Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N. Govinda Swamy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 1 May, 2025
APHC010587172024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3483]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1066/2024
Between:
N. Govinda Swamy, and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. G V S GANESH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V VENUGOPALA RAO
2. V V N NARASIMHAM
3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
APHC010597102024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3483]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WRIT APPEAL NO: 3/2025
Between:
Noosam Veerabhadra Swamy ...APPELLANT
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. R K ACHARYULU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. BEJJAM NAGARAJU
2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
3. G V S GANESH
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
DATE:
COMMON ORDER:
(Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Feeling aggrieved by the common order dated 03.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.29071 of 2021 & W.P.No.42248 of 2022, the petitioners in the said writ petitions preferred the intra Court appeals vide W.A.No.1066/2024 and W.A.No.3 of 2025, respectively, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
2. Inasmuch as the parties in these writ appeals are common and the relief sought is interrelated, both the writ appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The facts that led to filing of these writ appeals, in brief, are that:
(a) 'Sri Mad Virat Pothuluri Veera Bhrahmendra Swamy Mutt' (herein after referred to as 'Mutt') was found by Sri Sri Sri Pothuluri Veerabhramendra Swamy, a celebrated social reformer and futurologist (Kalagnani), about more than 350 years ago. The main person or Guru of Mutt is popularly known as Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi. He (Sri Pothuluri Veerabrahmendra Swamy) started this Mutt when he was 15 years old, at Kandimallayapalle, Brahmamgari Matam Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh, acted as Peetaadhipathi/Mataadhipathi and took Sajeeva Samadhi Nishta at the age of 85, after nominating his wife Sri Sri Sri Govindamamba as 1st Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi. He also advised his legal heirs and disciples to hand over the management of Mutt to his sons. So far, more than 11 persons have discharged their duties as Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi, nominated by their respective predecessor Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi, where women were also nominated, and the same procedure is being followed over all these years and became an established custom.
(b) Following the said custom, Sri Sri Sri Veerabhoga Vasantha Venkateswara Swamy Varu (late) acted as Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi from 1969 until his death on 08.05.2021. He had 6 sons and 4 daughters (who are alive). Out of these children, 4 sons were, through his 1st wife Late Smt.Chandravathamma and after her demise in the year, 2005, he married Smt N.Maruthi Mahalakhsmi (2nd petitioner in W.P.No.29071/2021) and gave birth to Sri N.Govinda Swamy on 10.07.2007 (1st petitioner in W.P.No.29071/2021).
(c) On 01.10.2010, Sri Sri Sri Veerabhoga Vasantha Venkateswara Swamy Varu (late) had nominated Sri N.Govinda Swamy (1st petitioner in W.P.No.29071/2021) as successor Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi of the Mutt after his demise and intimated the same to the Dharmika Parishad (3rd respondent) through Certificate of Posting. Also, he had executed a Will dated 10.11.2018 nominating the 1st petitioner in W.P.No.29071/2021, as permanent Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi of the Mutt and 2nd petitioner in W.P.No.29071/2021, as temporary Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi till her son (1st petitioner in W.P.No.29071/2021) attains majority. The execution of said Will was intimated to the 3rd respondent-Dharmika Parishad, by 2nd petitioner in W.P.No.29071/2021, in person, on 28.11.2018 and also through Courier Service on 01.12.2018, within the stipulated time under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (herein after, referred to as 'Act, 1987').
(d) Whereas, Sri N.Veerabhadra Swamy (petitioner in W.P.No.42248 of 2022), who is the first wife's second son of Sri Sri Sri Veerabhoga Vasantha Venkateswara Swamy Varu) claims that, his father/Matadhipathi, during his life time, had made a nomination in writing in a separate sheet duly attested and scribed, choosing him as successor Matadhipathi and the same was confirmed by his father in his own hand writing and was also noted in his personal diary in the year 2006. All the important things of Sri Sri Sri Veerabhoga Vasantha Venkateswara Swamy Varu were kept in an iron safe, in his personal room, in the matam, which was seized by the official respondents and they did not even open it, upon enquiry. In the said circumstances, Sri N.Veerabhadra Swamy, (first wife's second son) had made representations dated 25.06.2021 and 26.06.2021 requesting the Dharmika Parishad to appoint him as Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi to Mutt, recognizing his father's nomination.
(e) However, the Special Commissioner of Endowments Department issued proceedings dated 12.06.2021, appointing the 4th respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Endowments) as a fit person to manage the affairs of the Mutt, alleging that there are disputes among the family members of deceased Sri Sri Sri Veerabhoga Vasantha Venkateswara Swamy Varu.
Pursuant to the said proceedings, the 4th respondent had issued a letter dated 13.06.2021 directing the Manager of the Mutt to hand over all the records of movable and immovable properties of the Mutt with immediate effect. Challenging the said letter and claiming the management of Mutt, the petitioners in W.P.No.29071/2021 filed W.P.No.12609/2021 which was partly allowed setting aside the order of the Special Commisioner. As the claim of succession over the office of Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi was not answered by the learned Single Judge, the petitioners in W.P.No.29071/2021 have preferred W.A.No.535 of 2021 and the same got disposed of on 23.09.2021 directing the 3rd respondent to consider their claim on succession to the office of Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi on merits after giving due opportunity to all the concerned, within a period of two months.
(f) Pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 28.11.2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioners in W.P.No.29071/2021 as successors to the office of Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi. Thereafter, on 29.11.2021, the 3rd respondent (Dharmika Parishad), issued two orders: (i) Appointing the 4th respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Endowments) as fit person, purely on temporary basis for day to day management, (ii) Appointing the 5th respondent (Joint Commissioner of Endowments) as Authorised Officer to convene a meeting of Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi of other Mutts of the same Sampradayam and disciples of the same Mutt and to submit a report to Dharmika Parishad to proceed further to recognize the person nominated in such meeting, as Matadhipathi.
(g) Aggrieved by the above three orders, the second wife of deceased Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi and her son filed W.P.No.29071/2021 and second son of deceased Peetadhipathi through first wife had filed W.P.No.42248 of 2022.
4. The contents of the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents can be summarized as under:
(a) The 2nd & 3rd respondents in both the writ appeals have contended that, in view of the disputes arose between the family members of deceased Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi for succession for the Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi and, in the interests of public service and for better administration, the Dharmika Parishad had appointed the 4th respondent as Fit-person to the Mutt till permanent Mataadhipathi is appointed to the Mutt. Further, pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.A.No.535/2021 (filed by petitioners in W.P.No.29071/2021), an enquiry was conducted by issuing prior notices to all the concerned parties directing to appear before the Dharmika Parishad along with all the material papers. All the concerned parties have appeared and submitted their oral arguments besides representations along with enclosures, opposing each other's claim for succession. In the said circumstances, the Dharmika Parishad, after examining the records in detail, issued proceedings dated 28.11.2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioners in both the writ petitions, and gave liberty to participate in the meeting with Matadhipathis of other Mutt of same Sampradayam, convened by the 5th respondent, being appointed as Authorised Officer vide proceedings dated 29.11.2021. The 3rd respondent-
Dharmika Parishad also issued separate proceedings dated 29.11.2021, appointing the 4th respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Endowments) as fit person, purely on temporary basis for day to day management of Mutt till the appointment of permanent Mataadhipathi to the Mutt. As the above said proceedings were issued pursuant to the directions of the Division bench of this court in W.A.No.535/2021, there is neither any illegality nor procedural irregularity in issuance of the same.
(b) Sri Noosam Venkatradri Swamy, (6th respondent in W.P.No.29071/2021 and 8th respondent in W.P.No.42248 of 2022), who is the first wife's first son of deceased Mataadhipathi contended that, being the eldest son, he is alone competent to succeed as Mataadhipathi as per customs and usage of Subject Mutt and all other claimants are ineligible to hold the status of Mataadhipathi, according to provision of Section 53(2) of the Act, 1987. He further contended that, all the material papers provided by the other claimants are absolutely incorrect and are manipulated to suit their requirements. As such, the arrangements made by the authorities till filling up of vacancy to avoid dislocation in administration of Mutt, are in accordance with law and cannot be find fault with.
(c) Sri Noosam Veerabhadra Swamy, (petitioner in W.P.No.42248 of 2022 and 7th respondent in W.P.No.29071/2021), who is 1st wife's 2nd son of deceased Mataadhipathi contended that, the successor Matadhipathi shall have basic knowledge about the Mutt principles and relevant sampradya and also capacity to impart the knowledge and preach the tenets, religious temperament and unquestionable moral character. He further submitted that, Sri Noosam Venkatradri Swamy, (6th respondent in W.P.No.29071/2021 and 8th respondent in W.P.No.42248 of 2022) or N.Govinda Swamy (1st petitioner in W.P.No.29071/2021 & 6th respondent in W.P.No.42248 of 2022), both, have not taken Guru upadesham from late Mataadhipathi and have not attended to any religious rituals including preaching. Moreover, Sri Noosam Venkatradri Swamy is practicing as an advocate at Prodattur Bar and without obtaining permission from the Bar Council of State of A.P., he is claiming the permanent succession of Mataadhipathi contrary to the provisions of Section 52 of the Act, 1987 and Sri N.Govinda Swamy is a student and minor. Therefore, both are not eligible for holding the post of Mataadhipathi as per the statutory principles. Further, the Dharmika Parishad is an invalid one which deserves to be set aside as it was not constituted under the provisions of Section 54(2) of the Act, 1987. Therefore, the appointment of permanent Mataadhipathi is still in question unless the Dharmika Parishad is constituted under provisions of the Act, 1987 and the appointments made by the said Dharmika Parishad are also not valid. Hence, he alone, is competent one for succession of the said post.
(d) Sri N.Govinda Swamy and N.Maruthi Mahalakshmi (petitioners in W.P.No.29071/2021 and 6th & 7th respondents in W.P.No.42248 of 2022) opposed the claim of the others stating that the documents relied by them i.e., nomination dated 01.10.2010 and subsequent will dated 10.11.2018, were nowhere disputed by anyone. Moreover, according to the customs and usages of the Mutt, the Guru Pathni (Smt N.Maruthi Mahalakshmi) will be the 1st disciple, who is entitled to hold the temporary vacancy. Therefore, appointing a Government official as fit person ignoring the Guru Pathni, is illegal and beyond the powers of Dharmika Parishad and the same needs to be quashed. Further, Sri Noosam Veerabhadra Swamy, (petitioner in W.P.No.42248 of 2022 and 7th respondent in W.P.No.29071/2021) worked as Ticket Clerk in the establishment of Subject Mutt from July, 2006 until mid June, 2021, which was suppressed by him and, he failed to produce his nomination or original Will in the meeting of the Dharmika Parishad or before this Court, as such, such nomination has no consequence and credibility.
5. After considering all the submissions, learned single judge has dismissed both the writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.29071/2021 & W.P.No.42248 of 2022 under a common order directing the petitioners as well as the respondents to approach Competent Civil Court having original jurisdiction subject to limitation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners therein preferred these appeals.
6. Heard Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned Senior counsel representing learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.1066 of 2024, Sri P.Girish Kumar, learned Senior counsel representing learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.3 of 2025, Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri V.Venugopal Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the 6th respondent in W.A.No.1066 of 2024 and 8th respondent in W.A.No.3 of 2025.
7. Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned Senior counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.1066 of 2024 while reiterating the grounds of appeal and contents of the writ affidavit submitted that, in the proceedings dated 12.06.2021, the Dharmika Parishad has admitted about the receipt of a copy of Will of appellants which includes the nomination of the petitioners/appellants as Mataadhipathi & acting Mataadhipathi, whereas in the impugned proceedings dated 28.11.2021, the 3rd respondent-Dharmika Parishad has mentioned that they have 'not traced' the documents, though the nomination dated 01.10.2010 and Will dated 10.11.2018 executed in favour of appellants were served in person on 28.11.2018 and also through Courier Service on 01.12.2018, within the stipulated time, under the Act, 1987, in order to mislead this Court and to favour the 6th respondent to succeed as Mataadhipathi under Section 54(2) of the Act, 1987. The above said aspect that, the 3rd respondent has taken two contradictory statements, was not properly dealt by the learned Single Judge. Also, the learned Single Judge went on a supposition that even if the unregistered will dated 10.11.2018 is true, it cannot be taken as a last will of the deceased Mataadhipathi, as his second son through first wife also produced a copy of the unregistered will dated 23.01.2021 said to have been executed by the late Mataadhipathi, which runs contrary to the very impugned order dated 28.11.2021.
Moreover, in the writ petition filed by the second son of deceased Mataadhipathi through his first wife i.e., W.P.No.42248 of 2022, there was no mention of any will in his favour, as could be seen from the averments and documents filed therewith. Therefore, the learned single judge has made irreconcilable and self-contradictory conclusion which is wholly unsustainable in law. Further, the learned single judge failed to appreciate that, the annexure/exhibits filed in support of the appellants were not disputed/denied by the respondents including contesting respondents, rendering the order under appeal a nullity.
Learned Senior Counsel submitted that, Section 54(2) of the Act, 1987, comes into play where a Mataadhipathi fails to nominate his successor under sub-setion(1), but in the present case the Mataadhipathi has nominated the petitioners/appellants under Section 54(1) and it was intimated within the stipulated time, as such, Section 54(2) is not applicable to the subject Mutt and only statutory obligation left to the official respondents is to recognize the nomination of the petitioners/appellants under Section 54(1) of the Act, 1987. Therefore, the refusal of the nominations of the petitioners/appellants is against the settled position of law. He further contended that, as the Dharmika Parishad did not conduct proper enquiry and also failed to consider the material placed before it while rejecting the petitioners/appellants nomination, all the three impugned proceedings issued separately on 28.11.2021 and 29.11.2021 are contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1987 and deserves to be set aside. Hence, prayed to allow W.A.No.1066 of 2024 by directing the authorities to appoint the petitioners as successor Mataadhipathi.
8. Sri P.Girish Kumar, learned Senior counsel representing learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.3 of 2025 and 7th respondent in W.A.No.1066 of 2024 while reiterating the grounds of appeal, contents of the writ affidavit and counter submitted that, the said Dharmika Parishad is not constituted under the provisions of Section 54(2) of the Act, 1987, as such, the appointments made by the said Dharmika Parishad under proceedings dated 28.11.2021 and 29.11.2021 are not valid. He further submitted that, other claimants are not eligible for holding the post of Mataadhipathi as per statutory principles, as they have not met the eligibility criteria as per Section 53 of the Act, 1987 and the petitioner/appellant in W.A.No.3 of 2025, alone is competent for succession of the said post and prayed to allow the W.A.No.3 of 2025 by directing the authorities to appoint the petitioner as successor Mataadhipathi.
9. On the other hand, Sri V.Venugopal Rao, learned Senior counsel for the 6th respondent in W.A.No.1066 of 2024 and 8th respondent in W.A.No.3 of 2025 contended that, as per Section 54(1) of the Act, 1987, subject to provisions of Section 53, a Mataadhipathi may nominate his successor. The fact of such nomination shall be intimated to the Commissioner, within 90 days of such nomination and the Dharmika Parishad may recognize such nomination. In view of the above provision, when the deceased Mataadhipathi made nomination in the year 2010, as alleged by the claimants, no steps were taken within 90 days and they are taking steps after the death of deceased Mataadhipathi in the year 2021, which shows that there is no nomination till the year 2010 as alleged by the claimants. Hence, as the claim of the claimants is suspicious, the Dharmika Parishad has rightly decided to undertake the clause of Section 54(2) of the Act, 1987 and rightly issued the proceedings making temporary arrangements for the management of Mutt till the permanent Matadhipathi is appointed.
10. Whereas, Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned Government Pleader for Endowments contended that, the documents relied by the claimants were never received by the office of the Commissioner, Endowments department, as alleged by the claimants and moreover, there is no order of the Dharmika Parishad recognizing the alleged nomination made by the Mataadhipathi of the Mutt, which is mandatory to complete the process of the recognition of successor Mataadhpathi as per Section 54(1) of the Act, 1987. He further submitted that, even otherwise, if the alleged nomination/will of late Mataadhipathi, which are relied by the claimants are true and correct, they ought to have pursued the matter and get it recognized by the Dharmika Parishad as per provisions of Section 54(1) of the Act, 1987, but the claimants did not do so. The claimants ought to have intimated such nomination to the Dharmika Parishad during the lifetime of the Mataadhipathi, within 90 days of such alleged nomination/executed will. Therefore, the nomination of Mataadhipathi to next Mataadhipathi should be a clear nomination on paper expressing his intention to be considered as required under Section 54 of the Act, 1987, but not after his death. Hence, the documents relied by the claimants carries no value. In the said circumstances, the authorities have rightly issued impugned proceedings and the learned single judge has rightly directed the parties to approach the Civil Court raising their grievance. The petitioners/appellants have not made out any case warranting the interference of this Court and the writ appeals deserves dismissal.
11. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
12. A perusal of the record would indicate that, Sri Sri Sri Veerabhoga Vasantha Venkateswara Swamy Varu (late) acted as Peetadhipathi to the Mutt from 1969 until his death on 08.05.2021. The sons of the deceased Peetadhipathi through his first wife and second wife are claiming the succession of Peethadhipathi/Mataadhipathi of the Mutt. The second wife's first son is claiming the succession through two documents i.e., nomination dated 01.10.2010 and an unregistered will dated 10.11.2018 said to be executed by deceased Mataadhipathi in their favour and further claimed that the factum of said nomination and Will were informed to the Dharmika Parishad, in person and through courier service, within stipulated time under the provisions of Act, 1987. The sons of deceased Mataadhipathi through his first wife seriously opposed the claim made by the son through second wife. The first son of the deceased Mataadhipathi through his first wife claimed that, as per the Sampradayam of the Mutt, only elder son of the deceased Mataadhipathi is eligible to be recognized as successor of deceased Mataadhipathi, whereas the second son of deceased Mataadipathi through first wife has relied on two unregistered wills said to be executed by the late Mataadhipathi, in his favour, on 01.07.2006 and 23.01.2021.
13. The official respondents have stated that the said documents i.e., nomination dated 01.10.2010, unregistered wills dated 10.11.2018 and 23.01.2021(second son of late Mataadhipathi through first wife) were not submitted to the Dharmika Parishad, as required under Section 54(1) of the Act, 1987 and consequently, they carries no value. Hence, the authorities have issued the proceedings dated 28.11.2021 rejecting their claim as successors to the office of Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi and appointed the 4th respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Endowments) as fit person, purely on temporary basis for day to day management of Mutt vide proceedings dated 29.11.2021 and also issued proceedings dated 29.11.2021 appointing the 5th respondent (Joint Commissioner of Endowments) as Authorised Officer to convene a meeting of Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi of other Mutts of the same Sampradayam and disciples of the same Mutt and to submit a report to Dharmika Parishad to proceed further to recognize the person nominated in such meeting, as Mataadhipathi.
14. The claimants (sons of deceased Mataadhipathi through first wife and second wife) contended that, the 3rd respondent-Dharmika Parishad was not constituted under the provisions of Section 54(2) of the Act, 1987, as such, the appointments made by the said Dharmika Parishad under proceedings dated 28.11.2021 and 29.11.2021 are completely without authority or jurisdiction.
15. Section 53 & 54 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 reads as follows:
53. Filling of permanent vacancies in the office of Mathadhipathi:
(1) Where a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the Mathadhipathi, by reason of death or resignation or on account of his removal under section 51 or otherwise the person next entitled to succeed, according to the rule of succession laid down by the founder, or where no such rule is laid down, according to the usage or custom of the math, or where no such usage or custom exists according to the law of succession, for the time being in force, shall with the permission of the Dharmika Parishad succeed to the office of the Mathadhipathi.
(2) A person for succession to the office of the Mathadhipathi under sub- section (1) shall possess the following qualifications, namely:-
(a) basic knowledge of the Hindu Religion and Philosophy;
(b) knowledge of the relevant scriptures and sampradaya to which the math belongs;
(c) capacity to impact the knowledge and preach the tenets of the math to the disciples;
(d) religious temperment with implicit faith in discipline and practice; and
(e) unquestionable moral character.
54. Nomination of mathadhipathi:
(1) Subject to the provisions of Section 53, a mathadhipathi may nominate his successor. The fact of such nomination shall be intimated to the Dharmika Parishad, within ninety days of such nomination and the Dharmika Parishad, may recognise such nomination. A nomination shall not be complete unless it is recognised by the Dharmika Parishad. The conditions for recognition shall be such as may be prescribed. (2) Where a Mathadhipathi fails to nominate his successor under sub-
section (1) or where there is no mathadhipathi, the Dharmika Parishad or any officer authorised by it shall after due publication convene a meeting with the mathadhipathis of other maths of the same sampradayam and the disciples of the math and recognise the person nominated in such meetings as a mathadhipathi subject to the provisions of this Act. The procedure for convening the meeting and method of publication shall be such as may be prescribed.
16. Section 53(1) of the Act, 1987 specifies the procedure for filling up of permanent vacancies in the office of the Mataadhipathi. According to which, the person next entitled to succeed according to rule of succession laid down by founder shall, with the permission of Dharmika Parishad succeed to office of the Mataadhipathi. In the absence of any such rule of succession, according to the usage or custom of the Mutt and if no such usage or custom exists according to the law of succession, for the time being in force.
17. It is categorical contention of the petitioners in W.P.No.29071/2021 that founder of the Mutt, Sri Sri Sri Pothuluri Veerabramendra Swamy had advised his legal heirs and disciples to hand over management of the Mutt to his sons and the said procedure is being followed over all these years. In the absence of any denial on the part of the respondents, the said procedure can safely be held to have become a custom or usage of the Mutt. According to the said custom, the sons of the Mataadhipathi are entitled to succeed the office of the Mataadhipathi.
18. A plain reading of Section 53(2) of the Act, 1987 would indicate that a person claiming succession to the office of Mataadhipathi shall possess qualification enumerated therein. As per Section 54(1) of the Act, 1987, a Mataadhipathi may nominate his successor subject to the provision of Section
53. A cumulative effect of Section 53(1) & 54(1) of the Act, 1987 is that, dehors nomination also a person entitled as per rule of succession/usage or custom/law of succession can become Mataadhipathi of the Mutt. A harmonious reading of Section 53(2) and Section 54(1) of the Act, 1987 makes it abundantly clear that the person claiming succession or the person nominated by his successor shall possess the qualification envisaged under Section 53(2) of the Act, 1987.
19. In the present case, three sons of late Mataadhidpathi are claiming succession through nomination and also under unregistered wills whereas the Dharmika Parishad has taken a stand that the said documents carry no value since they were not submitted within the stipulated time under Section 54(1) of the Act, 1987 and also there is a dispute with regard to Wills. In view of the rival claims made by the sons of the deceased Mataadhipathi, regarding their nomination as successor, the very nomination itself is in dispute. Hence, as rightly held by the learned single judge the present cases involve mixed question of facts, i.e., nomination, unregistered wills with regard to declaration of son who has to be nominated as Mataadhipathi, which have to be decided by the Civil Court, but not under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the finding returned by the learned single judge, in that regard needs no interference.
20. However, as raised by the claimants, the disposal of the proceedings initiated before the Civil Courts may consume considerable time. In view of the custom being followed by the Mutt referred to supra, any of the sons of Mataadhipathi is eligible to become Mataadhipathi provided, he possesses necessary qualification. So, it is unwarranted to leave administration of the Mutt to endowments officials till conclusion of the Civil Court proceedings, if filed any. Therefore, so as to see that there may not be any disruption in the custom, it is appropriate to direct the three sons of Mataadhipathi to first approach Dharmika Parishad to prove their eligibility of possessing required qualification (other than nomination) enumerated in Section 53(2) of the Act, 1987 and also any other qualification that is required as per rules. If anyone is found eligible, he can be nominated as Mataadhipathi, however, it would be subject to the outcome of the suits filed if any.
21. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to modify the orders of the learned single judge with the following directions:
(i) The claimants, who are claiming succession over the post of Mataadhipathi, through their documents, shall approach the competent Civil Court to undergo the test of eligibility and to prove their respective succession.
(ii) In the meantime, the claimants shall put-forth their claim before the Dharmika Parishad for appointment of Mataadhipathi, as per Section 54(2) of the Act,1987 and the authorities shall consider the same and nominate accordingly, as per Section 53(2), subject to outcome of the suits filed, if any.
With the above directions, both the appeals are disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,J RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J BRS