Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"rhypthfd rfhg;jk; 1771k; tUlk; ij khjk; 4k; njjp k';fsh thuk; ijg;g{rj;jpdj;jd;W"

17. P.W.1 has also admitted that the said stone inscription directs that no samadhi should be allowed inside the said property donated for the math. It is also admitted by P.W.1 that Sachidananda Swamigal (disciple of Arunachala Swamigal), in his Will has directed that the preaching of advaita principles should be done by any one of his disciples, either in the math situated in Kandasamy Koil Street or at some other place and that seasonal and annual guru pooja for his guru, namely Arnuchala Swamigal, should be conducted in the above said math. It is also admitted by P.W.1 that old door No.2/63, Kandasamy Koil Street has been described to be a math in the by-laws of plaintiff sabha. At the same time, P.W.1 would also plead ignorance as to whether Sachidananda Swamigal was using it as a math. The very fact that P.W.1 was not in a position to deny the suggestion that Sachidananda Swamigal was using the said property as a math will make the case of the respondents/defendants that the suit institution is a math, more probable.

23. On the other hand, it is quite obvious that the property wherein the samathi of Srimad Sachidananda Swamigal has been built itself was the one donated by one Sengalvaraya Pillai to Arunachala Swamigal for being used as a math. It is also obvious from the admission of P.W.1 that the said property should be used only for the purposes of math and that the above said Sachidananda Swamigal himself, in his Will, directed that no samathi should be put up in the said property. It is also obvious from the evidence that plaintiff sabha was established in 1885 by Sachidananda Swamigal himself only as an institution to aid the math in the propagation of advaita and that after the demise of Srimad Sachidananda Swamigal, much against the dictates and wishes of Sachidananda Swamigal himself, the office bearers of the plaintiff sabha put up the samathi of Srimad Sachidananda Swamigal in door No.123, Sachidanandam Street and of late with a view to enjoy the properties of the math and keep them out of the control of the H.R. & C.E. Authorities, have come forward with the plea that there was no math at all and that the plaintiff sabha is the sole proprietor of all the properties mentioned above.

25. Section 6(18) of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowmentss Act, 1959 defines a "religious institution" as follows:-

(18) "religious institution" means a math, temple or specific Endowments.

It was the original definition of 'religious institution' provided in the Act. In 2003, by Act 10/2003, the said definition was amended by including "a 'samadhi or brindavan and any other institution established or maintained for a religious purpose" within the definition of 'religious institution'. However, the said amendment was nullified and the original position of the definition of 'religious institution' was restored, vide Tamil Nadu Act 4/2008, whereby "samadhi, brindavan and any other institution established or maintained for a religious purpose" included in the definition of 'religious institution' by Act 10 of 2003 has been deleted. The question actually involved in this case is not whether the suit institution is a samadhi or math? A close study of the evidence will show that the property in which the samadhi of Srimad Sachidananda Swamigal has been put up is one of the properties belonging to a religious institution, namely a math. The math has been founded and run to propagate advaita philosophies, which is no doubt a specie of Hindu religion. Therefore, the math functioning at 53, Kanda Sami Koil Street is, no doubt, a religious institution falling squarely within the definition of religious institution found in section 6(18) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. In case, the plaintiff's contention is accepted, then it will open the gates for the disciples of a math to form a society to run the math, intern the mortal remains of a madathipathi in one of its properties and then claim that only a sabha and not the math which is in existence and hence the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act will not be applicable to the properties of the math. Therefore, this court comes to the conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff has miserably failed in proving the suit institution, for which the Assistant Commissioner has appointed a fit person to carry out the function of a board of trustees, to be not one coming under the definition of religious institution under section 6(18) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and that the plaintiff sabha, formed to supplement the objectives of the suit math, completely ignoring the said fact, has chosen to wrongly claim that there is no math and the sabha alone is in existence and thus, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments authorities have no power to appoint a fit person. This court also comes to the conclusion that the defendants have proved that the suit institution is a math very much coming within the definition of religious institution and that the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for a declaration under a supposed misconception that fit person was appointed for the society and not for the math. The finding of the court below to the effect that the suit institution is a math deserves no interference and the same deserves to be confirmed. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.