Kerala High Court
Sri.Ramananda Asramam vs Sadanandaswami (Died) on 7 August, 2019
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1941
CRP.No.277 OF 2010
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN IA 3161/2009 DATED 26-03-2010 IN
UNNUMBERED O.S.OF 2009 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 4:
1 SRI.RAMANANDA ASRAMAM,
MANNUR,PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
REP.BY MAHESWARANANDASWAMI,
SRI.RAMANANDA ASRAMAM, MANNUR, PALAKKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY HIS P/A HOLDER RAJAN @ SADASIVAN, NOW
KNOWN AS SADASIVANANDASWAMY,
SRI.RAMANANDA ASRAMAM, MANNUR, PALAKKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 642.
2 RAJAN @ SADASIVAN,
NOW KNOWN AS SADASIVANANDASWAMY,
SRI.RAMANANDA ASRAMAM, MANNUR, PALAKKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 642.
*ADDL. SOPRAKASHANANDASWAMI,
P3 SRI.RAMANANDA ASRAMAM, MANNUR, PALAKKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 642.
*(RESPONDENT NO.5 IS TRANSPOSED AS PETITIONER NO.3 AS
PER ORDER DATED 03/10/2018 IN IA.NO.2285/2014)
BY ADVS.
SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR
SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW
C.R.P.No.277/2010
2
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 2 & 3:
1 SADANANDASWAMI (DIED)
SRI.RAMANANDA ASRAMAM, MANNUR,
PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 642.
2 BRAMANANDASWAMI
SRI.RAMANANDA ASRAMAM, MANNUR,
PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 642.
3 RAMANANDHASWAMI (DIED)
SRI.RAMANANDA ASRAMAM, MANNUR,
PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 642.
4 MAHESWARANANDASWAMI (DIED)
SRI.RAMANANDA ASRAMAM, MANNUR,
PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 642.
5 SOPRAKASHANANDASWAMI
SRI.RAMANANDA ASRAMAM, MANNUR,
PALAKKAD TALUK,, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 642.
(TRANSPOSED AS PETITIONER NO.3)
BY ADVS. BINOY VASUDEVAN (FOR CAVEATORS)
R.MANIKANTAN
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10-04-2019, THE COURT ON 07-08-2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
C.R.P.No.277/2010
3
O R D E R
The granting of leave to the plaintiffs in unnumbered Original Suit of 2009 under Section 92(1) of C.P.C. vide the impugned order in I.A.No.3161/2009 is challenged by the defendants 1 and 4 in this Revision Petition. The 5th respondent herein was subsequently transposed as the 3rd petitioner.
2. Ramananda Ashram, Mannur, Palakkad was established by Brahmasri Ramananda, known as 'Gurudevan', and a Settlement Deed No.356/1945 of Parali SRO was executed, settling the rules, regulations, practices and procedures to be followed in the Ashram. The deed makes it abundantly clear that the Ashram is established as a public religious charitable trust, to be known by the name Ramananda Ashram. The Ashram has properties extending over the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Gurudevan appointed two persons, namely, Chilprakasanandhaswami and Narayananandhaswami as his successors. Gurudevan attained Samadhi in the year 1955. But his appointee Chilprakasanandhaswami attained Samadhi even prior to C.R.P.No.277/2010 4 Gurudevan and hence the control and charge of the Ashram was taken over by the other appointee, namely, Narayananandhaswami as the rakshadhikari and he in turn, nominated Chilprakasanandhaswami (Junior) as his successor rakshadhikari. While Chilprakasanandhaswami (Junior) was the rakshadhikari, he and his disciples executed two agreements pertaining to the management of the Ashram as document Nos.20/1965 and 28/1978 of Parali SRO. Pursuant to these documents, the management of the Ashram was entrusted to a Managing Committee. Chilprakasanandhaswami (Junior) attained Samadhi in 1983 and the 2nd defendant Maheswaranandaswami, took over the administration of the Ashram, as its Managing Trustee. Yet another agreement was executed on 30.11.1988 pertaining to the management of the trust as document No.77/1988.
3. While the 2nd defendant was in control of the affairs of the Ashram, two Sanyasis, namely, Swamy Bhakthothamananda and Swamy Sachidhanandha approached the District Court, Palakkad by filing O.S.No.150/1999 for the purpose of framing of the scheme for management C.R.P.No.277/2010 5 of the Ashram and the same is still pending. It is pointed out that the plaintiffs, who filed that suit, are no more and without impleading anyone to proceed with the suit, it abated.
4. The allegation in the plaint is that the 2 nd defendant acted arbitrarily against the welfare of the trust, being guilty of misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance and thereby committed a breach of trust. It is pointed out that though the original document of 1945 specifically prohibits alienation of the properties belonging to the Ashram, it has violated by the 2nd defendant for no necessity, thereby misappropriating the proceeds of the unauthorised sale. The allegation is that the continuance of the 2 nd defendant as Madathipathi or managing trustee is detrimental to the Ashram. He has failed to adhere to the principles promulgated by the Gurudevan. Meetings are never convened in order to discuss the management issues of the trust and therefore the plaintiffs, as beneficiaries of the trust, pray that the 2 nd defendant be removed from the post of Managing trustee of the Ashram C.R.P.No.277/2010 6 and a scheme be settled for the proper administration and management of the Ashram. For these reliefs, the plaintiffs/petitioners seek leave of the Court.
5. Per contra, defendants 1 to 3 contend that the application is not maintainable as the suit would not lie under Section 92(2) of the C.P.C. The appropriate remedy available to the plaintiffs, if any, was to approach the Commissioner, HR&CE, who alone has the jurisdiction and right to decide in matters pertaining to the Ashram. The plaintiffs are without any cause of action, and their only intention is to harass the disciples of the Ashram, and interrupt with its peaceful functioning. It is further pointed out that for the very same reliefs, two suits are pending as O.S.Nos.150/1999 and 114/2005 and both of which have abated due to the death of the plaintiffs. For that reason too, this suit is not maintainable.
6. It is submitted that plaintiffs 1 and 3 as also the 1st defendant died during the pendency of this Revision Petition. No one is impleaded, as they are Sanyasis without legal heirs to succeed. C.R.P.No.277/2010 7
7. Section 92 of the C.P.C. is attracted under the following circumstances:
(i) There must exist a trust for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature;
(ii) Plaintiffs must allege that there is a breach of such trust and that the direction of the court is essential for the purpose of administration of a trust;
(iii) The suit must be filed in representative capacity for and on behalf of the public and not for the redressal of individual interest; and
(iv) The relief claimed in the suit must be one of the reliefs mentioned in the section.
Sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 92 reads thus:
"92. Public charities.- (1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate-General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the Court may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate to obtain a decree,-
(a) removing any trustee;
(b) appointing a new trustee;
(c) vesting any property in a trustee; (cc)directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property;
(d) directing accounts and inquires;C.R.P.No.277/2010 8
(e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust;
(f) authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged;
(g) settling a scheme; or
(h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.
(2) Save as provided by the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 (20 of 1863) or by any corresponding law in force in the territories which, immediately before the 1st November, 1956, were comprised in Part B States, no suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in sub-
section (1) shall be instituted in respect of any such trust as is therein referred to except in conformity with provisions of that sub-section."
The existence of a public trust of a religious or charitable nature is the most essential ingredient to attract the provisions of Section 92, C.P.C. It is explicit from the pleadings that vide document of 1945 when the trust was originally created by the founder, the intention was to serve the public in religious and charitable matters. There is a specific embargo in the document restraining the sale of the assets belonging to the trust. These facts are undisputed. Subsequently, there were other documents executed by the successors of Gurudevan to facilitate the management and administration of its properties. There is no dispute that the trust is one which is formed for C.R.P.No.277/2010 9 a religious and charitable purposes and not for the benefit of a group of persons or individuals.
8. The argument of the revision petitioners is that there is specific remedy available to the plaintiffs under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The Ashram is not a private Devaswom or a Temple. The provisions under that Act enables the Commissioner or the Board to assume the management of a Temple, if there is no provision enabling two or more devotees of a public temple to approach the Board or to assume the management of the religious endowment. The reliefs that is sought for in the instant suit can only be granted under Section 92 of C.P.C. and not under the provisions of HR&CE Act. There is absolutely no case for anyone that the Ashram is a private trust or a trust constituted for the benefit of any individual or particular group of persons.
9. A catena of decisions are cited by either sides defining the scope of Section 92, C.P.C. and I am not going into the details of each decision. The general purport of these decisions is that a suit under C.R.P.No.277/2010 10 Section 92 is of a special nature, which presupposes the existence of a public trust of a religious or charitable character, such suit can be proceeded only on the allegation that there is a breach of such trust and that directions from the Court are necessary for the administration of the trust. Going by the allegations in the plaint and petition, this suit will perfectly put in the requirement under Section 92 and hence I find nothing wrong in the learned Sub Judge allowing I.A.No.3161/2009 for proceeding with the suit under Section 92 of the C.P.C. It is also pertinent to note that the managing trustee is no more and a new managing trustee will have to take his place. Essentially, the need of a scheme to be formulated by the Court becomes essential. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned finding. The Revision Petition is therefore not sustainable.
In the result, the C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
dkr JUDGE