RAGHUBHUSHANA TIRTHASWAMI Vs. VIDIAVARIDHI TIRTHASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st appellant (1st plaintiff in the suit) is the Swami of a mutt called the Bhimanakattai and the 2nd appellant (the 2nd plaintiff) was nominated by him to the headship of another mutt called the Bhandarikere. The 1st defendant in the suit is a person who claims to have been nominated Swami of the Bhandarikere Mutt by the 2nd defendant who is described as the Pariyaya Swami. The suit was instituted in order to obtain a declaration that the head of the Bhimanakattai Mutt for the time being is entitled to appoint a Swami to the Bhandarikere Mutt in default of any appointment by the last Swami of the latter mutt during his lifetime and that the Pariyaya Swami of the Krishna temple at Udipi, which is the office held by the 2nd defendant, has no right to appoint a Swami to the Bhandarikere Mutt in case of such vacancy. The next important prayer in the plaint is that the 2nd plaintiff may be declared to have been lawfully appointed to the Bhandarikere Mutt and that he may be put in possession of that mutt and its properties. The learned Subordinate Judge has found against the claims of the 1st and the 2nd plaintiffs. He also found that the Pariyaya Swami has no right to make any appointment to the Bhandarikere Mutt. In the result he dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge.

(2.) Bhandarikere Mutt is situated in the district of South Canara and the Bhimanakattai Mutt, which is also called Bhimasethu Mutt, lies in the territory of Mysore but is only about 40 or 50 miles distant from Bhandarikere. Both these are Madhava Mutts, that is, devoted to the teachings of Madhwa Chariar. In the Udipi Taluk where the Bhandarikere Mutt is, there are also eight other Madhava Mutts belonging to the sect founded by Madhava Chariar. Madhava Chariar apparently flourished in the 13th or 14th century. There can be no doubt but that the two mutts concerned in this suit as well as the eight other mutts at Udipi are vary ancient institutions. The earliest history of these institutions is involved in considerable obscurity and it is not possible upon the evidence adduced in the case to assign exact dates of their origin. All that can be said with any degree of certainty is that they must be several centuries old. The office of Pariyaya Swami is held in rotation by the Swamis of the eight Udipi Mutts, the office-holder for the time being distinguished from the others by having in his charge the Krishna temple. The Pariyaya Swarmi admittedly has certain honours and privileges above those enjoyed by the Swamis of the seven remaining Udipi mutts.

(3.) One Vidyanidhi was the last Swami of the Bhandarikere Mutt. He died on the 19th November 1901. He had been a lunatic since 1896. Before he became a lunatic, he had nominated his successor one Vidyasamudra: but that man died in 1898. In the same year, while Vidyanidhi was still living, the 1st plaintiff nominated the 2nd plaintiff to the headship of the Bhandarikere Mutt, proceeding on the basis that owing to the lunacy of Vidyanidhi, the office had become vacant. But this claim of the 1st plaintiff was resisted by the guardian of the lunatic Swami. A suit was then instituted by the present 2nd plaintiff-Original Suit No. 39 of 1899 or" the file of the Mangalore Sub Court to establish his right. The 1st defendant in that suit was Vidyanidhi through his guardian ad litem the 2nd defendant, who was also appointed manager o]f the properties belonging to the mutt by the District Court. The other defendants in that suit were impleaded as they were in possession of some of the idols belonging to the mutt. The Trial Judge dismissed that suit, finding against the plaintiff the allegations on which he based his right. On appeal to the High Court, the decree was confirmed, but only on the ground that there was no vacancy in the office of the Swami of Bhandarikere Mutt by reason of the lunacy of the then officeholder Vidyanidhi and, therefore, the appointment of 2nd plaintiff in the present suit was invalid. The other questions raised in the suit were not decided by the High Court. After Vidyanidhi died in 1901, the 2nd plaintiff was again appointed by the 1st plaintiff to the Bhandarikere Mutt. The 1st plaintiff, the Swami of the Bhimasethu Mutt, based his right to appoint on two grounds. The first ground is (1) that his mutt and the Bhandarikere Mutt are what is called Dwandwa Mutts, the principal incident of which is that one of them or rather the head of one of them has the right of ordination to the other mutt in case the Swami of that mutt dies without having nominated his successor. The next ground on which the learned Vakil for the appellant bases the claim of the Swami of the Bhimanakattai Mutt is that that mutt is the parent or moola mutt, as it is called, with reference to the Bhandarikere Mutt, which is its branch or cowle mutt and that by virtue of this relationship between the two mutts, the Swami for the time being of the Bhimanakattai Mutt is entitled in the case of a vacancy to appoint a Swami to the Bhandarikere Mutt. The claim to the Pariyaya Swami is founded on the allegations that he ranks highest among the Swamis of the eight Udipi Mutts and that as the eight mutts were founded by Madhava Chariar who also converted the original mutt which was the common ancestor of both Bhimanakattai and Bhandarikere Mutts into a Madhava Mutt, the Pariyaya Swami is in the direct line of spiritual succession to Madhava Chariar and has the authority, therefore, not only over the eight Udipi Mutts but also in a case of necessity like the present over both Bhandarikere and Bhimanakattai Mutts. Whether the Swami of Bhimanakattai Mutt, i.e., the 1st plaintiff, or the Pariyaya Swami, the 2nd defendant, has the right of nomination or not, it is contended by the defendants on the one side that the nomination or ordination of the 2nd plaintiff was not according to law and usage, and, therefore, invalid and on the other side the plaintiffs contend that the appointment of the 1st defendant is similarly invalid. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that none of the claims put forward on either side have been established.