Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Noosam Veerabhadra Swamy vs The State Of Ap on 1 May, 2025
APHC010587172024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3483]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1066/2024
Between:
N. Govinda Swamy, and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. G V S GANESH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V VENUGOPALA RAO
2. V V N NARASIMHAM
3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
APHC010597102024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3483]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WRIT APPEAL NO: 3/2025
Between:
Noosam Veerabhadra Swamy ...APPELLANT
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. R K ACHARYULU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. BEJJAM NAGARAJU
2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
3. G V S GANESH
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
DATE:
COMMON ORDER:
(Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati)
Feeling aggrieved by the common order dated 03.10.2024 passed in
W.P.No.29071 of 2021 & W.P.No.42248 of 2022, the petitioners in the said
writ petitions preferred the intra Court appeals vide W.A.No.1066/2024 and
W.A.No.3 of 2025, respectively, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
2. Inasmuch as the parties in these writ appeals are common and the relief
sought is interrelated, both the writ appeals are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order.
3. The facts that led to filing of these writ appeals, in brief, are that:
(a) ‘Sri Mad Virat Pothuluri Veera Bhrahmendra Swamy Mutt’ (herein
after referred to as ‘Mutt’) was found by Sri Sri Sri Pothuluri Veerabhramendra
Swamy, a celebrated social reformer and futurologist (Kalagnani), about more
than 350 years ago. The main person or Guru of Mutt is popularly known as
Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi. He (Sri Pothuluri Veerabrahmendra Swamy)
started this Mutt when he was 15 years old, at Kandimallayapalle,Brahmamgari Matam Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh, acted as
Peetaadhipathi/Mataadhipathi and took Sajeeva Samadhi Nishta at the age of
85, after nominating his wife Sri Sri Sri Govindamamba as 1st
Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi. He also advised his legal heirs and disciples to
hand over the management of Mutt to his sons. So far, more than 11 persons
have discharged their duties as Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi, nominated by
their respective predecessor Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi, where women
were also nominated, and the same procedure is being followed over all these
years and became an established custom.
(b) Following the said custom, Sri Sri Sri Veerabhoga Vasantha
Venkateswara Swamy Varu (late) acted as Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi from
1969 until his death on 08.05.2021. He had 6 sons and 4 daughters (who are
alive). Out of these children, 4 sons were, through his 1st wife Late
Smt.Chandravathamma and after her demise in the year, 2005, he married
Smt N.Maruthi Mahalakhsmi (2nd petitioner in W.P.No.29071/2021) and gave
birth to Sri N.Govinda Swamy on 10.07.2007 (1st petitioner in
W.P.No.29071/2021).
(c) On 01.10.2010, Sri Sri Sri Veerabhoga Vasantha Venkateswara
Swamy Varu (late) had nominated Sri N.Govinda Swamy (1st petitioner in
W.P.No.29071/2021) as successor Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi of the Mutt
after his demise and intimated the same to the Dharmika Parishad (3rd
respondent) through Certificate of Posting. Also, he had executed a Will
dated 10.11.2018 nominating the 1st petitioner in W.P.No.29071/2021, aspermanent Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi of the Mutt and 2nd petitioner in
W.P.No.29071/2021, as temporary Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi till her son
(1st petitioner in W.P.No.29071/2021) attains majority. The execution of said
Will was intimated to the 3rd respondent-Dharmika Parishad, by 2nd petitioner
in W.P.No.29071/2021, in person, on 28.11.2018 and also through Courier
Service on 01.12.2018, within the stipulated time under the Andhra Pradesh
Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987
(herein after, referred to as ‘Act, 1987’).
(d) Whereas, Sri N.Veerabhadra Swamy (petitioner in W.P.No.42248
of 2022), who is the first wife’s second son of Sri Sri Sri Veerabhoga Vasantha
Venkateswara Swamy Varu) claims that, his father/Matadhipathi, during his
life time, had made a nomination in writing in a separate sheet duly attested
and scribed, choosing him as successor Matadhipathi and the same was
confirmed by his father in his own hand writing and was also noted in his
personal diary in the year 2006. All the important things of Sri Sri Sri
Veerabhoga Vasantha Venkateswara Swamy Varu were kept in an iron safe,
in his personal room, in the matam, which was seized by the official
respondents and they did not even open it, upon enquiry. In the said
circumstances, Sri N.Veerabhadra Swamy, (first wife’s second son) had made
representations dated 25.06.2021 and 26.06.2021 requesting the Dharmika
Parishad to appoint him as Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi to Mutt, recognizing
his father’s nomination.
(e) However, the Special Commissioner of Endowments Department
issued proceedings dated 12.06.2021, appointing the 4th respondent
(Assistant Commissioner of Endowments) as a fit person to manage the
affairs of the Mutt, alleging that there are disputes among the family members
of deceased Sri Sri Sri Veerabhoga Vasantha Venkateswara Swamy Varu.
Pursuant to the said proceedings, the 4th respondent had issued a letter dated
13.06.2021 directing the Manager of the Mutt to hand over all the records of
movable and immovable properties of the Mutt with immediate effect.
Challenging the said letter and claiming the management of Mutt, the
petitioners in W.P.No.29071/2021 filed W.P.No.12609/2021 which was partly
allowed setting aside the order of the Special Commisioner. As the claim of
succession over the office of Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi was not answered
by the learned Single Judge, the petitioners in W.P.No.29071/2021 have
preferred W.A.No.535 of 2021 and the same got disposed of on 23.09.2021
directing the 3rd respondent to consider their claim on succession to the office
of Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi on merits after giving due opportunity to all the
concerned, within a period of two months.
(f) Pursuant to directions of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court,
the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 28.11.2021 rejecting the claim of
the petitioners in W.P.No.29071/2021 as successors to the office of
Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi. Thereafter, on 29.11.2021, the 3rd respondent
(Dharmika Parishad), issued two orders: (i) Appointing the 4th respondent
(Assistant Commissioner of Endowments) as fit person, purely on temporary
basis for day to day management, (ii) Appointing the 5th respondent (Joint
Commissioner of Endowments) as Authorised Officer to convene a meeting of
Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi of other Mutts of the same Sampradayam and
disciples of the same Mutt and to submit a report to Dharmika Parishad to
proceed further to recognize the person nominated in such meeting, as
Matadhipathi.
(g) Aggrieved by the above three orders, the second wife of
deceased Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi and her son filed W.P.No.29071/2021
and second son of deceased Peetadhipathi through first wife had filed
W.P.No.42248 of 2022.
4. The contents of the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents can be
summarized as under:
(a) The 2nd & 3rd respondents in both the writ appeals have
contended that, in view of the disputes arose between the family members of
deceased Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi for succession for the
Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi and, in the interests of public service and for
better administration, the Dharmika Parishad had appointed the 4th
respondent as Fit-person to the Mutt till permanent Mataadhipathi is appointed
to the Mutt. Further, pursuant to the directions of this Court in
W.A.No.535/2021 (filed by petitioners in W.P.No.29071/2021), an enquiry was
conducted by issuing prior notices to all the concerned parties directing to
appear before the Dharmika Parishad along with all the material papers. All
the concerned parties have appeared and submitted their oral argumentsbesides representations along with enclosures, opposing each other’s claim
for succession. In the said circumstances, the Dharmika Parishad, after
examining the records in detail, issued proceedings dated 28.11.2021
rejecting the claim of the petitioners in both the writ petitions, and gave liberty
to participate in the meeting with Matadhipathis of other Mutt of same
Sampradayam, convened by the 5th respondent, being appointed as
Authorised Officer vide proceedings dated 29.11.2021. The 3rd respondent-
Dharmika Parishad also issued separate proceedings dated 29.11.2021,
appointing the 4th respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Endowments) as fit
person, purely on temporary basis for day to day management of Mutt till the
appointment of permanent Mataadhipathi to the Mutt. As the above said
proceedings were issued pursuant to the directions of the Division bench of
this court in W.A.No.535/2021, there is neither any illegality nor procedural
irregularity in issuance of the same.
(b) Sri Noosam Venkatradri Swamy, (6th respondent in
W.P.No.29071/2021 and 8th respondent in W.P.No.42248 of 2022), who is the
first wife’s first son of deceased Mataadhipathi contended that, being the
eldest son, he is alone competent to succeed as Mataadhipathi as per
customs and usage of Subject Mutt and all other claimants are ineligible to
hold the status of Mataadhipathi, according to provision of Section 53(2) of the
Act, 1987. He further contended that, all the material papers provided by the
other claimants are absolutely incorrect and are manipulated to suit their
requirements. As such, the arrangements made by the authorities till filling up
of vacancy to avoid dislocation in administration of Mutt, are in accordance
with law and cannot be find fault with.
(c) Sri Noosam Veerabhadra Swamy, (petitioner in W.P.No.42248 of
2022 and 7th respondent in W.P.No.29071/2021), who is 1st wife’s 2nd son of
deceased Mataadhipathi contended that, the successor Matadhipathi shall
have basic knowledge about the Mutt principles and relevant sampradya and
also capacity to impart the knowledge and preach the tenets, religious
temperament and unquestionable moral character. He further submitted that,
Sri Noosam Venkatradri Swamy, (6th respondent in W.P.No.29071/2021 and
8th respondent in W.P.No.42248 of 2022) or N.Govinda Swamy (1st petitioner
in W.P.No.29071/2021 & 6th respondent in W.P.No.42248 of 2022), both, have
not taken Guru upadesham from late Mataadhipathi and have not attended to
any religious rituals including preaching. Moreover, Sri Noosam Venkatradri
Swamy is practicing as an advocate at Prodattur Bar and without obtaining
permission from the Bar Council of State of A.P., he is claiming the permanent
succession of Mataadhipathi contrary to the provisions of Section 52 of the
Act, 1987 and Sri N.Govinda Swamy is a student and minor. Therefore, both
are not eligible for holding the post of Mataadhipathi as per the statutory
principles. Further, the Dharmika Parishad is an invalid one which deserves
to be set aside as it was not constituted under the provisions of Section 54(2)
of the Act, 1987. Therefore, the appointment of permanent Mataadhipathi is
still in question unless the Dharmika Parishad is constituted under provisions
of the Act, 1987 and the appointments made by the said Dharmika Parishad
are also not valid. Hence, he alone, is competent one for succession of the
said post.
(d) Sri N.Govinda Swamy and N.Maruthi Mahalakshmi (petitioners in
W.P.No.29071/2021 and 6th & 7th respondents in W.P.No.42248 of 2022)
opposed the claim of the others stating that the documents relied by them i.e.,
nomination dated 01.10.2010 and subsequent will dated 10.11.2018, were
nowhere disputed by anyone. Moreover, according to the customs and
usages of the Mutt, the Guru Pathni (Smt N.Maruthi Mahalakshmi) will be the
1st disciple, who is entitled to hold the temporary vacancy. Therefore,
appointing a Government official as fit person ignoring the Guru Pathni, is
illegal and beyond the powers of Dharmika Parishad and the same needs to
be quashed. Further, Sri Noosam Veerabhadra Swamy, (petitioner in
W.P.No.42248 of 2022 and 7th respondent in W.P.No.29071/2021) worked as
Ticket Clerk in the establishment of Subject Mutt from July, 2006 until mid
June, 2021, which was suppressed by him and, he failed to produce his
nomination or original Will in the meeting of the Dharmika Parishad or before
this Court, as such, such nomination has no consequence and credibility.
5. After considering all the submissions, learned single judge has
dismissed both the writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.29071/2021 & W.P.No.42248 of
2022 under a common order directing the petitioners as well as the
respondents to approach Competent Civil Court having original jurisdiction
subject to limitation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners therein preferred these
appeals.
6. Heard Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned Senior counsel representing learned
counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.1066 of 2024, Sri P.Girish Kumar,
learned Senior counsel representing learned counsel for the appellants in
W.A.No.3 of 2025, Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned Government Pleader for
Endowments and Sri V.Venugopal Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the 6th
respondent in W.A.No.1066 of 2024 and 8th respondent in W.A.No.3 of 2025.
7. Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned Senior counsel for the appellants in
W.A.No.1066 of 2024 while reiterating the grounds of appeal and contents of
the writ affidavit submitted that, in the proceedings dated 12.06.2021, the
Dharmika Parishad has admitted about the receipt of a copy of Will of
appellants which includes the nomination of the petitioners/appellants as
Mataadhipathi & acting Mataadhipathi, whereas in the impugned proceedings
dated 28.11.2021, the 3rd respondent-Dharmika Parishad has mentioned that
they have ‘not traced’ the documents, though the nomination dated
01.10.2010 and Will dated 10.11.2018 executed in favour of appellants were
served in person on 28.11.2018 and also through Courier Service on
01.12.2018, within the stipulated time, under the Act, 1987, in order to mislead
this Court and to favour the 6th respondent to succeed as Mataadhipathi under
Section 54(2) of the Act, 1987. The above said aspect that, the 3rd
respondent has taken two contradictory statements, was not properly dealt by
the learned Single Judge. Also, the learned Single Judge went on a
supposition that even if the unregistered will dated 10.11.2018 is true, it
cannot be taken as a last will of the deceased Mataadhipathi, as his second
son through first wife also produced a copy of the unregistered will dated
23.01.2021 said to have been executed by the late Mataadhipathi, which runs
contrary to the very impugned order dated 28.11.2021.
Moreover, in the writ petition filed by the second son of deceased
Mataadhipathi through his first wife i.e., W.P.No.42248 of 2022, there was no
mention of any will in his favour, as could be seen from the averments and
documents filed therewith. Therefore, the learned single judge has made
irreconcilable and self-contradictory conclusion which is wholly unsustainable
in law. Further, the learned single judge failed to appreciate that, the
annexure/exhibits filed in support of the appellants were not disputed/denied
by the respondents including contesting respondents, rendering the order
under appeal a nullity.
Learned Senior Counsel submitted that, Section 54(2) of the Act, 1987,
comes into play where a Mataadhipathi fails to nominate his successor under
sub-setion(1), but in the present case the Mataadhipathi has nominated the
petitioners/appellants under Section 54(1) and it was intimated within the
stipulated time, as such, Section 54(2) is not applicable to the subject Mutt
and only statutory obligation left to the official respondents is to recognize the
nomination of the petitioners/appellants under Section 54(1) of the Act, 1987.
Therefore, the refusal of the nominations of the petitioners/appellants is
against the settled position of law. He further contended that, as the
Dharmika Parishad did not conduct proper enquiry and also failed to consider
the material placed before it while rejecting the petitioners/appellants
nomination, all the three impugned proceedings issued separately on
28.11.2021 and 29.11.2021 are contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1987 and
deserves to be set aside. Hence, prayed to allow W.A.No.1066 of 2024 by
directing the authorities to appoint the petitioners as successor Mataadhipathi.
8. Sri P.Girish Kumar, learned Senior counsel representing learned
counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.3 of 2025 and 7th respondent in
W.A.No.1066 of 2024 while reiterating the grounds of appeal, contents of the
writ affidavit and counter submitted that, the said Dharmika Parishad is not
constituted under the provisions of Section 54(2) of the Act, 1987, as such, the
appointments made by the said Dharmika Parishad under proceedings dated
28.11.2021 and 29.11.2021 are not valid. He further submitted that, other
claimants are not eligible for holding the post of Mataadhipathi as per statutory
principles, as they have not met the eligibility criteria as per Section 53 of the
Act, 1987 and the petitioner/appellant in W.A.No.3 of 2025, alone is
competent for succession of the said post and prayed to allow the W.A.No.3 of
2025 by directing the authorities to appoint the petitioner as successor
Mataadhipathi.
9. On the other hand, Sri V.Venugopal Rao, learned Senior counsel for the
6th respondent in W.A.No.1066 of 2024 and 8th respondent in W.A.No.3 of
2025 contended that, as per Section 54(1) of the Act, 1987, subject to
provisions of Section 53, a Mataadhipathi may nominate his successor. The
fact of such nomination shall be intimated to the Commissioner, within 90 days
of such nomination and the Dharmika Parishad may recognize such
nomination. In view of the above provision, when the deceased Mataadhipathi
made nomination in the year 2010, as alleged by the claimants, no steps were
taken within 90 days and they are taking steps after the death of deceased
Mataadhipathi in the year 2021, which shows that there is no nomination till
the year 2010 as alleged by the claimants. Hence, as the claim of the
claimants is suspicious, the Dharmika Parishad has rightly decided to
undertake the clause of Section 54(2) of the Act, 1987 and rightly issued the
proceedings making temporary arrangements for the management of Mutt till
the permanent Matadhipathi is appointed.
10. Whereas, Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned Government Pleader for
Endowments contended that, the documents relied by the claimants were
never received by the office of the Commissioner, Endowments department,
as alleged by the claimants and moreover, there is no order of the Dharmika
Parishad recognizing the alleged nomination made by the Mataadhipathi of
the Mutt, which is mandatory to complete the process of the recognition of
successor Mataadhpathi as per Section 54(1) of the Act, 1987. He further
submitted that, even otherwise, if the alleged nomination/will of late
Mataadhipathi, which are relied by the claimants are true and correct, they
ought to have pursued the matter and get it recognized by the Dharmika
Parishad as per provisions of Section 54(1) of the Act, 1987, but the claimants
did not do so. The claimants ought to have intimated such nomination to the
Dharmika Parishad during the lifetime of the Mataadhipathi, within 90 days of
such alleged nomination/executed will. Therefore, the nomination of
Mataadhipathi to next Mataadhipathi should be a clear nomination on paper
expressing his intention to be considered as required under Section 54 of the
Act, 1987, but not after his death. Hence, the documents relied by the
claimants carries no value. In the said circumstances, the authorities have
rightly issued impugned proceedings and the learned single judge has rightly
directed the parties to approach the Civil Court raising their grievance. The
petitioners/appellants have not made out any case warranting the interference
of this Court and the writ appeals deserves dismissal.
11. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties.
12. A perusal of the record would indicate that, Sri Sri Sri Veerabhoga
Vasantha Venkateswara Swamy Varu (late) acted as Peetadhipathi to the
Mutt from 1969 until his death on 08.05.2021. The sons of the deceased
Peetadhipathi through his first wife and second wife are claiming the
succession of Peethadhipathi/Mataadhipathi of the Mutt. The second wife’s
first son is claiming the succession through two documents i.e., nomination
dated 01.10.2010 and an unregistered will dated 10.11.2018 said to be
executed by deceased Mataadhipathi in their favour and further claimed that
the factum of said nomination and Will were informed to the Dharmika
Parishad, in person and through courier service, within stipulated time under
the provisions of Act, 1987. The sons of deceased Mataadhipathi through his
first wife seriously opposed the claim made by the son through second wife.
The first son of the deceased Mataadhipathi through his first wife claimed that,
as per the Sampradayam of the Mutt, only elder son of the deceased
Mataadhipathi is eligible to be recognized as successor of deceased
Mataadhipathi, whereas the second son of deceased Mataadipathi through
first wife has relied on two unregistered wills said to be executed by the late
Mataadhipathi, in his favour, on 01.07.2006 and 23.01.2021.
13. The official respondents have stated that the said documents i.e.,
nomination dated 01.10.2010, unregistered wills dated 10.11.2018 and
23.01.2021(second son of late Mataadhipathi through first wife) were not
submitted to the Dharmika Parishad, as required under Section 54(1) of the
Act, 1987 and consequently, they carries no value. Hence, the authorities
have issued the proceedings dated 28.11.2021 rejecting their claim as
successors to the office of Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi and appointed the 4th
respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Endowments) as fit person, purely on
temporary basis for day to day management of Mutt vide proceedings dated
29.11.2021 and also issued proceedings dated 29.11.2021 appointing the 5th
respondent (Joint Commissioner of Endowments) as Authorised Officer to
convene a meeting of Peetadhipathi/Mataadhipathi of other Mutts of the same
Sampradayam and disciples of the same Mutt and to submit a report to
Dharmika Parishad to proceed further to recognize the person nominated in
such meeting, as Mataadhipathi.
14. The claimants (sons of deceased Mataadhipathi through first wife and
second wife) contended that, the 3rd respondent-Dharmika Parishad was not
constituted under the provisions of Section 54(2) of the Act, 1987, as such, the
appointments made by the said Dharmika Parishad under proceedings dated
28.11.2021 and 29.11.2021 are completely without authority or jurisdiction.
15. Section 53 & 54 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious
Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 reads as follows:
53. Filling of permanent vacancies in the office of Mathadhipathi:
(1) Where a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the Mathadhipathi,
by reason of death or resignation or on account of his removal under
section 51 or otherwise the person next entitled to succeed, according to
the rule of succession laid down by the founder, or where no such rule is
laid down, according to the usage or custom of the math, or where no such
usage or custom exists according to the law of succession, for the time
being in force, shall with the permission of the Dharmika Parishad succeed
to the office of the Mathadhipathi.
(2) A person for succession to the office of the Mathadhipathi under sub-
section (1) shall possess the following qualifications, namely:-
(a) basic knowledge of the Hindu Religion and Philosophy;
(b) knowledge of the relevant scriptures and sampradaya to which the math
belongs;
(c) capacity to impact the knowledge and preach the tenets of the math to
the disciples;
(d) religious temperment with implicit faith in discipline and practice; and
(e) unquestionable moral character.
54. Nomination of mathadhipathi:
(1) Subject to the provisions of Section 53, a mathadhipathi may nominate
his successor. The fact of such nomination shall be intimated to the
Dharmika Parishad, within ninety days of such nomination and the
Dharmika Parishad, may recognise such nomination. A nomination shall
not be complete unless it is recognised by the Dharmika Parishad. The
conditions for recognition shall be such as may be prescribed.(2) Where a Mathadhipathi fails to nominate his successor under sub-
section (1) or where there is no mathadhipathi, the Dharmika Parishad or
any officer authorised by it shall after due publication convene a meeting
with the mathadhipathis of other maths of the same sampradayam and the
disciples of the math and recognise the person nominated in such
meetings as a mathadhipathi subject to the provisions of this Act. The
procedure for convening the meeting and method of publication shall be
such as may be prescribed.
16. Section 53(1) of the Act, 1987 specifies the procedure for filling up of
permanent vacancies in the office of the Mataadhipathi. According to which,
the person next entitled to succeed according to rule of succession laid down
by founder shall, with the permission of Dharmika Parishad succeed to office
of the Mataadhipathi. In the absence of any such rule of succession,
according to the usage or custom of the Mutt and if no such usage or custom
exists according to the law of succession, for the time being in force.
17. It is categorical contention of the petitioners in W.P.No.29071/2021 that
founder of the Mutt, Sri Sri Sri Pothuluri Veerabramendra Swamy had advised
his legal heirs and disciples to hand over management of the Mutt to his sons
and the said procedure is being followed over all these years. In the absence
of any denial on the part of the respondents, the said procedure can safely be
held to have become a custom or usage of the Mutt. According to the said
custom, the sons of the Mataadhipathi are entitled to succeed the office of the
Mataadhipathi.
18. A plain reading of Section 53(2) of the Act, 1987 would indicate that a
person claiming succession to the office of Mataadhipathi shall possess
qualification enumerated therein. As per Section 54(1) of the Act, 1987, a
Mataadhipathi may nominate his successor subject to the provision of Section
53. A cumulative effect of Section 53(1) & 54(1) of the Act, 1987 is that,
dehors nomination also a person entitled as per rule of succession/usage or
custom/law of succession can become Mataadhipathi of the Mutt. A
harmonious reading of Section 53(2) and Section 54(1) of the Act, 1987
makes it abundantly clear that the person claiming succession or the person
nominated by his successor shall possess the qualification envisaged under
Section 53(2) of the Act, 1987.
19. In the present case, three sons of late Mataadhidpathi are claiming
succession through nomination and also under unregistered wills whereas the
Dharmika Parishad has taken a stand that the said documents carry no value
since they were not submitted within the stipulated time under Section 54(1) of
the Act, 1987 and also there is a dispute with regard to Wills. In view of the
rival claims made by the sons of the deceased Mataadhipathi, regarding their
nomination as successor, the very nomination itself is in dispute. Hence, as
rightly held by the learned single judge the present cases involve mixed
question of facts, i.e., nomination, unregistered wills with regard to declaration
of son who has to be nominated as Mataadhipathi, which have to be decided
by the Civil Court, but not under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the
finding returned by the learned single judge, in that regard needs no
interference.
20. However, as raised by the claimants, the disposal of the proceedings
initiated before the Civil Courts may consume considerable time. In view of
the custom being followed by the Mutt referred to supra, any of the sons of
Mataadhipathi is eligible to become Mataadhipathi provided, he possesses
necessary qualification. So, it is unwarranted to leave administration of the
Mutt to endowments officials till conclusion of the Civil Court proceedings, if
filed any. Therefore, so as to see that there may not be any disruption in the
custom, it is appropriate to direct the three sons of Mataadhipathi to first
approach Dharmika Parishad to prove their eligibility of possessing required
qualification (other than nomination) enumerated in Section 53(2) of the Act,
1987 and also any other qualification that is required as per rules. If anyone is
found eligible, he can be nominated as Mataadhipathi, however, it would be
subject to the outcome of the suits filed if any.
21. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to modify the orders of the
learned single judge with the following directions:
(i) The claimants, who are claiming succession over the post of
Mataadhipathi, through their documents, shall approach the competent Civil
Court to undergo the test of eligibility and to prove their respective succession.
(ii) In the meantime, the claimants shall put-forth their claim before
the Dharmika Parishad for appointment of Mataadhipathi, as per Section 54(2)
of the Act,1987 and the authorities shall consider the same and nominateaccordingly, as per Section 53(2), subject to outcome of the suits filed, if any.
With the above directions, both the appeals are disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand
closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,J
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J
BRS
[ad_1]
Source link