PRASANNA VENKATESA RAO Vs. KSRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code with the previous sanction of the Advocate-General for the settlement of a scheme and for directions for the proper administration of an association called "The Madhwa Siddhanta Onnahini Sabha" (an association for the uplift of the Madhwa doctrine), which was started in the year 1878 at Chirutanur, also called Tiruchanur, near Tirupati, a sacred place about 90 miles from Madras, and registered under Act XXI of 1860 in the year 1910. [After holding on the evidence that the origin, objects and the practice of the Sabha were as stated by the plaintiffs in their plaint, his Lordship continued]: On the evidence, oral and documentary, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that prior to 1910-11 there was no precedence given to the Uttarathi Mutt.

(2.) The next question is whether the resolution of 1912 giving precedence to the Uttarathi Mutt must be held to be binding on the other Mutts because it was passed at a general meeting. It is sought to bring this within Rule 14 of the Memorandum of Association and the Rules and Regulations of the Sabha which 1 have set out giving the Council power to frame such by-laws not inconsistent with the rules and regulations as it may consider necessary for the conduct, maintenance, and upkeep of the Sabha and a like power to alter, modify or rescind any such by-laws, so long as such by-laws are passed at the annual general meeting of the Sabha. If the matter related merely to the internal management without in any way affecting the fundamental basis on which the Sabha was started, the majority decision would bind the minority, however galling it may be; but it seems to me that in a case like the present, this resolution is fundamentally opposed to the constitution of the Sabha whose very existence depends upon the co-operation of the disciples of the various Mutts on a basis of equality. I have already shown that this was the dominant policy of the Sabha from its foundation. And the events of 1911 and 1912 have shown how vital it is in the interests of the Sabha that no distinction should be made between the various Mutts. I do not think that in a Sabha constituted like the present, it is open to the majority to pass any resolution giving precedence to their own Guru and override the claims of the minority for equal treatment. There can be little doubt that this Sabha, which was founded by the disciples of all the Mutts and whose property was acquired by contributions from all the Mutts, possesses substantial property at present, moveable and immoveable. The Annual Report of the year 1920, the year preceding the date of the present suit, shows that Rs. 77,167-14-6 was standing to the credit of the Sabha with its Bankers. This would be in addition to the immoveable properties which the Sabha possesses. The disciples of one Mutt though they formed the majority have no right virtually to drive the other members out of the Sabha by passing a resolution which would give their Guru priority.

(3.) It is argued that if priority is not given to the Uttarathi Mutt Guru, the disciples of that Mutt who are in a majority would not continue to be in the Sabha. But we find from the evidence of Karpur Sreenivasa Rao, D.W. 7, that even among the disciples of the Uttarathi Mutt there are many who are prepared to remain in the Sabha in spite of the interdict of the Uttarathi Mutt Guru, if a proper scheme is framed preventing the abuses he refers to.