ANANDASRAMA SADHU MAHA SINGAM Vs. SADHU GANGAYYA SWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed to discharge the 8th respondent and to direct to hand over the properties of Anandrasrama Sadhu Maha Sangam to the applicant, which is a parent body of Sri Karapathra Sivaprakasa Swamigal Mutt. Heard Mr. P. Subramani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S. Pattabiraman, learned Government Advocate (C.S) appearing for 8th respondent and Mr. N. Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing for 9th respondent.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant would submit in his argument that the applicant is the Anandrasrama Sadhu Maha Sangam, to which the deponent is the present "Sangamoorthy" and President. The said sangam was originally established on 27.12.1914 under the Societies Act, 1860 in the name of "Madras Vyasarpadi Anandrasrama Sadhu Maha Sangam". The said sangam owned properties in S.No.727/1 and 748 of Vyasarpadi Perambur village and a temple and buildings constructed by a sangam. He would also submit that the then 'Sangamoorthy' Sri Siva Prakasa Swamigal executed a Will on 03.04.1918 and the Will was probated on 19.12.1918. He would also submit that there are several samadhis of Sadhus raised in the property and the sanyasees were permitted to be buried in the said place and appropriate sanction was also obtained from the Corporation on 12.07.1918 by the Secretary of the said Sangam. He would also submit that as per the Will executed by Sri Siva Prakasa Swamigal, properties were dedicated for teaching Vedantha Philosophy and three executors were appointed in the said Will, viz., Moorthy Swami, Muniappa Swami and Guru Samy. The samadhis of Sreelasree Karapathira Sivaprakasa Gnana Desiga Swamigal and another Sangamoorthy named Mukananda Swamigal were also raised. He would also submit that in 1926 there was some misunderstanding in the administration of Sri Karapathra Swamigal mutt and therefore, a suit was filed in C.S.No.154 of 1926 under section 92 CPC before this court and after the contest, this court passed a judgment on 20.05.1927 and also passed a scheme decree. As per the scheme decree clause 4, non -ascetic trustees shall be appointed by the Court. The said clause was subsequently amended by the order of this Court by substituting 'Commissioner' in the place of 'Court'. He would also submit that the clause -3, limiting the period of office for three years, was also amended to five years in the same order passed by this Court in A.No.1438 of 1975. After the amendment was made in clause -4 of the scheme decree, the Commissioner, who is to make appointment of non -ascetic trustees, had taken the entire administration of the properties as that of the properties of the Commissioner and indulged in administration. He would also submit that a portion of the property of 3 cawis 15 grounds and 713 Sq. Ft. of land in S.No.727/1 was acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and an award was passed, from which the compensation amount have been realised and deposited into Court in LAC.No.21 of 1969. He would also submit that the Slum Clearance Board acquired 12.5 acres of land in S.Nos.748 and 727/1 equal to 5.06.0707 hectare and a sum of Rs.12,62,946/ - was handed over to HR & CE Department through a cheque on 17.03.1993 leaving an extent of 2.6= acres for the mutt and Nandhavanam. He would also submit that the said circumstances forced the interested persons to file applications after applications towards the welfare of the Sangam and the dispute was purely due to the handing over of the management of the trust to the 8th respondent, temporarily. He would further submit that the 8th respondent Commissioner is in no way connected with the trust and regarding the possession and enjoyment of the properties and moneys. He would also submit that the modification done through the order made in A.No.1438 of 1975 has to be reconsidered with the present application to discharge the Commissioner / 8th respondent from the management. He would also submit that the daily poojas were not done and the temple was closed for several hours instead of minimum hours a day. He would also submit that 'Kumbabisekam' has not been done for the past 30 years to the temple and no 'sodasa sobrina' pooja was performed, which is essential for Siva temples. He would also submit that no religious books are periodically published or released; Per contra, the valuable books kept were eaten away by white ants and all those books were written by Sri Karapathra Swamigal. He would further submit that the lands of the trust measuring 12.5 acres was divided into small grounds after 1963 and was leased to various tenants and the income derived from such lease are being enjoyed for their personal benefits by the trustees. He would also submit that the 8th respondent did not take any steps to check and safeguard the properties and was not caring to keep any account for the income. The yearly audit as directed by the Court in the scheme decree was not performed. He would also submit that the 8th respondent did not take steps to celebrate the swamigal mukthi day to be celebrated as 'Guru Pooja'. He would further submit that several unscrupulous people have encroached the properties belonging to the trust and it was not prevented by the 8th respondent. He would also submit that the important aspect of providing food, cloth and shelter to sadhus as per the wishes and Will of Sri Siva Prakasa Swamigal are not done, but on the other hand, the sadhus were not allowed inside the mutt. The philosophy of vedantha and advaita are not propagated as per the desire of Swamigal. He would also submit that the valuable buildings of about 6000 sq.ft is left uncared by the 8th respondent and the buildings are in a dilapidated condition, which may fall at any time. The said building was meant for meditation and the big hall was used for the said purpose and for lecturing vedantha teachings. He would also submit that the earlier order passed would enable the 8th respondent to take over the mutt. He would also submit that the 8th respondent did not care for the money deposited in the Court for the purpose of investing in any bank for augmenting the interest income. He would further submit that the purpose of scheme decree was not followed by the 8th respondent and therefore, necessary orders should have been passed to hand over the properties to the Sangam, the scheme decree will be promptly implemented to the letter and spirit. He would further submit that the 8th respondent will not be prejudiced by a direction to hand over the properties to the Sangam, because it would help the public at large and also for the development of the mutt and Sangam. He would further submit that the properties absolutely belonged to Sangam and not for any mutt. The parent Sangam was founded in the year 1910 and the decree passed by the City Civil Court in O.S.No.1995 of 2007 dated 12.03.2010 had regularised the Sangam upto date through its order and therefore, the Sangam is the appropriate person to maintain its properties, which was temporarily handed over to the 8th respondent. He would also submit that if the estate of the Sangam is not ordered to be handed over to the Sangam, the estate of the Sangam will be ruined and irreparable loss will occur and the public devotees and the mutt will be the loosers. He would also submit that the respondents 8 and 9 viz., the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE Department have mismanaged for several years and it has become necessary that the 8th and 9th respondents have to be discharged from managing the entire property of the Sangam and a direction may be issued to hand over the said properties to the applicant's sangam, the parent body of Sri Karapatra Swamigal mutt. He would also cite a judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in, AIR 1953 Calcutta 140 (Harinarayan Shaw and another..vs.. Gobardhandas Shroff and others) for the principle that the properties held by the trustees of an unregistered society would become the properties of the society on its registration. Therefore, he would request the Court to allow the application as sought for.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate (C.S) appearing for 8th respondent has adopted the argument of the learned counsel for the 9th respondent and had sought for the dismissal of the application.