Orissa High Court
Sri Anil Kumar Das Alias Ananta Charan ... vs The Commissioner, Hindu Religious ... on 2 December, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(I)OLR428, 1999 A I H C 3294, (1999) 1 ORISSA LR 428
JUDGMENT Susanta Chatterji, J.
1. The present writ petition is filed by one Anil Kumar Das alias Ananta Charan Ramanuja Das claiming to be Chela of Late Raghunath Ramanuja Das and asking for the following reliefs :
".... that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this application, call for the records in O.A. No. 155/88 on the file of opposite party and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner quash the impugned order in Annexure-5 with a direction to the opposite party to hold the petitioner as hereditary trustee of the institution Shri Raghunath Swamy and Shri Hanuman Swamy popularly known as Jarada Math and allow the writ petition;
And grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstances of this case....."
2. In fact, the petitioner has challenged the order made by the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, in O.A. No. 155 of 1988 Under Section 30( 1) of Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. Copy of the impugned order is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It transpires from the impugned order that the petitioner claims to be the Chela of Late Mahanta Raghunath Ramanuja Das and to be recognised as the sole successor to the office of his Late Guru Mahant Raghunath Ramanuja Das in the religious institution of Sri Sri Raghunath Swamy and Sri Hanuman Bije at Subarnapur, Tahasil Chikiti, Dist. Ganjam.
3. It is contended that the petitioner was the nominated Chela of his Guru Mahanta Late Raghunath Ramanunja Das who had executed a registered Chela Nijukti Patra on 13.5.1972 making him the successor- in-interest to manage the affairs of the Institution and the Management is being carried on from Guru to Chela on the basis of nomination made since long by Late Guru of the petitioner who was in line of succession.
4. It is further placed on record that admittedly one Parankush Das was the hereditary trustee who claimed to be the grand Guru of the petitioner. The learned Endowment Commissioner has denominated the original will of Raghunath Ramanuja Das since the nomination was doubted and it is concluded by the learned Endowment Commissioner that the petitioner having failed for the reasons stated above to establish that he was the legal heir in respect of the office of the hereditary trustee, was not entitled to succeed as he could not be said to be the next in the line of succession. The objection filed by Anil Kumar Das for recognition as the sole successor to the office of the head of the institution has failed.
5. Being aggrieved by and. dissatisfied with the said order the writ petition has been filed seeking the relief as indicated above.
6. We heard Mr. Misra with Mr. P.V. Ramdas for the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Naidu for the Commissioner of Endowments in presence of Mr. S. P. Misra, and Mr. K. Patnaik , learned Addl. Govt. Advocates for the State.
7. On perusal of the materials on record, we have no doubt that the petitioner will succeed provided he satisfies the Endowment Commissioner that there is a valid Will left by the admitted hereditary trustee and will be entitled to recognition as envisaged Under Section 30 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. Section 30( 1) envisages as to filling of vacancies in the office of hereditary trustee. Mr. Naidu who has opposed the writ petition has formulated his submission in three-fold ways. First he submits that Raghunath Ramanuja Das took effective steps Under Section 39 of the said Act which lays down that when the hereditary trustee of a Math nominates his successor he shall give intimation in writing to the Commissioner. Subsequent changes in the nomination may also be intimated within three months of the nomination. For the purpose of succession the last nominee so intimated shall be recognised by the Commissioner. If no appointment is made during life-time of the trustee, the Commissioner shall have full power to appoint an Executive Officer and the trust shall be brought under the direct control of the Commissioner and shall be treated as an institution under Chapter VII. In making this appointment the Commissioner shall have due regard to the customs and usage and tenets of the Math. It is also provided that any person aggrieved by the decision may within ninety days from the date of the decision institute a suit in a competent Court of law to establish his right to the office of the hereditary trustee but pending the result of such suit, if any, the order of the Commissioner shall be final.
8. Mr. Naidu develops his argument further that as a matter of fact Raghunath Ramanuja Das being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner visited the writ Court earlier and the writ petition was disposed of by this Court observing, inter alia, that the original hereditary trustee Parankrushna did not intimate during his life-time about the nomination of his successor and accordingly no such action could be taken as contemplated Under Section 39 of the Act. Therefore, proper steps should be taken as provided Under Section 30 of the Act, regarding filling of the vacancy in the office of the hereditary trustee.
9. There may be distinguishing features as to the steps to be taken regarding temple and the steps to be taken with regard to Math. Be that as it may, Raghunath Ramanuja Das took effective steps Under Section 30 of the Act by making a Will left by original hereditary trustee Pranakrushna Das and during the pendency of the proceeding Raghunath Ramanuja Das died leaving behind another Will appointing and/or nominating the present petitioner Anil Kumar Das. After demise of Raghunath Ramanuja Das proceeding Under Section 30 of the Act abetted. An independent application was filed before the learned Endowment Commissioner and the impugned order has been made which is challenged before us in the present writ petition.
10. Mr. Naidu contends, inter alia, that Section 30(3) of the Act provides that when a permanent or temporary vacancy occurs in such an office and there is a dispute respecting the right of succession to the office, or when such vacancy cannot be filled up immediately or when a hereditary trustee is minor and has no legally constituted guardian fit and willing to act as such or there is a dispute respecting the person who is entitled to act such guardian, the Commissioner may appoint a fit person to discharge the functions of the trustee of the institution until the disability of the hereditary trustee ceases or another hereditary trustee succeeds to the office.
11. In the instant case though Raghunath Ramanuja Das was found to be a fit person and continued to remain as such from 1960 to 1987, yet he was never recognised as a successor of the original hereditary trustee. The Will although is not necessarily required to be probated as it is within the district of Ganjam yet mere throwing the document will not ipso facto enable a person to claim to be a successor unless the same is proved in accordance with law. The original Will unless proved would not enable Raghunath Ramanuja Das to claim to be a hereditary trustee. The Will left by Raghunath Ramanuja Das in favour of the petitioner is of no consequence. If there is doubt or dispute, proper steps should have been taken. Our attention is drawn to Section 41 of the Act under Chapter V wherein it is provided that the Assistant Commissioner shall have power to enquire and decide the following disputes and matters -
(a) Whether an institution is a public religious institution;
(b) Whether an institution is a temple or math;
(c) Whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee;
(d) Whether any property or money is of a religious endowment or specific endowment;
(e) Whether any person is entitled by custom or otherwise to any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution and what the established usage of a religious institution is in regard to any other matter;
(f) Whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a religious or secular character, and whether any property or money has been given wholly or partly for religious or secular usages; and
(g) Where property or money has been given for the support of an institution or the performance of a charity, which is partly of religious and partly of a secular character or when any property or money given is appropriated partly to religious and partly to secular use, as to what portion thereof shall be allocated to religious uses.
12. Mr. Naidu has further developed his argument that unless such a dispute is resolved in accordance with law in the manner as indicated above, the petitioner cannot get any relief as sought for. Mere functioning as a fit person will not enable him to leave behind a legacy and on the basis of such legacy the appointment of a hereditary trustee cannot be made or a vacancy cannot be filled up.
13. In support of the petition and to counter-act the contentions of Mr. Naidu, Mr. S. Misra and Mr. P.V. Ramdas argued before us that the entire facts, circumstances and background of the case should not be lost sight of. There is no doubt and/or dispute that the original hereditary trustee, namely, alleged Grand Guru or Param Guru of the petitioner, Parankush or Pranamrushna was the same person and being the recognised hereditary trustee had left behind a proper Will in favour of Raghunath Ramanuja Das although he did not intimate this fact during his life-time. Immediately after his demise bona fide steps were taken either Under Section 39 or Under Section 30 and for more than two decades Raghunath Ramajuna Das was allowed to function and there was no rival claim, no dispute and none challenged the right of Raghunath Ramanuja Das to continue as hereditary trustee as a fit person. He did not remain silent by keeping the Will of Parankush and rather he immediately tried to take steps Under Section 39 and once he had been asked to take effective steps as provided under Sec, 30 of the Act he did not hesitate to take effective step and before his demise he had nominated the petitioner Anil Kumar Das by executing a proper Will in his favour. The original hereditary trustee having left behind a Will, on the basis of such Will a proceeding was taken before the competent Civil Court to obtain succession certificate and the succession certificate was granted by the competent such Court in succession case No. 6/93 to the legal heir of Parankush Das. Late Raghunath Ramanuja Das was also declared as de jure and de facto legal heir of Parankush Das in M.S. No. 176 of 1990 by order dated 9.5.1963 of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur. If the Civil Court has observed that the Will left by Parankush Das is genuine and in a proper proceeding there was a public notice and nobody in the line of succession of Parankush ever challenged the claim of Raghunath Ramanuja Das, it will be too late to deny the claim of Raghunath Ramanuja Das vis-a-vis Anil Kumar Das in the line of succession.
14. It has been strongly argued before us that if the original Will of Parankush Das was found to be genuine by the competent Civil Court and succession certificate supports the case, we are afraid, further examination to prove the Will would be required. Though Mr. Naidu has rightly argued before us that this document might not have been filed before the Endowment Commissioner who had no opportunity to look into the matter more deeply and to come to the conclusion yet it is not worthwhile to remand the matter. Since all papers are produced before this Court and this Court has jurisdiction in a proper case for issue of writ of certiorari, we have no hesitation to find that the original Will left by Parankush Das although found to be genuine in the name either as Parankush or Prana Krushna, yet it relates to the same person. If the competent Civil Court has concluded that the Will is genuine it will be futile to ask the petitioner once again to approach the Assistant Commissioner Under Section 41 of the Act to investigate into the matter. We do not find that there is any doubt or dispute as to the genuineness of the Will of Parankush in favour of Raghunath Ramanuja Das. Once the Will in favour of Raghunath Ramanuja Das is found to be genuine no doubt has been expressed as to the Will of Raghunath Ramanuja Das in favour of the present petitioner Anil Kumar Das. It may be true that all records were not produced before the Endowment Commissioner or the Endowment Commissioner did not have the opportunity to go into the matter. In view of the facts disclosed before us, we are of the clear opinion that the order of the Endowment Commissioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
15. For the foregoing reasons we allow the writ petition, quash the impugned order under Annexure-5 and we hold that in view of the Will left by the original hereditary trustee Parankush Das, Raghunath Ramanunja Das was the fit person to function as the hereditary trustee and in law he was found to be the fit person vis-a-vis the Will left by him in favour of the present petitioner which cannot be discarded. We accordingly hold that the present petitioner Anil Kumar Das alias Ananta Charan Ramanuja Das is the hereditary trustee to function in accordance with law. The Endowment Commissioner would take such effective steps to recognise the hereditary trusteeship in favour of the petitioner as mentioned in the writ petition and to proceed thereafter. There would be no order as to costs.
D.M. Patnaik, J.
I agree.