M MARUTHAVANASWAMI ALIAS SADASIVA DESIKA PANDARASANNADHI AVERGAL Vs. SUBRAMANIA THAMBIRAN, CALLING HIMSELF SUBRAMANIA DESIKA PANDARA SANNADHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions have been filed in respect of two orders of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram, dated 29 March, 1924 and 2nd May, 1924. The proceedings before him were under Section 16, Clause 7 of Madras Regulation III of 1802, and the learned Judge by his first order directed that affidavit evidence should be adduced and by his second order refused permission to the petitioner before us to cross-examine the deponents to the affidavits.

(2.) The facts are shortly these. The Pandara Sannadhi of Dharmapuram Mutt died on or about the 28 October, 1923. The Sub-Magistrate having jurisdiction over the locality, looked and sealed the rooms containing some moveables belonging to the Mutt and sent up a report to the Collector of Tanjore and he directed the Sub- Magistrate to hand over the keys of the rooms to the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram, who was requested by the Collector to take proceedings under Regulation III of 1802. The present petitioner who is the Pandarasannadhi of Swargapuri Mutt put in a petition on the 5 November, 1923 stating that as the late Pandarasannadhi died without appointing a successor he as the head of a dependant Mutt was entitled to succeed. The respondent was a rival claimant who also filed a petition claiming that he was the rightful successor on the ground that he was elected Pandarasannadhi of the Dharmapuram Mutt by the Thambirans of that Mutt. The petition of the petitioner was O. P. No. 58 of 1923, and the petition of the respondent was O. P. No. 60 of 1923.

(3.) The learned Vakil for the petitioner has contended that his petition is in the nature of an original petition, and that the procedure applicable is that applicable to suits and that therefore he is entitled to ask that evidence should be taken viva voce. The arguments turned on the question to some extent, whether the proceeding was a regular petition or an interlocutory application, but on the view we take of the scope of the Regulation, we are of the opinion that these questions do not arise.