VMARIYAPPA Vs. B KPUTTARAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal relates to an institution known as the Sahajananda Bharathi Mutt situated in Bangalore City. There is a temple of the deity Omkareswara in the Mutt. The plaint if is claiming that they were the disciples of the Mutt which was a public institution, filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for the formulation of a scheme for the proper and efficient Management of the institution after removing defendants 1 to 11 who claimed to be in charge of the institution as members of the Managing Committee. Defendant 12, according to the plaintiffs, was the presiding Swami of the institution, having succeeded to that office according to tradition and usage which required that a Sanyasi should be the head of the Mutt, and had been in charge of its management with the help of an advisory Board. This Board did not function properly and later on two of the members i.e., defendant 1 and one Narayana Kao deceased, purported to appoint the others as members of the Managing Committee. This Committee had no legal or moral sanction behind it. They were seeking to oust defendant 12 from the Mutt. It was in these circumstances that they approached the Court for the removal of defendants 1 to 11 and for the formulation of a scheme. Defendants 1 to 11 in resisting the suit took up the stand that the institution was not a public one, that it had been founded by Sahajananda Swami who, under his will, had provided for its management by a Board of Trustees, that Defendants 1 to 11 constituted the present Board of Trustees, that the institution was not a Mutt which, according to tradition and usage, had to be presided over by a Sanyasi, that defendant 12 was an appointee of the Board charged with certain duties relating to the institution, that he had acted against the interests of the institution in consequence of which the Trustees had filed a suit for his removal and that the present suit was a Counter measure instigated by Defendant 12. They also denied that the plaintiffs were disciples of the Mutt and contended that the Mull had no disciples as such. Defendant 12 supported the case of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The learned Second Additional District Judge, Bangalore, found that the institution had to be presided over according to tradition and usage by a Sanyasi, that defendant 12 was the present holder of the office, that the plaintiffs were disciples of the Mutt, that the institution was in the nature of a public trust and that the circumstances called for the framing of a scheme. He accordingly formulated a scheme by the terms of which the management of the institution had to vest in a Committee of management consisting of seven persons including the Sub-Division Officer Bangalore Sub-division, who was to be its ex-officio President. The members had to be chosen at a general meeting of the devotees of the Mutt to be held for the purpose. The Committee was to hold office for three years and would have the right of filling up by co-option any vacancies that might occur in the interval. An interim Committee was also appointed to hold office for one year. The Swami occupying the seat by succession was to be the spiritual and religious head of the Mutt and was liable to be removed for misconduct or other sufficient cause by a majority of 75 per cent, of the disciples present at a meeting called for the purpose by the committee of Management. Defendants 1 to 5 and 7 to 11 have preferred this appeal challenging the decision on various grounds.

(3.) In the course of arguments the learned Advocate for the Appellants staled that he would not press that the institution was not a public institution and the parties were agreed that the question of the alleged mismanagement by defendants 1 to 11 need not be gone into and that an appropriate scheme may be framed vesting the management in a committee consisting of 11 persons chosen by common agreement from lists filed in this Court by the Advocates. It was also agreed that in addition to the above persons the Sub-division Officer, Bangalore Sub-division, should be a member and ex-officio President of the Committee, and in the event of its not being possible to secure him the Committee of Trustees will consist only of the eleven persons mentioned above and would elect their own President. The Committee would have the right of filling up vacancies whenever they occur. The Sub-division Officer, Bangalore, was notified and requested to intimate to the Court whether he would be agreeable to be on the Committee and to be its ex-officio President. He appeared in person before the Court on 26th of September 1957 and expressed his willingness.