Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

By consent, both the writ petitions are taken up for consideration.

2. W.P.No.273 of 2018, has been filed by V.Pasavaraj, who claimed to be Trustee & Madathipathi of Arulmigu Gurunamachaviya Moorthy Swamigal Mutt, Chidambaram. The said Mutt appears to control, about 100 houses, 20 shops and 30 covering pattarais and also a school by name Kamaraj Matriculation with about 4000 sq.ft., of land and one Thirupparkadal Tank. It is stated that there are also several tenants in the said premises. One individual by name Saravanan, who also claims to be interested in the Mutt, had given a complaint against the petitioner herein on 30.10.2015 before the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Cuddalore. Notice was issued to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. A report was also received from the Tahsildar seeking to identify the properties of the Mutt. It was then found that, most of the properties were actually transferred, sold and that the school also has been leased out and various acts of mischief had also been committed.

5. Heard the learned counsels for both the sides in both the writ petitions.

6. It is the claim of the present petitioner that his father had executed a Will in his favour and he has become Madathipathi of the said Mutt. It has been stated that his forefathers, for time immemorial for the past nearly 100 years, have been conducting all the religious rites and there was no necessity for http://www.judis.nic.in  Writ Petition Nos.273 of 2018 & 12145 of 2019 appointment of a fit person.

9. Any Mutt, which is administered by a Madathipathi requires dedicated administration by the Madathipathi. Dedicated administration would include not only performing religious rites but also administering and protecting the properties of the Mutt. If the properties are sold or leased out, and such actions of the Mutt are reported to the department, the HR & CE has an inherent right to step in to regularize the activities. In the present case also, a complaint made by one Saravanan, who has been impleaded as the 5th respondent, it has been found that there were several instances of Mutt mal- administration including sale of properties. The sale of properties would mean that not only does the properties go away from the custody of the Mutt but also receipt of sale considerations to the detriment of the Mutt. If such considerations are taken away by any individual member, this would be to the loss of the Mutt. This cannot be permitted. It has to be prevented.