TIRUVAMBALA DESIKAR GNANA SAMBANDA PANDARASANNADHI AVARGAL Vs. CHINNA PANDARAM ALIAS MANIKKAVACHAKA DESIKAR (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal relates to the headship of the wealthy mutt or adhinam of Dharmapuram in the Tanjore district, the affairs of which are unfortunately the subject of endless litigation before us. Sivagnana who was for many years Pandarasannadhi or head of the mutt filed Original Suit No. 86 of 1906 in the Subordinate Court of Kumbakonam to set aside a deed of relinquishment, Exhibit S, executed by him in 1903 in favour of Manikkavachaka, the defendant in this suit, whom he had previously ordained and nominated as junior Pandarasannadhi with the right of succession according to the custom of the institution. Sivagnana died shortly after the institution of the suit and the present plaintiff sought to be brought on the records as his legal representative on the ground that the day before he died, Sivagnana had ordained him and executed a will in his favour. It was held by the Subordinate Court, and by this Court on appeal, that the plaint in Original Suit No. 86 of 1906 called in question the right of the defendant to be junior Pandarasannadhi as well as his right to enjoyment of the mutt properties under the deed of relinquishment, and it was accordingly ruled at the instance of the present plaintiff that the suit did not abate on Sivagnana s death, and under Section 367, Civil Procedure Code, the Court stayed the suit and left the plaintiff to bring the present suit against Manikkavachaka to establish that he is the legal representative of the deceased Pandarasannadhi and so entitled to continue Original Suit No. 86 of 1906.

(2.) This suit necessarily involves the question whether the defendant Manikkavachaka had been lawfully appointed junior Pandarasannadhi, and also the further question whether he was lawfully removed during the lifetime of Sivagnana, as, if not, he and not the plaintiff is the legal representative of the deceased. Accordingly the pleadings and issues in this case cover much the same ground as the principal suit. During the pendency of this suit the defendant Manikkavachaka has also died after nominating and ordaining a successor who has been brought on the record as his legal representative, so that the contest is now between the plaintiff claiming as nominee of Sivagnana and the present respondent claiming as the nominee of Manikkavachaka.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the plaintiff s suit on two grounds that Manikkavachaka must be taken to have been validly appointed and not to have been removed and that he was consequently Sivagnana s legal representative, and secondly on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove the will and ordination on which he relies to establish his character of legal representative. Either of these findings is sufficient to dispose of the present suit.