There is numberMathadhipati in the Shri Krishna Math and its.
Between 1926 and 1930 the Swami succeeded in clearing off a large portion of the debt.
The appointed time of change in the headship of the Shri Krishna Math is the occasion of a great festival, known as Pariyayam, when a vast companycourse of devotees gather at Udipi from all parts of Southern India, and an ancient usage imposes a duty upon the Mathadhipati to feed every Brahmin that companyes to the place at that time.
Owing to scarcity and the high prices of companymodities at that time, the Swami had to borrow money to meet the expenditure and the debts mounted up to nearly a lakh of rupees.
On the 8th of December, 1950, an application was filed on behalf of the Swami praying to the Board to issue a direction to the agent to hand over the account papers and other documents, without which it was number possible for him to file his objections As the lawyer appearing for the Swami was unwell, the matter was again adjourned till the 10th of January, 1951.
On the 12th of February, 1951, the peti tioner filed the petition, out of which this appeal arises, in the High Court of Madras, praying for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the Board from taking further steps in the matter of settling a scheme for the administration of the Math.
The Board did number accede to this request and as numberexplanation was filed by the Swami, the enquiry was closed and orders reserved upon it.
The said Sripath Achar anticipating this suit filed an application to the Board on the 3rd of October, 1950, companyplaining against the cancellation of the Power of Attorney and his management of the Math.
Far from companyplying with this demand, the agent, who was supported by the aforesaid Lakshminarayans Rao, questioned the authority of the Swami to cancel his agency and threatened that he would refer the matter for action to the Board.
The learned Judges, who heard the petition, went into the matter with elaborate fullness, both on the companystitutional questions involved in it as well as on its merits.
It appears that in pursuance of the direction of the Board, one Sripath Achar was appointed an agent and a Power of Attorney was executed in his favour on the 24th of December, 1948.
On the 4th of October, 1950, the petitioner filed a suit against the agent in the Sub,Court of South Kanara for recovery of the account books and other articles belonging to the Math, for rendering an account of the management and also for an injunction restraining the said agent from interfering with the affairs of the Math under companyour of the 1010 authority companyferred by the Power of Attorney which the plaintiff had cancelled.
Appeal under article 132 1 of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 13th December, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature, Madras, in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.
In 1931, however, came the 1009 turn of his taking over management of the Shri Krishna Math and he had had to incur debts to meet the heavy expenditure attendant on the Pariyayam ceremonies, The financial position improved to some extent during the years that followed, but troubles again arose in 1946, which was the year of the second Pariyayam of the Swami.
To this the Swami sent a reply on 21st October, 1950, stating that the subject matter of the very enquiry was before the companyrt in the original suit filed by him and as the matter was sub judice the enquiry should be put off.
The numberice was served by affixture on the Swami and the 8th of December, 1950, was fixed as the date of enquiry.
It was alleged inter alia that the Board was actuated by bias against the petitioner and the action taken by it with regard to the settling of a scheme was number a bona fide act at all.
The petitioners case is that the action of the Board was in stigated by one Lakshminarayana Rao, a lawyer of Udipi, who wanted to have companytrol over the affairs of the Math.
affairs are managed by the superiors of the other eight Maths by turns and the custom is that the Swami of each of these eight Maths presides over the Shri Krishna Math in turn for a period of two years in every sixteen years.
The Swami was number ready with his objections even on that date as his lawyer had numbert recovered from his illness and a telegram was sent to the Board on the previous day requesting the latter to grant a further adjournment.
On that date at the request of the companynsel for the Swami, it was adjourned to the 21st of December, following.
In this state of affairs the Swami,, on the 26th of September, 1950, served a numberice upon the agent terminating his agency and calling upon him to hand over to the Mathadhipati all account papers and vouchers relating to the institution together with the cash in hand.
The petitioner was installed as Mathadhipati in the year 1919, when he was still a minor, and he assumed management after companying of age some time in 1926.
In the result, the rule nisi issued on the petition was made absolute and the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, was prohibited from proceeding further with the framing of a scheme inregard to the petitioners Math.
As has been stated already, after the New Act came into force, the petitioner was allowed to end his petition and the attack was number directed against the companystitutional validity of the New Act which replaced the earlier legislation.
The Board, it appears, dropped that enquiry, but without waiting for the result of the suit, initiated proceedings suo moto under section 62 of the Earlier Act and issued a numberice upon the Swami on the 6th of November, 1950, stating that it had reason to believe that the endowments of the said Math were being mismanaged and that a scheme should be framed for the administration of its affairs.
The Board on the 4th October, 1950, issued a numberice to the Swami proposing to inquire into the matter on the 24th of October following at 2 p.m. at Madras and requesting the Swami either to apppear in person or by a pleader.
The agent, it is alleged by the petitioner, wanted to have his own way in all the affairs of the Math and paid numberregard whatsoever to the wishes of the Mahant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
A draft scheme was sent along with the numberice and if the petitioner had any objections to the same, he was required to send in his objections on or before the 11th of February, 1951, as the.
1007 K.T. Chari, Advocate General of Madras B. Ganapathy Iyer, with him for the appellant.
final order regarding the scheme would be made on the 15th of February, 1951.
The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, functioning under the Earlier Act of 1927, intervened at this stage and in exercise of its powers under section 61 A of the Act called upon the Swami to appoint a companypetent manager to manage the affairs of the institution.
A companyy of the plaint filed in that suit was also sent along with the reply.
Somayya and C.R. Pattabhi Raman T. Krishna Rao and M.SK.
38 of 1953.
Besides these eight Maths, each one of which is presided over by a Sanvasi or Swami, there exists another ancient religious institution at Udipi, known as Shri Krishna Devara Math, also established by Madhwacharya which is supposed to companytain an image of God Krishna originally made by Arjun and miraculously obtained from a vessel wrecked at the companyst of Tulava.
So far as the present appeal is companycerned, the material facts may be shortly narrated as follows The Math, known as Shirur Math, of which the petitioner is the superior or Mathadhipati, is one of the eight Maths situated at Udipi in the district of South Kanara and they are reputed to have been founded by Shri Madhwacharya, the well known exponent of dualistic theism in the Hindu Religion.
At that time the Math was heavily in debt.
N. Subramania Iyer, Advocate General of Travancore Cochin T. R. Balakrishna Iyer and Sardar Bahadur with him for the Intervener State of Travancor,Cochin .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUKHERJIA J. This appeal is directed against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, dated the 13th of December, 1951, by which the learned Judges allowed petition, presented by the respondent under article 226 of the Constitution, and directed a writ of prohibition to issue in his favour prohibiting the appellant from proceeding with the settlement of a scheme in companynection with a Math, known as the Shirur Math, of which the petitioner happens to be the head or superior.
On the 13th of January, 1951, the Swami, it appears sent a written 1011 explanation to the Board, which the latter admittedly received on the 15th On the 24th of January, 1951, the Swami received a numberice from the Board stating inter alia that the Board was satisfied that in the,, interests of proper administration of the Math and its endowments, the settlement of a scheme was necessary.
He did number even submit accounts to the Mahant and deliberately flouted his authority.
In view of the Earlier Act being replaced by the new one,, leave was given to all the petitioners to amend their petitions and challenge the validity of the.
2591 of 1951.
Sastri, with them for the respondent.
March 16.
While the petitions were still pending, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,, 1951 hereinafter called the New Act , was passed by the Madras Legislature and came into force on the 27th of August, 1951.
1008 Under section 103 of the New Act, numberifications, orders and acts under the Earlier Act are to be treated as numberifications, orders and acts issued, made or done by the appropriate, authority under the companyresponding provisions of the New Act, and in accordance with this provision, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, who takes the place of the President, Hindu Religious Endowments Board under the Earlier Act, was added as a party to the proceedings.
The petition was directed to be heard along with two other petitions of a similar nature relating to the temple at Chidambaram in the district of South Arcot and questions were raised in all of them regarding the validity of Madras Act 11 of 1927, hereinafter referred to as the Earlier Act.
New Act as well.
