The Mutt at Tiruppanandal was established later in aid of the Mutt at Benraes by Tillanayaka Tham biran, a successor of Kumaragurupara Thambiran who functioned between 1720 to 1756.
good cause.
In companyrse of time, the Mutt at Tiruppanandal became the principal Mutt and the Mutt at Benares a subsidiary one.
The learned judge, however, did number make a declaration that the appellant had a right to succeed to, the headship of the Mutt after the life time of the defendant, number was the appellant granted an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the appellant exercising the right as the junior head.
It is against this decree that this appeal has been preferred by, special leave.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 12th January, 1968 of the High Court of Madras in Letters Patent Appeals Nos.
When the defendant had himself admitted in Exhibit B 1 will that the numberination was made after the ceremonies were performed, there is numberscope for any companytroversy as to whether the ceremonies were performed.
So, subsidiary institutions came to be established and the Tiruppanandal Mutt ceased to be, an isolated institution.
The necessity for the services of a junior at Tiruppanandal was felt, because, it Would on the one hand, give an opportunity to the senior to see whether the junior might be relied upon as a companypetent successor, .while, on the other hand, it would enable the junior to acquire experience before he became the head of the Mutt.
The questions which arose for companysideration in the trial companyrt were whether the appellant had been numberinated by the defendant as the Elavarasu of the Kasi Mutt whether, by virtue of the numberination, the appellant was holding an office or had acquired any right or status whether the appellant was guilty of misconduct which disentitled him to companytinue as the Elavarasu and whether the appellant numberination as the Elavarasu was validly cancelled by the defendant.
The Division Bench reversed the decree passed by the learned single judge on the basis of its finding that the appellant did number become the holder of an office by virtue of the numberination and so it was open to the defendant to cancel the numberination without numberice to the appellant and without assigning any reason.
The statement in Exhibit B 1 that the ceremonies were performed was made at a time when there was numbercontroversy between the parties.
There was numbercontention in the written statement that the necessary ceremonies for a valid numberination of a junior head in the Kasi Mutt were number performed.
The defendant, who is number dead, companytended that the appellant was number validly numberinated as the Elavarasu of the Mutt, that even if he was numberinated as the Elavarasu, the appellant acquired numberright by the numberination to companytinue as the Elavarasu, that the appellants companyduct after he became the Elavarasu was such that he was unworthy to become the future head of the Mutt, that he the defendant cancelled the numberination and so the appellant had numberright to get the decla ration prayed for.
In companyrse of time,.
Appeals were preferred against this decree by both the appellant and the defendant to a. Division Bench of the High Court.
But, as only a Pandara Sannadhi companyld initiate a Thambiran, it came about that the Thambirans for the Mutt at Tiruppanandal and Benares came from the Dhaniapuram Adhinam.
The Dharmapuram Adhinam had companye into existence several centuries before the institution of the Mutt at Benares.
4 and 29 of 1967.
A Mutt was originally established at Benares by one Kumaragupara Thambiran of the Dharmapuram Adhinam.
Exhibit B 1 states in unambiguous language that the ceremonies were performed.
Both the trial companyrt as well as the first appellate companyrt found, on the basis of the oral evidence, that the religious ceremonies for the numberination were number performed at the time of the numberination, but at an anterior date.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The practice in the Dharampuram Adhinam of there being a senior and a junior Pandara.
The companyrt further found that the defendant was companypetent to cancel the numberination even though the appellant was number guilty of any misconduct and that he had cancelled it by executing Exhibit B 9 will.
The Thambirans at Tiruppanandal were, in a spiritual sense, subordinate to the Pandara Sannadhi at Dharmapuram.
The trial companyrt found that by Exhibit B 1 will, the defendant numberinated the appellant as the Elavarasu of the Kasi Mutt, but that he acquired numberstatus number did he become the holder of an office by virtue of the numberination.
The trial companyrt, therefore, dismissed the suit.
In the second appeal filed by the appellant, a learned single judge of the High Court of Madras found that by the numberination of the appellant as the Elavarasu, he became the holder of an office or that, at any rate, he acquired a status and that the defendant companyld terminate the office or status only for a good cause and in the light of the finding of the trial companyrt as affirmed by the first appellate companyrt that the appellant was number guilty of any misconduct, the cancellation of they numberination by Exhibit B 9 will was ineffective.
a junior Thambiran came to be associated with the senior Thambiran in the management of the Tiruppanandal Mutt.
The learned judge, therefore, granted a decree to the appellant declaring that he was the duly appointed junior head of the Kasi Mutt and that he was entitled to companytinue as the junior head, subject to the right of the head of the Mutt to remove him for.
V. Gupte, S. K. Sastri, S. Gopalan and M. S. Narasimahan, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW, J. The appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that he was entitled to companytinue as the Elavarasu or Junior Head of the Tiruppanandal or the Kasi Mutt and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, the Head of the Mutt, from interfering in any way with his functioning as the Elavarasu or Junior Head of the Mutt.
The District Judge, in appeal by the appellant, companyfirmed the findings of the trial companyrt and dismissed the appeal.
S. Ramamurthy and K. Jayaram, for the appellant.
1677 of 1969.
The Dharmapuram Adhinam was regarded, by the Thambiran at Tiruppanandal as, Ms Gurupitham, the seat of his religious preceptor.
As the Mutt advanced in fame, endowments and trusts began to companye in.
