Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. More than a century ago, a certain Madivalayya founded a Math, known as "Adavi Math" in Mareguddi village, Jamkhandi taluk. In 1890 Madivalayya died. His grand-son Parayya became the Mathadhikari. Upon the death of Parayya, one Rachayya became the Mathadhipati. After his death dispute arose as to the right and mode of succession to the Headship of the Math as between two claimants-Chikkayyaswamy and gurupadayya.

2. On 30th May 1952, Chikkayyaswamy presented a petition u/s 18 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 (shortly called "the Act") to register the Math as a public trust, and to register himself and Gurupadayya as co-trustees. On 22nd Dec. 1953, the Assistant Charity Commissioner accepted his case registered them as trustees. That order was made without any notice to Gurupadayya. In 1956, Gurupadayya claiming to be the sole trustee, questioned the legality of the said order in a revision petition before the Charity Commissioner u./s 70-A of the Act. On 15th Dec. 1958 the Charity Commissioner set aside the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner and directed a fresh enquiry. Pursuant to the said order, the Assistant Charity Commissioner after recording evidence, made an order dated 20th Oct. 1961 recognising the rival claimants as de facto co-trustees but not as de jure trustees. The claimants were not satisfied with that order. They appealed to the Charity Commissioner under section 70 of the Act. On 19th Oct. 1962, the Charity Commissioner dismissed both the appeals. He however, directed that the successor to the Mathadhipati could be appointed by nomination or, in default by election by the disciples and followers of the Math from amongst the members of the family.

4. Against the order of the District Judge three appeals M. F. A. Nos. 100, 101 and 143 of 1972 were preferred in this Court under section 72(4) of the Act; the first two by Gurupadayya and the third one by Adaviswamy. This court by order dated 11th Sept. 1973 allowed the appeals and remanded the matter with the following direction:

"The learned District Judge before whom the enquiry was held under section 72 erred in holding that the Charity Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction when he ordered that the mode of succession to the Mutt in question depended upon either the choice of the Mathadhipati, or in default, on the election by the disciples of the Mutt. We are of the opinion that the finding of the learned District Judge is vitiated on account of the misconstruction of the order passed by the Charity Commissioner under section 70 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The order passed by the learned District Judge in Misc., Application Nos. 62 and 63 of 1964 is therefore, set aside, and the cases are remanded to the District Judge. The District Judge is directed to dispose of the two applications referred to above afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein."

In other words, this court directed the District Judge to consider the rival claims of the parties and to determine as to who should be the trustee of the Math having regard to the law and custom governing the succession.

5. When the matter was pending before the District Judge, Gurupadayya also died. Nirupadayyaswamy was brought on record as his legal representative. The litigation was thus taken over by the second generation. On 16th Nov. 1974, the District Judge made an order holding as follows: (i) that the mode of succession to the Mathadhipati should be by the election and it should be an election by lots when there are more than one contestants; (ii) BY the usage of succession, there cannot be two Mathadhikaries at the same time; (iii) The right of appointment of Mathadhikari ultimately vested in the Bhaktas and the public; (iv) Chikkayyaswamy was duly elected as per the said usage and Adaviswamy has a right to succeed as a sole trustee of the Math; and (v) Gurupadaswamy has no right to nominate his successor.

13. With this background, we may now analyse the provisions of S. 19. It provides for enquiry on the question among others, about the mode of succession to the office of a trustee. The mode of succession to the office of a trustee, according to the learned counsel for the respondent covers questions relating to succession in respect of all matters including the Headship of a Math. We gave our anxious consideration to this contention. We are afraid that it would be misconstruing the scope of the section and misunderstanding question of succession to the office of a Mathadhipati. It must be borne in mind that there cannot be a Mathadhipati without a Math, and a Math without a Mathadhipati. The Mathadhipati is a spiritual head or a spiritual superior. The primary object of a Math is to maintain a competent line of religious teachers for propagating religious doctrines of a particular order or sect. The definition of "Math" under section. 2(9) makes this matter clear by stating that "Math" is an institution for the promotion of the Hindu religion presided over by a person whose duty it is to engage himself in imparting religious instructions of rendering spiritual service to a body of disciples. The succession to the office of Mahant is therefore a religious matter and it is usually regulated by religious practices or custom of the particular math. The Privy Council in Satnam Singh v. Bhagwan Singh (AIR 1938 PC 216 at p. 217) observed:-