@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
V. Periya Karuppiah
1. This application has been filed to discharge the 8th respondent and to direct to hand over the properties of Anandrasrama Sadhu Maha Sangam
to the applicant, which is a parent body of Sri Karapathra Sivaprakasa Swamigal Mutt. Heard Mr. P. Subramani, learned counsel for the applicant
and Mr. S. Pattabiraman, learned Government Advocate (C.S) appearing for 8th respondent and Mr. N. Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing
for 9th respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant would submit in his argument that the applicant is the Anandrasrama Sadhu Maha Sangam, to which the
deponent is the present ""Sangamoorthy"" and President. The said sangam was originally established on 27.12.1914 under the Societies Act, 1860
in the name of ""Madras Vyasarpadi Anandrasrama Sadhu Maha Sangam"". The said sangam owned properties in S.No.727/1 and 748 of
Vyasarpadi Perambur village and a temple and buildings constructed by a sangam. He would also submit that the then ''Sangamoorthy'' Sri Siva
Prakasa Swamigal executed a Will on 03.04.1918 and the Will was probated on 19.12.1918. He would also submit that there are several
samadhis of Sadhus raised in the property and the sanyasees were permitted to be buried in the said place and appropriate sanction was also
obtained from the Corporation on 12.07.1918 by the Secretary of the said Sangam. He would also submit that as per the Will executed by Sri
Siva Prakasa Swamigal, properties were dedicated for teaching Vedantha Philosophy and three executors were appointed in the said Will, viz.,
Moorthy Swami, Muniappa Swami and Guru Samy. The samadhis of Sreelasree Karapathira Sivaprakasa Gnana Desiga Swamigal and another
Sangamoorthy named Mukananda Swamigal were also raised. He would also submit that in 1926 there was some misunderstanding in the
administration of Sri Karapathra Swamigal mutt and therefore, a suit was filed in C.S.No.154 of 1926 u/s 92 CPC before this court and after the
contest, this court passed a judgment on 20.05.1927 and also passed a scheme decree. As per the scheme decree clause 4, non-ascetic trustees
shall be appointed by the Court. The said clause was subsequently amended by the order of this Court by substituting ''Commissioner'' in the place
of ''Court''. He would also submit that the clause-3, limiting the period of office for three years, was also amended to five years in the same order
passed by this Court in A.No.1438 of 1975. After the amendment was made in clause-4 of the scheme decree, the Commissioner, who is to
make appointment of non-ascetic trustees, had taken the entire administration of the properties as that of the properties of the Commissioner and
indulged in administration. He would also submit that a portion of the property of 3 cawis 15 grounds and 713 Sq. Ft of land in S.No.727/1 was
acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and an award was passed, from which the compensation amount have been realised and deposited
into Court in LAC.No.21 of 1969. He would also submit that the Slum Clearance Board acquired 12.5 acres of land in S.Nos.748 and 727/1
equal to 5.06.0707 hectare and a sum of Rs.12,62,946/- was handed over to HR & CE Department through a cheque on 17.03.1993 leaving an
extent of 2.6= acres for the mutt and Nandhavanam. He would also submit that the said circumstances forced the interested persons to file
applications after applications towards the welfare of the Sangam and the dispute was purely due to the handing over of the management of the
trust to the 8th respondent, temporarily. He would further submit that the 8th respondent Commissioner is in no way connected with the trust and
regarding the possession and enjoyment of the properties and moneys. He would also submit that the modification done through the order made in
A.No.1438 of 1975 has to be reconsidered with the present application to discharge the Commissioner / 8th respondent from the management.
He would also submit that the daily poojas were not done and the temple was closed for several hours instead of minimum hours a day. He would
also submit that ''Kumbabisekam'' has not been done for the past 30 years to the temple and no ''sodasa sobrina'' pooja was performed, which is
essential for Siva temples. He would also submit that no religious books are periodically published or released; Per contra, the valuable books kept
were eaten away by white ants and all those books were written by Sri Karapathra Swamigal. He would further submit that the lands of the trust
measuring 12.5 acres was divided into small grounds after 1963 and was leased to various tenants and the income derived from such lease are
being enjoyed for their personal benefits by the trustees. He would also submit that the 8th respondent did not take any steps to check and
safeguard the properties and was not caring to keep any account for the income. The yearly audit as directed by the Court in the scheme decree
was not performed. He would also submit that the 8th respondent did not take steps to celebrate the swamigal mukthi day to be celebrated as
''Guru Pooja''. He would further submit that several unscrupulous people have encroached the properties belonging to the trust and it was not
prevented by the 8th respondent. He would also submit that the important aspect of providing food, cloth and shelter to sadhus as per the wishes
and Will of Sri Siva Prakasa Swamigal are not done, but on the other hand, the sadhus were not allowed inside the mutt. The philosophy of
vedantha and advaita are not propagated as per the desire of Swamigal. He would also submit that the valuable buildings of about 6000 sq.ft is left
uncared by the 8th respondent and the buildings are in a dilapidated condition, which may fall at any time. The said building was meant for
meditation and the big hall was used for the said purpose and for lecturing vedantha teachings. He would also submit that the earlier order passed
would enable the 8th respondent to take over the mutt. He would also submit that the 8th respondent did not care for the money deposited in the
Court for the purpose of investing in any bank for augmenting the interest income. He would further submit that the purpose of scheme decree was
not followed by the 8th respondent and therefore, necessary orders should have been passed to hand over the properties to the Sangam, the
scheme decree will be promptly implemented to the letter and spirit. He would further submit that the 8th respondent will not be prejudiced by a
direction to hand over the properties to the Sangam, because it would help the public at large and also for the development of the mutt and
Sangam. He would further submit that the properties absolutely belonged to Sangam and not for any mutt. The parent Sangam was founded in the
year 1910 and the decree passed by the City Civil Court in O.S.No.1995 of 2007 dated 12.03.2010 had regularised the Sangam upto date
through its order and therefore, the Sangam is the appropriate person to maintain its properties, which was temporarily handed over to the 8th
respondent. He would also submit that if the estate of the Sangam is not ordered to be handed over to the Sangam, the estate of the Sangam will
be ruined and irreparable loss will occur and the public devotees and the mutt will be the loosers. He would also submit that the respondents 8 and
9 viz., the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE Department have mismanaged for several years and it has become necessary that
the 8th and 9th respondents have to be discharged from managing the entire property of the Sangam and a direction may be issued to hand over
the said properties to the applicant''s sangam, the parent body of Sri Karapatra Swamigal mutt. He would also cite a judgment of the Calcutta High
Court reported in AIR 1953 Calcutta 140 (Harinarayan Shaw and another..vs.. Gobardhandas Shroff and others) for the principle that the
properties held by the trustees of an unregistered society would become the properties of the society on its registration. Therefore, he would
request the Court to allow the application as sought for.
3. The learned counsel appearing for 9th respondent would submit in his argument that the properties as detailed by the applicant have to be
verified with the registers maintained for that purpose. He would also submit that some of the properties were acquired by the Government and a
sum of Rs.25,00,000/- is kept in Fixed Deposit and the income from the said deposit have been utilised for maintaining the properties as well as
for conducting the object of the trust. He would also submit that the mutt is situated in 33 grounds belonging to the trust and the respondents 8 and
9 have been properly maintaining the properties and income and thereby managing the trust as per the direction of the Court. He would further
submit in his argument that the present sangam is a new sangam and it has no relevance with the old sangam, which was having right in the
properties and the object of the Will executed by the swamigal. The said sangam was defunct and it could be revived only u/s 44 of the Societies
Registration Act. He would further submit in his argument that the scheme decree framed by this Court in C.S.No.154 of 1926 is binding upon the
parties and if any scheme decree has to be substituted, a suit u/s 92 CPC ought to have been filed by the interested persons in accordance with
law. The amendment in the scheme decree was done in the year 1975 on the application of a competent person. He would also submit that the
competency of the applicant is doubtful and they cannot claim that they are the continuation of the parent sangam. He would also submit that the
order passed by the City Civil Court in recognising the sangam is not through a detailed trial and it cannot decide the issue when the present
applicant sought for changes in a scheme decree, where the actual trustees and other persons were to be added as parties since the decree was
framed in the year 1927. He would also cite an unreported judgment of this Court dated 09.06.2011 made in O.A.No.93 of 2011 and
A.No.6301 of 2010 in C.S.No.136 of 1951 and A.Nos.5907 and 5908 of 2010 in O.P.No.453 of 2006 (Anandhasrama Sadhu Maha
Sangam..vs.. Veera Subbaiya Swamigal Mutt Trust and others) in which this Court has ordered with a direction to approach the Court in the
comprehensive suit u/s 92 CPC, when the scheme decree is sought to be intervened by the persons, who is said to have interested in the trust. The
same principle is applicable to the present case also, in which the competency of the applicant is questionable and if he is really interested, he
should approach the Court as per the provisions of Section 92 for appropriate relief. He would also submit that 8th and 9th respondents, being the
responsible officers of HR & CE Department, are acting in accordance with the rules and regulations and therefore, the allegations levelled against
them in the application as well as in the argument are not true and sustainable. Therefore, he would request the Court to dismiss the application as
not sustainable.
4. The learned Government Advocate (C.S) appearing for 8th respondent has adopted the argument of the learned counsel for the 9th respondent
and had sought for the dismissal of the application.
5. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side.
6. It is the case of the applicant that the scheme decree passed by this Court in a suit in C.S.No.154 of 1926 filed u/s 92 CPC dated 20.04.1927
was sought to be amended in its entirety in A.No.1438 of 1975 and in the said amendment, the Commissioner was given power in the place of
Court and the Commissioner has therefore, taken charge of the property. However, it was only temporary. The further submission was that from
the date of taking management of the trust as per the amendment caused in the scheme decree, the 8th respondent, Commissioner was not
properly looked after the trust and the buildings are in a dilapidated condition and the income was not augmented and the Commissioner is not
looking after the supervision work properly and therefore, the regular poojas and important poojas were not done in the temple and no
kumbabisekam was done for the past 30 years. For all these reasons and other reasons, the applicant is seeking for removal of the 8th respondent
/ Commissioner from the management of the properties of the trust and the applicant seeks for handing over the management of the properties to
the applicant sangam.
7. The objection raised by the learned counsel for 9th respondent / Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE Department and the learned Government
Advocate (C.S) appearing for 8th respondent was that the order of this Court in amending the scheme decree promptly empowered the 8th
respondent to appoint non-ascetic trustees and thereby, to supervise the said trust in the place of Court. The respondents 8 and 9 have questioned
the competency of the applicant to step into the shoes of the parent sangam, namely, ""Madras Vyasarpadi Anandrasrama Sadhu Maha Sangam"".
Admittedly, the said sangam was a registered sangam even in those days. It was defunct and no sangam was in existence thereafter and nobody
has revived after complying with the provisions of Societies Act or Societies Registration Act for the restoration of the Sangam. The present
sangam is stated to have been recognised by the City Civil Court in an order passed by the said Court. Whether such an order would revive the
sangam to succeed to the earlier sangam registered and which was in possession and enjoyment of the properties of the trust is the question. The
said point even it is in favour of the applicant, it requires volume of evidence for proving its status as well as to lay a claim over the properties of the
trust. Apart from that, a scheme decree framed by this Court cannot be simply modified or turned turtle on the request of the alleged sangam, who
are yet to prove their identity. All these allegations levelled against the 8th and 9th respondents by the applicant towards the alleged
mismanagement of the trust properties cannot be decided on the basis of the affidavit filed by the parties in this application. They also require a
detailed enquiry or trial for the purpose of deciding those alleged incidents.
8. In a similar case, this Court in an unreported judgment dated 09.06.2011 made in O.A.No.93 of 2011 and A.No.6301 of 2010 in C.S.No.136
of 1951 and A.Nos.5907 and 5908 of 2010 in O.P.No.453 of 2006 (Anandhasrama Sadhu Maha Sangam..vs.. Veera Subbaiya Swamigal Mutt
Trust and others), has categorically laid down as follows :-
18. Therefore, the fact that in 1956 the trust was revived, again to be allowed to become defunct and again to be revived, would not enable the
Court to change the scheme decree framed by the Division Bench, except in a manner known to law, by way of a suit u/s 92 CPC. In such
circumstances, the above applications are liable to be dismissed and all the above applications are accordingly dismissed. However, it will not
debar the persons interested in the Trust, seeking relief u/s 92 CPC for a modification of the scheme decree passed in O.S.A.No.1 of 1955.
9. In the said judgment, it has been found that a defunct sangam or association, even if revived, it has to approach the Court by way of a suit u/s 92
CPC to change the scheme decree already framed by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court. The similar circumstance has been found in this
case also, in which the applicant has to prove its identity so as to claim over the representation of the sangam and that would be possible only in a
civil suit to be filed as per the provision of Section 92 CPC.
10. The judgment of the Calcutta High Court as relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is also not applicable to the present case. The
dictum of the aforesaid judgment that when an unregistered sangam was having properties and the said properties would devolve upon the said
sangam when it is registered as per the Societies Registration Act could not be applied to the present case because the parent sangam in this case
was already registered and it became defunct and the revival could be done only in accordance with law and not by registering another sangam and
to claim over it. However, these points could be considered only in a detailed suit, if filed u/s 92 CPC by two or more interested persons.
Therefore, I am of the considered view that the said judgment of the Hon''ble Calcutta High Court is not applicable to the present facts of the case.
Per contra, the principle laid down by this Court in the unreported judgment as stated supra is applicable to the present case and accordingly, the
remedy for the applicant is to go for a detailed suit u/s 92 CPC in accordance with the provisions made therein and for the reliefs as contemplated
under the said Section. With the aforesaid observation, the application is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.
