally the Temple seems to have been under the management of the local rulers for the time being. After the advent of the British, the management was with the East India Company. After the Regulation, VII of 1817, was passed, the administration of all the Temples in the State was vested in the Board of Revenue. The Board used to exercise control over these institutions through the Collectors of the various districts and the local agents. In a dispatch of the year 1841, the Court of Directors issued instructions ordering the immediate withdrawal from all interference on the part of the officers of Government with native temples and places of religious resort. Pursuant to this, the Board of Revenue at Madras made over the management of the temple in 1843, under a sanad, which is marked as Ex. 1 in this case to one Seva Doss, the Head of a Mutt called Hathiramji Mutt, situated at the base of the Hills. Subsequently, the then Government thought it desirable to strip themselves completely of all control over the temples and other religious institutions situate in India. To give effect to this Act XX of 1863 (The Religious Endowments Act) was passed by the Central Government. In accordance with this, the Board of Revenue divested itself of all powers so far as the religious institutions in the State of Madras were concerned, including the temple of Lord Venkateshwara. Unfortunately, the expectations of the Board were not answered so far as this institution was concerned. Ever since Mahants came to be associated with the management of the temple, things were going from bad to worse and the successive Mahants used to indulge in embezzlement, misappropriation, etc. , in short, they were making use of the funds of the institution freely for their personal advantage and for the aggrandizement of the Mutt.
( 3 ) WE get glimpses of the condition into which the institution had drifted after it came under the management of the Mahants in Prayag Dossji Varu v. Srirangacharlu Varu, ILR 28 Mad. 319. That Judgment shows that the history of the association of the Mahants with this institution was a record of waste and embezzlement This has led to the filing o a suit by the worshippers interested in the proper management of the institution, and a scheme was framed by the District Court of North Arcot of which Tirumalai and Tirupati formed part. With some changes, the scheme was confirmed by the High Court of Madras in the decision cited above. On appeal, the Privy Council modified the scheme in certain respects. Their Lordships of the Judicial committee quoted with approval a passage in the judgment of the High Count which sets Out the various acts of mis-management and embezzlement of the Mahants and stated that it was indisputable that there was a necessity for the framing of a scheme for the temple in question.
( 4 ) EVER since, the temple was governed by the scheme framed by the District Court as eventually modified by the Privy Council in or about the year 1907, when the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (Act II of 1927) was passed by the Madras Legislature for the better administration of the temples in the Province. In and by that Act, all the schemes framed by the Courts we
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
