ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
D. Ramesh, J.
Uttaradi Srivaishnava Mutt @ Moola Mutt – Appellant
Versus
Collector & Ors. – Respondents
Appeal Suit No. 361 of 2012
Decided On : 30-04-2022
MUTT - DECLARATION OF TITLE - INJUNCTION - SUIT FOR - MAHANTHSHIP - JURISDICTION - CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1987 (ACT 30 OF 1987) - SECTIONS 6, 49 - WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF MUTT IS AN INDEPENDENT MUTT OR PART OF LAKSHMANBAGH SAMSTHAN - WHETHER THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR MAHANTHSHIP - WHETHER THE SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 80 OF THE C.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a Mutt, filed a suit for declaration of plaint schedule properties as their absolute properties and for granting permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The defendants contended that the plaintiff Mutt is part and parcel of Lakshman Bagh Samsthan, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh and that the suit is not maintainable without notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff Mutt is not an independent Mutt but is part and parcel of Lakshman Bagh Samsthan, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. The court also held that the suit is not maintainable without notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. and that the court has no jurisdiction to decide the plaintiff's claim for Mahanthship.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff Mutt is an independent Mutt or part of Lakshmanbagh Samsthan? 2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to decide the plaintiff's claim for Mahanthship? 3. Whether the suit is maintainable without notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C.?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff Mutt is not an independent Mutt but is part and parcel of Lakshman Bagh Samsthan, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. The court relied on the following factors: * The plaintiff Mutt was founded by a Mahanth of Lakshman Bagh Samsthan. * The plaintiff Mutt is mentioned in a document executed by a Mahanth of Lakshman Bagh Samsthan. * The plaintiff Mutt is not registered under the Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987). * The plaintiff Mutt has not submitted a proposal for fixation of Dittam in the Mutt as required by Section 49 of Act 30 of 1987. The court also held that the suit is not maintainable without notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. because the defendants are not trespassers but are claiming title to the suit properties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit.
JUDGMENT
D.Ramesh, J. - Heard Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, senior counsel appearing for Sri P.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the appellant and of Sri T.Laxmi Narayana, counsel appearing for Sri Dorai Raj, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The appellant herein is plaintiff-Mutt filed the present appeal, aggrieved by the decree and judgment in O.S.No.439 of 2005 dated 10.04.2012 passed by the additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati.
3. For sake of convenience, the appellant herein is referred to be as plaintiff and the respondents herein referred to be as defendants. The brief facts of the case and observations of the court below are as follows:
4. The plaintiff is a Mutt. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of plaint schedule properties 'a' and 'B' as they are the absolute properties of the plaintiff-Mutt and for granting permanent injunction, restraining the defendants not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
5. The case of the plaintiff is that- Uttaradhi Srivaishnava Mutt popularly known as Moola Mutt has been in existence for the past 100 years in Tirumala. Mutt was started with an intention to meet the needs of Vaishnava cult. The idols of Lord Srirama, Lord Seetha, Lord Lakshmana and Lord anjaneya were consecrated in the said Mutt and that Nithya Deepa, Naivedya aradhana are being performed to the deities. The pilgrims visited Tirumala would necessarily come to the Moola Mutt and worship deities and the Mutt is also providing free meals and free accommodation to the pilgrims and Sadhus. One Poojari, five Sadhus and five attenders are permanently staying in the Moola Mutt to look after the affairs. The founder of the Mutt his Holiness Mahant Ramnarayanacharya Swamiji strived for development. In the year 1912, two properties were gifted by Jagannadha Ramanujadass under gift deeds dated 07-03-1912 and 17-03-1912 and third property was gifted by Sri Rama Swaroop agarwal under gift deed dated 12-02-1912.
6. In the year 1925, Swamiji Ramnarayanacharyaji as grantor executed a deed on 10-12-1925 and settled the above properties to the Swamiji Badri Papannacharyaji as successor to the trust and carry on the object of Moola Mutt, he was possession and enjoyment of the same. In the year 1957, the said Swami Badri prapannacharyaji executed a Will on 4-7-1957 appointing Swamiji Harivamshacharya as his lawful descendant and owner of the movable and immovable properties under his control. Sri Swamiji Badri Prapapnnacharya died on 02-08-1957 since then Swamiji Harivamshacahariji being the legal successor took possession of the Mutt properties and he is exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same.
7. Subsequently, some of the properties were acquired by the Land acquisition Officer of Tirumala Tirupati Deasthanams for widening of the roads in Mada Streets, Tirumala and other purposes and that the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam given 'a' and 'B' schedule properties on 15.03.1999 and on 19-10-2004. With the approval of the competent authority of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam said Moola Mutt was constructed and idols of Lord Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy, Lord Srirama, Lord Seetha, Lord Lakshmana and Lord anjaneya were reinstalled by conducting religious rites and also constructed rooms with the donations of devotees. Sundareswar acharya was the General Power of attorney holder of the Mutt and his name was mentioned in the electricity bills and that the bills are being paid towards Mutt.
8. While that being position, the 1st defendant has appointed the 2nd defendant as a new Manager and in charge of the Moola - Mutt in place of existing General Power of attorney of the plaintiff on 11-08-2005 with malafide intention to harass the plaintiff. another letter was issued by the 1st defendant to the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam stating that the Government of Madhya Pradesh superseded the Managing Committee of Lakshman Bagh Sansthan, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh and removed Sri Harivamshacharya from the
A suit for declaration of title to property and for permanent injunction is not maintainable without notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. if the defendants are claiming title to the property.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of obtaining permission from the Commissioner and necessary relaxation orders from the High Court for any exchange of immovable ....
The court affirmed that the institution is a 'Temple' under the Act, rejecting claims to reclassify as a 'Mutt' due to lack of jurisdiction and standing.
The limited rights of a Mohtmim or Shehbit of an idol inside a temple and the need for proper management of temple lands and income.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.