Madras High Court
Successor To The 292Nd Guru vs The Commissioner on 19 August, 2014
Author: V.M.Velumani
Bench: V.M.Velumani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.08.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(MD)No.1288 of 2013
&
M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2013
Successor to the 292nd Guru
Mahasannidhanam and 293rd Guru
Mahasannidhanaam,
Sri La Sri Paramahamsa Sri
Nithyananda Sri Thirugnanasambanda
Desiga Paramachariya Swamigal @ Sri
Nithyananda Swami,
Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam,
Adi Anamalai, Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai District. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Endowments
Department,
Having Office at
No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Chennai - 600 034.
2.Sri La Sri Arunagirinatha
Sri Gnanasambanda Desiga
Paramachariya Swamigal,
Adheenakarthar,
70, South Avani Moola Veedhi,
Madurai Town, Taluk and
District - 625 001. .. Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 26.02.2013 passed by
the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in I.A.No.966 of 2012 in
O.S.No.1000 of 2012.
!For Petitioner : Mr.Veerakathiravan
for Mr.G.Bala
^For Respondent No.1 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.V.Nagendran
:ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 26.02.2013 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in I.A.No.966 of 2012 in O.S.No.1000 of 2012.
2.Heard Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.V.Nagendran, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3.The revision petitioner herein is the third party, whereas the first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the second respondent herein is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.1000 of 2012 on the file Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai. The suit was filed by the first respondent against the second respondent to declare the deed of Trust (i.e.,) Madurai Aadheenam Trust, dated 23.04.2012, executed by the second respondent, vide Document No.237/2012 and the affidavit appointing Sri Nithyananda as 293rd Aadheenakarthar of Madurai Aadheenam Math, is null and void. He also prayed for mandatory injunction directing the second respondent to hand over the Math and its properties to the first respondent as contemplated under Section 60 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Along with the suit, the first respondent filed I.A.No.966 of 2012, for ad-interim stay, staying the operation of the alleged deed of declaration of the Trust Document No.237 of 2012, dated 23.04.2012, called Madurai Aadheenam Trust and the affidavit executed by the second respondent, dated 27.04.2012, till the disposal of the suit.
4.According to the first respondent, Sri Thirugnanasambanda Swamigal Math was founded by Thirugnanasambanda Swamigal, one of the Tamil Saints, in the sixth century A.D., to propagate Hindu Religion particularly to the tenets of Saivaism. The duty of the head of the Math was also prescribed. Further, a Madathipathi can be appointed only if he belongs to Saiva Velalar Mutanmaiyar and Karkatha Velalar and must be disciples of Thirugnanasambanda Swamigal Aadheenam and trained as per the customs. The present Madathipathi is the second respondent.
5.As per Section 6(13) of the Act XXII of 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959), only one person is entitled to manage the Math and its properties. Succession to the Office devolves in accordance with the direction of the founder of the Institution or is regulated by usage. While so, the second respondent along with the petitioner Sri Nithyannanda Swami, created a deed of declaration of Trust on 12.04.2012, called Madurai Aadheenam Trust and registered the same as Document No.237 of 2012, dated 23.04.2012, before the Joint Sub-Registrar Office, Madurai South, Madurai. By the Trust, both the second respondent and the petitioner are Trustees of Madurai Aadheenam Trust, with a power to administer, manage and supervise and run the affairs of the Math. Since the said declaration of Trust and appointing the petitioner also as a Trustee, are contrary to Section 6(13) of the Act and also the scheme framed by this Court in A.S.No.336 of 1951, the first respondent filed O.S.No.1000 of 2012. On enquiry by the Deputy Commissioner (Verification), H.R. & C.E. Department, Madurai, the second respondent gave a statement that the petitioner was appointed as 293rd Guru, since he was a competent person to manage the Trust. The second respondent denied the allegation that on receiving Rupees Two Crores he appointed the petitioner as 293rd Guru. Since the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the scheme framed by this Court in the year 1951, the first respondent filed the suit and the application to the relief stated supra.
6.The second respondent filed counter affidavit. It is sufficient to refer the portion of the counter, wherein the second respondent had stated that the appointment of the petitioner as 293rd Guru was cancelled due to strong objections from the public and well-wishers of Madurai Aadheenam. The said cancellation was published in the newspapers and also sent to the petitioner by RPAD.
7.The learned Judge considered the pleadings and also the guidelines for appointing the Madathipathi, concluded that the petitioner did not fulfil the requirements to be appointed as 293rd Guru. The learned Judge has held that the appointment of the petitioner as 293rd Junior Guru, while 292nd Guru is still alive, is invalid and the same is contrary to the practice of Math. He also held that according to the deposition as per the usage and customs of the Math, a person, who is not a Thambiran of Thiruvadhuthurai Aadheenam of Thanjavur or Aadheenam of Dharmavaram or a Devotee of Madurai Aadheenam, can be appointed as Madathipathi of Math. When 292nd Aadheenam is alive, appointing Nithyanandha as 293rd Junior Aadheenam, is against the usage and customs of Math. The learned Judge held that balance of convenience is in favour of the first respondent and functioning of two Trustees will lead to administrative problem. Based on these reasons, the learned Judge granted stay of the Trust deed and declaration deed, dated 27.04.2012, till the disposal of the suit. Against the said order, the petitioner as a third party filed the Civil Revision Petition.
8.According to the petitioner, he is the affected party and without making him as a party to the suit and also without hearing him, the stay granted is contrary to law. He has already filed an application in I.A.No.248 of 2012 in O.S.No.1000 of 2012, for impleading him as a party defendant in the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order impugned will be put against the petitioner at the time of trial and while deciding the case finally.
9.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the respondents colluded with each other and have obtained an order of stay behind the back of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is an affected party and any order passed without hearing him, is null and void. For the said preposition, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the following Judgments:
(i) Kishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja Vs. Maruthi Corporation and Others [AIR 2009 SC 2882], wherein in paragraph No.23, it has been held as follows:-
?23.In our view, while passing the interim order dated 7th May, 2008, the High Court ought to have considered the effect which its order would have on the 280 transferees to whom some portions of the land had already been sold and who had commenced construction thereupon, particularly when they were not even parties in the appeal, nor were they heard before they were injuncted from continuing with the construction work. Such an order affecting third party rights in their absence, as they were not parties to the proceedings, cannot be sustained having further regard to the manner in which the said order was passed. ....?
(ii)Dhanalakshmi and Others Vs. P.Mohan and Others [AIR 2007 SC 1062], wherein it has been held as follows:-
?5. ..... Admittedly, the appellants, having purchased the property from the other co-sharers, in our opinion, are entitled to come on record in order to work out the equity in their favour in the final decree proceedings. In our opinion, the appellants are necessary and proper parties to the suit, which is now pending before the Trial Court. We also make it clear that we are not concerned with the other suit filed by the mortgagee in these proceedings.
6.We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court and order the application for impleadment filed by the appellants herein and array them as party defendants Nos.7, 8 and 9 in the Suit. The appellants will now be at liberty to file the written statements in the pending suit.
7.In view of the order now passed by this Court, the preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court in the absence of the appellants cannot stand. We, therefore, set aside the preliminary decree and restore the suit to its original number and direct the Trial Court to dispose of the same on merits and affording opportunity to the appellants to file a written statement and after framing necessary issues. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of this suit within six months from today.?
(iii) Jagtu Vs. Suraj Mai and Others [2010 STPL (LE) 44279 SC :
AIR 2010 SC 3490 : 2010 (13) SCC 769], wherein in paragraph No.6, it has been held as follows:-
?6.In view of the above, we are of the concerned opinion that as the respondents/plaintiffs sought declaration of certain rights on the suit land belonging to the State of Haryana, the State of Haryana was a necessary party. There is a complete fallacy in the finding rendered by the First Appellate Court that thse respondents/plaintiffs had not sought any relief against the State. The Appellate Court failed to appreciate that declaration in respect of certain rights over the land belonging to the State was the relief sought in the suit. Thus, in absence of the owner of the land, no such declaration could be granted. Therefore, State of Haryana was a necessary party. The suit, therefore, could not proceed for want of necessary parties.?
10.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent argued that the appointment of the petitioner as 293rd Guru is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the scheme framed by this Court in the year 1951. He also argued that the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed as Guru as per the customs and eligibility criteria for being appointed as Guru. He also pointed out that two other persons for themselves and on behalf of Saiva Velalar Community people of Madurai, have filed O.S.No.621 of 2012 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Madurai, challenging the appointment of the petitioner as Trustee against the respondents and the petitioner. Further, the second respondent has filed O.S.No.1038 of 2012 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Madurai, against the petitioner, the first respondent and the Joint Sub-Registrar No.I, Madurai, for declaring the Deed of Declaration of Trust and Notarized Declaration Affidavit, dated 27.04.2012, as null and void and for injunction against the petitioner. The petitioner also filed O.S.No.85 of 2013 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Madurai, against the second respondent and one Thiruchitrambalam Thambiran, for declaring the private advertisement given by the second respondent in the name of Public Notice, dated 19.10.2012 and published in Dinamalar Tamil daily, on 21.10.2012 and the letter of the second respondent, dated 20.10.2012, as null and void and for permanent injunction. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent argued that the petitioner has no right to describe himself as 293rd Guru, as the Trust Deed and declaration affidavit has already been cancelled by the second respondent. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent also contended that even in this civil revision petition, the petitioner has not stated that he is fully qualified to be 293rd Guru. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable.
11.Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the appointment of the petitioner as 293rd Guru has been cancelled and given effect to. This action was taken as objection received from the general public and on the advise of the well wishers of the Math.
12.From the records, it is seen that as per Section 6(13) of the Act and the scheme framed by this Court while a Madathipathi is alive another Madathipathi cannot be appointed. Further, qualifications and eligibility criteria for a person as Madathipathi, is clearly mentioned and followed for a long time. The petitioner does not fulfil any of the conditions for being appointed as Madathipathi.
13.The Judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the Trust Deed and the affidavit appointing the petitioner as 293rd Guru has been cancelled by the second respondent and the Publication has been effected and the petitioner was put on notice by Registered Post with Acknowledgement due. The petitioner has challenged the said proceedings in a competent Court of law. The second respondent also filed a suit for declaration that the Deed of Declaration of Trust and the Notarized Declaration Affidavit, dated 27.04.2012, as null and void and for injunction against the petitioner. On cancellation of Deed of Declaration and the Notarized Affidavit, the petitioner is not allowed to act as 293rd Guru. For these reasons, the petitioner cannot contend that the impugned order has been passed behind his back.
14.The learned Judge considered all the aspects and all the materials on record and has given stay of the Trust till the disposal of the suit by giving valid and cogent reasons. The learned Judge has properly exercised his power taking into consideration, the legal position and the scheme framed by this Court. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order, dated 26.02.2013, passed by the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Madurai. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai.
2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowments Department, Having Office at No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai - 600 034.