SRIMAD ESSOR SACHITHANANDA SWAMIGAL DHARMA PARIPALANA SABHA SECRETARY K SATCHIDANADAM Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER KANDASAMI ADIMOTTAI AMMAN KOIL KOSAPET MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. Consequent to the appointment of the first respondent herein as the fit person to per- form the functions of the Board of Trustees to the suit institution holding it to be a religious institution, the appellant/plaintiff sabha, represented by its secretary, filed an application before the second respondent/second defendant, namely the Deputy Commissioner (H.R. & C.E.), Madras in O.A. No. 36 of 1979 under Section 63(a)(c)(d) of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 praying for a declaration that the suit institution was a private society and not a religious institution coming under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959). The said original application, after hearing, was dismissed by the second respondent herein by an order dated 4/4/1986. As against the said order, the appellant Sabha preferred an appeal in Appeal Petition No. 32 of 1987 before the third respondent herein/third defendant, namely the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Administration Department, Chennai and the same was also dismissed on 13/8/1991 confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner (H.R. & C.E.). Thereafter, the appellant has preferred a statutory suit under Section 70 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 to set aside the above said order of the Deputy Commissioner (H.R. & C.E.), which was confirmed by the Commissioner (H.R. & C.E.) and for a declaration that the suit institution is not a religious institution coming under the purview of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

(2.) According to the plaint averments, Srimad Sachidananda Swamigal, a great scholar, philosopher and yogi of the 19th century, after writing several books advocating Advaita philosophy, died in or about 1886 at Kosapet, Madras (North Chennai) and his body was buried at old door No. 1, new No. 123, Sachidanandam Street, Kosapet, Madras- 12 by his disciples. A hall with tiled roofing and a compound wall surrounding the building were also constructed by the disciples of the above said scholar. Contending that the suit institution is nothing buta 'samathi' of the above said Sachidananda Swamigal; that the same was looked after by the appellant Sabha, a registered society registered and formed in the year 1985 under the Societies Registration Act; that the said institution was neither a math, nor a temple, nor a religious or specific Endowments to be brought under the purview of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the appellant/plaintiff contended before the respondents 2 and 3 in the original application and the appeal petition respectively and also before the trial Court in the statutory suit that the Assistant Commissioner (H.R. & C.E.) had erroneously appointed the first respondent/first defendant as fit person to perform the functions of the Board of Trustees in respect of the suit institution and that the said order was liable to be set aside and the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration that the suit institution was not an institution that came under the purview of the Act XXII of 1959. It was also contended therein that the power of the Assistant Commissioner (H.R. & C.E.) to appoint a fit person to a religious institution could not be exercised in respect of a Math. In support of the contention of the appellant that the suit institution is not a religious institution, it was also pleaded in the plaint that no idol was installed inside the premises; that people do not come and offer worship to any idol in the institution; that no regular poojas are performed in the suit institution; that on the anniversary of Srimad Sachidananda Swamigal, "thidhi" would be performed in the samathi of the said yogi and that no property had been endowed to the suit institution for the purpose of any specific service or charity in a Math or temple or for the purpose of any other religious charity. The appellant/plaintiff, as an alternative plea had submitted before the trial Court in the plaint that even it could be assumed that the suit institution was a religious institution, the appointment of a fit person without issuing a notice under Section 71 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 would make the order of the Assistant Commissioner (H.R. & C.E.) invalid and that for that reason alone the order of the Assistant Commissioner (H.R. & C.E.) appointing fit person should be set aside.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the first respondent herein/first defendant by filing a written statement denying the plaint allegations and contending that there was no cause of action for the suit and that the valuation for the purpose of Court fee was incorrectly made. In other respects the first respondent/first defendant adopted the written statement of the third respondent/third defendant.