P NATESA ACHAR Vs. PARASAMAYA KOLERINATHA MADAM THROUGH ITS HEAD SRI SIVASHANMUGA GNANACHARYA GURUSWAMIGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge in C.S.No.2 of 1983. Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the appellants in this appeal. THE plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and for delivery of possession.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is as follows: THE plaintiff-mutt was established as early as 7th century A.D. in Tirunelveli. THE members of the Vishwa Karma Community in Tamil Nadu and other southern states are the disciples of the plaintiff mutt. THE first Madathipathi was one Sri Anavaratha Sounderraja Perumal Swamigal and the successors were elected by Vishwa Karma Community. In the beginning of the 20th century, disputes arose and hence a suit for framing a scheme for regulating succession and administration of the mutt and its properties was filed in O.S.No.58 of 1922. A scheme was finally framed by order dated 2.5.1925. As per the provisions of the scheme, the Head of the Mutt is to be elected by the Viswakarma Community of Tamil Nadu and other adjoining areas in the erstwhile Madras State. Srimath Rajarathna Swamigal was unanimously elected as the Head of the plaintiff mutt and by order dated 10.9.1927, the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli declared the said Srimath Rajaratna Swamigal as the Head of the plaintiff mutt and directed vesting of the mutt and its properties including the suit property in the said Rajaratna Swamigal. Komaleeswaranpettai in the Madras City was largely inhabited by the members of the Viswakarma Community. So, the plaintiff mutt opened a branch in Chandra Banu Street, Komaleeswaranpettai in A schedule property. Till 17th century, the A schedule property was only a mutt intended for the stay of the Head of the plaintiff mutt whenever he visited the city. THE disciples of the mutt were permitted to use the building for religious purposes. THE mutt was in charge of a person belonging to the Viswakarma Community of Komaleeswaranpettai, nominated by the Head of the plaintiff mutt. THE said nominee is called Sri Karyam. Some other members of the Community were also appointed to help the mutt agent. In 18th century, the then Head of the plaintiff mutt was touring in Northern India. He desired to instal an idol of Visalakshmi with the same divinity as hallowed in Kasi. Tradition goes that Goddess appeared before him and directed him to instal a deity in the mutt of Komaleeswaranpettai. Accordingly, 200 years back, an idol for Goddess Meenakshi was installed in the mutt. Stone image of the Head of the mutt also installed in the mutt. In course of time, idols of Lord Vigneswara and Lord Muruga with Valli and Deivanai were also installed in the suit property. So, from the 18th century, the mutt is having idols for the worship of its disciples. After installation of idols, more people were attached and it became necessary to associate local people in the management of the affairs of the mutt. After the previous Madathipathi attained Samadhi on 9.12.1979, the present Madathipathi was elected on 21.9.1980 and installed on 17.4.1981. THE previous Madathipathi appointed R.Venugopal Achari as his agent to manage the affairs of the mutt and temple. THE movables described in B schedule were handed over to him. He was also asked to submit accounts every month. In July, 1982, the present Madathipathi visited Madras and sent for the said R.Venugopal Achari to enquire about the affairs. He met the Madathipathi and represented that he handed over the management to Thiru Kangasabapathy Achari who in turn handed over the management to Thiru P.Natesa Achari and Thiru T.R.Nataraja Achari, residents of Komaleeswararpettai and defendants 1 and 2. When the Madathipathi visited the mutt, the second defendant alone was present. THE other defendants did not turn up. Though the A schedule property vests in the Madathipathi and has been under his control and management, the defendants have allowed R.Kanniah Pillai and others to publish a notice that Kumbabishekam would be performed on in the temple in the A schedule property. THE Madathipathi alone is entitled to arrange and perform Kumbabishekam and without his knowledge and consent, Kumbabishekam has been arranged. THE Madathipathi came to understand that defendants 1 and 2 developed an hostile attitude towards the head of the mutt and wanted to be independent. THE suit property is the property of Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam, Tirunelveli. It is primarily a mutt. Only the plaintiff has been controlling the affairs of the suit mutt and the temple. In the year 1981, the defendants have published notice for Navarathiri festival to be conducted. Only the plaintiff has got right in the suit property. Till recently, the plaintiff's right was not disputed. THE defendants have no manner of right over the suit property. Hence, the suit is filed for declaration of title and right of management of the plaintiff to the suit property and directing the defendants to deliver possession of A and B schedule properties or deliver possession of A schedule property and pay Rs.81,040 being the value of movables described in B schedule.

(3.) THE plaintiff claims title to A schedule property as belonging to the plaintiff mutt which is situate in Tirunelveli. THE plaintiff mutt was established as early as 7th Century A.D. in Tirunelveli, and the members of Viswakarma Community are its disciples. THE vacancies in the post of trustees and committee members are filled up by election from among the members of the Viswakarma Community. In the beginning of 20th century, some disputes arose and O.S.No.58 of 1922 was filed in Sub-Court Tirunelveli for framing a scheme for regulating succession and administration of the mutt and its properties. THE scheme was framed in that suit by order dated 2.5.1925. As per the provisions of the scheme, the head of the mutt is to be elected by the Viswakarma Community people. An advocate Commissioner was appointed and election was held on 5.9.1927. Srimath Rajaratna Swamigal was unanimously elected and by order dated 10.9.1927 in O.S.No.58 of 1922 of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, the said Rajaratna Swamigal was declared as head of the plaintiff mutt directing vesting of the mutt and its properties in the said Swamigal. One of the properties vested in the head of the mutt is the suit property described in schedule A. THE suit property is item 2 of 5th schedule in O.S.No.58 of 1922. Exs.P-1 and P-2 are judgment and decree in O.S.No.58 of 1922. THE plaintiff claims that as per the scheme decree in O.S.No.58 of 1922, the suit property is vested in the head of the mutt. Ex.P-1 recites that there will be a preliminary decree declaring that the Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam situate in Akkasalai Vinayagarkoil Street, Tinnevelly Town is a public religious and Charitable foundation for the benefit of the five sections of Viswa Brahmana Community of Tamil Districts of South India as also in Travancore Cochine and British Malabar entitled to some of the plaint properties. Ex.P-2 final decree shows that the suit property is vested in the Madathipathi of the plaintiff mutt. THE plaintiff claims the suit property which was originally a branch of the plaintiff mutt which was used mostly for the stay of the head of the mutt whenever the Madathipathi came to Madras. THE plaintiff further states that in the 18th century when the head of the plaintiff mutt was touring north India, he felt that an idol of Visalakshi to be installed in the mutt premises and about 200 years ago, the idol of Goddess Meenakshi was installed in the suit premises by the then Head of the mutt and subsequently, the other idols, viz., Lord Vigneshwara, Lord Muruga with Valli and Deivayanai were installed and the propel of Vishwa Karma Community were allowed to worship these deities in the suit premises. THE plaintiff further states that as the Head of the mutt was having his stay permanently at Tirunelveli, he appointed some agents to manage the affairs of the suit property, where idols were installed, and previously one Venugopal Achari, and then one Kanagasabapathy Achari belonging to Viswakarma Community were looking after the affairs of the suit property and now, defendants 1 and 2 are managing the affairs of the same, but, only the plaintiff has got exclusive right over the suit property and defendants 1 and 2 are only managing the affairs of the suit property. On the other hand, defendants 1 and 2 contend that they are the trustees of Meenakshi Amman temple and the suit property is a temple and it has nothing to do with the plaintiff mutt and the temple was constructed by the Viswakarma Community people residing in Komaleeswaranpet and it is a denominational temple in existence for the benefit of the members of Viswakarma Community.