SRI GURUPATTATHUR SIDDHA RAMA SWAMIGAL MADATHIPATHI SWAMIGAL GURU OF "SIVACHAR MUTT" Vs. N. PATTAYYAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under the Letters Patent against a judgment of this Court in second appeal reversing the decision of the lower appellate Court and restoring that of the trial Court dismissing the suit with costs.

(2.) The suit relates to a Veera Shaiva (Lingayat) community mutt in Sukravarpet, Coimbatore called Sri Sarangaswamiar or Sivachar Mutt and the claim of the Plaintiff who is the Appellant before us is that he is the madathipathi of the said mutt and is entitled to the possession and enjoyment of the mutt, its affairs and its properties, the only two immovable properties possessed by the mutt bearing door Nos. 71 and 72 in Sukravarpet within the limits of Coimbatore. There is no dispute that the two items of properties belong to the Sivachar Mutt alias Sri Sarangaswamiar Mutt. The Plaintiff claims to be in possession of door No. 72 along with his father who is P.W. 4 in the case and in effective control of the same. Door No. 71 is admittedly in the possession of the first Defendant and third Defendant who submit that their possession is permissive under the trustees of the mutt. They deny the claim of the Plaintiff as the madathipathi of the mutt. The plaint avers that the second Defendant purports to be acting as the managing trustee of the mutt properties for the benefits of the community in derogation of the rights of Plaintiff as the head of the mutt and the principal relief the Plaintiff seeks apart from a declaration as to his status is possession of door No. 71. The suit was originally instituted against Defendants 1 to 3 as persons denying the Plaintiff's right and also, in a representative character obtaining orders under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the averment that some of the Veera Shaivites of the locality were joining hands with Defendants 1 to 3 and contending that the properties belonged to the community of Veera Shaivites. Defendants 4 to 18 got themselves impleaded as persons interested on the notice, of the application under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Little is seen in the evidence as to the origin of the mutt. It emerges, however, that it was founded about 350 years ago by one Siddalingaswamiar belonging to a religious sect founded by Basavanna. The Samadhi in the madam is worship, peel by the community people and besides Samadhi Puja, the madam is used, as a resting place by the Veera Shaivites and also ascetics of the community, coining to Coimbatore. Though there was a faint attempt on the part of the Defendants to plead that the institution was only a chatram, it is now established beyond doubt that this is a regular mutt and one Siddha Ramaswami Swamigal was the madathipathi of the mutt prior to 1900. It appears that this madathipathi went to Bangalore in or about 1900 where he died and had his samadhi.

(3.) The Plaintiff's case as presented and developed in the trial Court was that the mutt in question was a Mourasi mutt and that Siddha Ramaswamigal nominated the Plaintiff's grandfather Sarangaswamigal as his chela and that Sarangaswamigal became the madathipathi when Siddha Ramaswamigal, attained samadhi and continued as the madathipathi till his death on 6th June, 1942. The Plaintiff claims that he was nominated by Sarangaswamigal and was duly installed as madathipathi and recognized as such by other Lingayat mutts and by Sivachars of the community and by authorities. The installation into the peedam and the grant of the pattam of the mutt was stated to be on 27th February 1947 as Shembulingabetta in Kollegal taluk at the Sri Guru Ramasivayogi's Geddigai. The trial Court found that Sarangasamigal was not the madathipathi of the suit madam and that he has not nominated the Plaintiff as his successor. It held that even if the installation of the Plaintiff as a fact was established, it was invalid and cannot clothe the Plaintiff, with the title of the madathipathi and give him the right of pattam adhikaram. In that view, the suit was dismissed. On appeal the learned Subordinate' Judge was of the view that the failure to establish nomination by the, predecessor was not such an illegality as to vitiate the title of the Plaintiff to the madathipathiship, and that as the Plaintiff had been installed as a madathipathi, he was entitled to a declaration that he is duly installed as the madathipathi, and the consequential reliefs flowing therefrom.