SADAGOPA RAMANUJA JEER THE PRESENT MADATHIPATHI AND ADHEENAKARTHA OF SRIVALLIPUTHUR MANAVALA MAHAMUNI MUTT Vs. SRI KOIL KANDADAI VATHULA ANNAN SRI RENGACHARI SWAMIGAL THROUGH SRI V. S. RANGASWAMI IYENGAR, ADVOCATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third respondent in the Court below is the appellant. Srivilliputhur Manavala Mahamuni Mutt is a religious institution controlled and supervised by the Jeer of Vanamamalai Mutt. At one time, a dispute arose between Matathipathi of Manavala Mahamuni Mutt (hereinafter referred to as the Matathipathi) and the Jeer of Vanamamalai Mutt (hereinafter referred to as the Jeer) on the question whether the Matathipathi was subject to control of the Jeer. To establish his rights the Jeer filed a suit, O. S. No. 19 of 1951 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ramanathapuram. The then Matathipathi resisted the suit and for the purpose of defending the action, he borrowed moneys from a third -party who is the decree -holder in these proceedings. The trial Court decreed the suit, but on appeal to this Court in A. S. No. 485 of 1955, the judgment of the trial Court was reversed and a decision was rendered in favour of the Matathipathi. Thereupon, the Jeer preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 2 of 1960 and the Letters Patent Bench allowed the appeal and recognised the right of the Jeer to nominate the Matathipathi. The decree -holder who had lent moneys to the Matathipathi to contest the litigation started by the Jeer, filed a suit, O. S. No. 16 of 1957 to recover from the Matathipathi the sums of money advanced by him. The suit was decreed ex parte on 2nd August, 1957. During the pendency of A.S. No. 485 of 1955 the Matathipathi who originally borrowed moneys from the petitioner -decree -holder died and thereupon the Executive Officer of Sri Nachiar Devasthanam was appointed a fit person to look after the affairs of the Manavala Mahamuni Mutt. After duly taking charge of the affairs of the Mutt, the fit person filed a suit, O.S. No. 52 of 1962 to restrain the decree -holder in O. S. No. 16 of 1957 from executing the decree against the Mutt on the ground that the promissory notes on the strength of which the decree -holder -petitioner had obtained a decree in O. S. No. 16 of 1957 were not supported by consideration and, secondly, summons in the said suit had not been duly served on the institution. The trial Court agreed with the contentions of the fit person and the suit was decreed on 31st March, 1964 and a permanent injunction was granted in favour of the fit person. The decree -holder filed A. S. No. 365 of 1964 to this Court and the appeal was duly allowed. The resultant position was that the decree passed in favour of the decree -holder in O. S. No. 16 of 1957 became final.

(2.) AFTER the disposal of A. S. No. 365 of 1964 which, as stated above left intact the decree awarded in favour of the decree -holder in O. S. No. 16 of 1957, the decree -holder filed the present execution petition E.P. No. 2 of 1972, so that it should be treated as a continuation of the prior execution petition E.P. No; 22 of 1959 so as to render the later execution petition within time and bring to sale the immovable properties of the Mutt for realisation of the amount decreed in his favour. It may be mentioned at this juncture that at one stage of the proceedings, the decree -holder had filed E. P. No. 22 of 1959, but the said execution petition was closed on 16th October, 1972 on account of the injunction granted in favour of the fit person in O. S. No. 52 of 1962. The injunction granted in the said suit was in force from 16th October, 1962 to 28th April, 1971 on which date this Court allowed A. S. No. 365 of 1964 and dismissed O. S. No. 52 of 1962.

(3.) MR . Alagar, learned Counsel for the appellant, advanced three arguments in the appeal to contend that the learned Subordinate Judge ought not to have allowed the decree -holder to proceed with the execution petition filed by him. The first argument of Mr. Alagar relates to the validity of the decree passed in favour of the decree -holder. An attempt was made by the learned Counsel to traverse once over again the objection raised by the Mutt in the earlier suit, O.S. No. 52 of 1962 that the decree obtained by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 16 of 1957 will not be binding on the Mutt. Such a plea is raised on the basis that the Matathipathi who incurred the debt had not borrowed the amount for and on behalf of the Mutt or in connection with the activities of the Mutt and as such, the liability created by the Matathipathi cannot be imposed on the Mutt or its properties. This contention of the appellant cannot really be sustained. Though the contention of the appellant that the debt which ultimately ripened into a decree had not been really incurred for any of the religious or charitable activities in which the Mutt is engaged, but was incurred by the former Matathipathi for asserting his rights in the suit filed by the Jeer, the fact, nevertheless, remains that a competent Court of law has passed a decree against the Mutt in O.S. No. 16 of 1957 and this decree has not been varied or modified till this date in a manner known to law. No doubt, an attempt was made by the fit person to nullify the decree by seeking for a declaration in O.S. No. 52 of 1962 that the decree obtained in O.S. No. 16 of 1957 should not be executed against the properties of the Mutt, but such attempt proved abortive by reason of the decision of this Court in A.S. No. 365 of 1964. Having regard to the settled state of affairs, so far as the validity of the decree in O.S. No. 16 of 1957 is concerned, the appellant is not entitled to ask the executing Court to go behind the decree and assess once again the right of the decree -holder to proceed against the Mutt in execution of the decree granted in his favour in O.S. No. 16 of 1957.