Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1872
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
Rajasekaran @ Nithyananda - Petitioner
Versus
Manivasagam & Others - Respondents
C.R.P.(MD)(PD) No.606 of 2015 & M.P.(MD) Nos.1 & 2 of 2015 & CMP(MD) No. 5451 of 2016
Decided On : 24-09-2018
For the Petitioner:J. Elayaraja, Advocate.
For the Respondents:M. Manivasagam, S.C. Herold Singh, Advocate.
Headnote:
Constitution of India ,1950 - Article 13 (3) (a) – Civil Procedure Code,1908 – Section 92 and 9,Rule 8 and 14(1),Order 1 and VII - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charities Endowment Act – Section 59,6(22),6(15),6(15)(a) and 108 - HR & CE Act, 1959 – Section 59 - Short facts leading to filing of this Civil Revision Petition Hindu Religious Math has been in existence for more than 2500 years, having a recorded history for about 1500 year - The said administered b who is the head of the Math & Trustee, appointed as per the customs & traditions - Previously on demise - 3rd respondent herein / 1st Defendant, had assumed the office of the head of the Math as per the custom and usage and continues to hold the office - 3rd respondent /1st Defendant, owing to his old age, decided to nominate a successor for the Math for continuous and efficient discharge of Math Obligations - Accordingly, the 3rd respondent/1st Defendant having found the petitioner herein / 2nd Defendant an efficient and entitled disciple, coronated him as Junior pontiff in line with customs and traditions - A trust was constituted on vide registered Doc.No.237 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, with the 3rd respondent / 1st Defendant and the petitioner / 2nd Defendant herein as its Trustees – Held, Hon’ble Division Bench in furtherance while dealing as to indistinguishable issue on hand encompassing petitioner’s appointment, held that as per Section 59 of Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, the Commissioner or any two or more persons who have obtained consent of the Commissioner in writing, can institute a suit for removal of a trustee of a Math or a specific endowment attached to a Math - Accordingly this Court finds that Section 59 of HR & CE Act, 1959 in actual intend and serve to lay a rigid control/ prevent frivolous litigations as against a Religious Math - Indeed the reason behind such arrangement would be to allow a bonafide claim by way of filing suit in adherence with Section 59 of HR & CE Act, 1959 and on the other hand to avoid unfair and untrustworthy suits and reliefs thereto as against a Math performing Religious function and as well as against the Head of the Math, who perform both religious and administrative deeds and would come across very many difficulties - Accordingly the Revision Petition succeeds on Questions Nos.2 and 4 on the ground of non-compliance of Mandatory though be unsuccessful in as much as Question Nos.1, 3 and 5 - Consequently, the plaint on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, is liable to be rejected - In the result, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed - Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
1. The short facts leading to filing of this Civil Revision Petition is as follows:
The Madurai Aadheenam, a Hindu Religious Math has been in existence for more than 2500 years, having a recorded history for about 1500 years. The said Aadheenam is administered by Adheenakarthar Guru MahaSannidhanam, who is the head of the Math & Trustee, appointed as per the customs & traditions of Madurai Aadheenam. Previously on demise of the 291st Guru MahaSannidhanam on 14.03.1980, the 292nd Guru Maha Sannidhanam, the 3rd respondent herein / 1st Defendant, had assumed the office of the head of the Math on 15.03.1980 as per the custom and usage and continues to hold the office.
2. The 3rd respondent /1st Defendant, owing to his old age, decided to nominate a successor for the Math for continuous and efficient discharge of Math Obligations. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent/1st Defendant having found the petitioner herein / 2nd Defendant an efficient and entitled disciple, coronated him as Junior pontiff of Madurai Aadheenam on 27th April in line with customs and traditions of Madurai Aadheenam Math. A trust by name "Madurai Aadheenam Trust" was constituted on 12th April 2012 vide registered Doc.No.237/2012 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Madurai, with the 3rd respondent / 1st Defendant and the petitioner / 2nd Defendant herein as its Trustees.
3. In the said factual background the respondents 1 and 2 as plaintiffs, leveling accusations and assertions have filed the above suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.83 of 2012 before the learned I Additional District Judge, Madurai praying to declare the nomination of the petitioner / 2nd defendant as Junior Pontiff of Madurai Aadheenam by the 3rd respondent on 29.04.2012 as Null and Void and sought for permanent injunction as against 3rd respondent / 1st defendant from any further nomination.
4. It is the case of the petitioner / 2nd defendant and as well the 3rd respondent / 1st defendant that the Plaint in O.S.No.83 of 2012 on hand is liable to be rejected, since the plaintiffs / respondents 1 and 2 have not followed the tenets of Math, i.e. the custom and usage and have not obtained prior permission/consent of the Commissioner, HR & CE in writing to institute the above suit. Only a suit under Section 59 of HR & CE Act, 1959 would be the appropriate remedy available, however factual position being that there is no provision under the HR & CE Act enabling institution of suit against the Junior Pontiff for removing him from the office.
5. It is their case before the Trial Court that in as much as a suit to be instituted under Section 59 of HR & CE Act, 1959 by the Commissioner HR & CE or Government or private parties, a written consent of the Commissioner HR & CE is essential. Thus the instant suit questioning the very appointment of the petitioner by the respondents 1 and 2 without the consent of the Commissioner, HR & CE is not maintainable. Therefore, both the defendants (i.e.) the Revision petitioner herein and the 3rd respondent filed an Interlocutory application in I.A.No.285 of 2012 under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. seeking for rejection of the Plaint in O.S.No.83 of 2012 as abuse of process of Law and for want of compliance with mandatory procedures and leave of the Court under Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C. However, on misappraisal of Legal preposition and facts, the Learned Trial Judge had erroneously dismissed the said application vide and Order dated 22.12.2014, which is impugned in this Civil Revision Petition by the petitioner / 2nd defendant.
6. I heard Mr. J. Elayaraja, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manivasagam, who is party-in-person/1st respondent and Mr. S.C. Herold Singh, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the entire material available on records.
7. The learned counsel for the Revision petitioner at the outset submits that the respondents 1 and 2 / Plaintiffs, claiming the instant suit on hand filed in the interest and on behalf of interested general
