BABA CHARAN DASS UDHASI versus MAHANT BASANT DAS BABAJI CHELA BABA LAXMANDAS UDASI SADHU

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 494 · Decided: 14-07-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
BABA CHARAN DASS UDHASI 
V. 
MAHANT BASANT DAS BABAJI CHELA 
BABA LAXMANDAS UDASI SADHU 
JULY 14, 2000 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Hindu Law: 
C 
T.N Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959: 
Section 
60-Re/igious 
head-Appointment 
of-Power 
of 
Commissioner-Held: Commissioner is only empowered to take steps for the 
temporary custody and protection of the endowments-Regularisation of 
D appointment, if any, is only a temporary measure-Commissioner has no 
power to appoint a head of a Math. 
Religious and Charitable Endowments-Math-Madathipathi-
Appointment of-Deed of instrument by which the Math was founded provided 
mode of devolution of its headship on the basis of Sishya Parampara (Guru 
E to disciple)-Last head died without appointing a successor as per the mode 
of succession-Registered society which founded the Math appointed a person 
as the Head in accordance with its Memorandum of Association-Validity 
of-Held: Mode of appointment of head of a Math is governed by the deed 
of instrument by which it was established-There can be no departure from 
such mode without valid justification-Hence, society validly appointed the 
F said person as Madathipathi-Person acting only as agent or mukami of the 
properly appointed head has no right to succeed as Madathipathi. 
The dispute in this appeal relates to the appointment of the Madathipathi 
of Shiva Kanchi Udasi Math, Kanchipuram. The Math was founded by a Society 
G based in Allahabad and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 
The deed of instrument by which the Math was founded provided for the mode 
of devolution of its headship, which was from Guru to disciple (Sishya 
Parampara). By a deed of appointment one R was appointed as the head of the 
Math. 
H 
R appointed N as his agent or mukami to look after the Math and its 
494 
B.C DASS UOHASI ,. MAH ANT BASANT DAS BABAJ! CH ELA BABA LAXMANOAS lJDASI SADHU 
495 
properties. In the judicial proceedings initiated on behalf of the Math, N A 
described himself and also acted as a Mukami appointed by the Allahabad 
Society. 
No successor was appointed after the demise of R. The Allahabad 
Society transferred N from the Math in question to some other place. N handed 
over possession of the properties of the Math but later trespassed into the B 
said properties and assumed possession thereof asserting that the Math in 
question was an independent institution of which he was the head. This led to 
the filing of a suit by the Allahabad Society seeking declaration that the 
properties belonged to it and also prayed for delivery of possession. In this 
suit N contended that the Allahabad Society had no power or authority over C 
the Math in question. During the pendency of the suit N was appointed receiver 
and in the said capacity N submitted accounts to the court in respect of the 
management of the Math properties. 
The said suit was dismissed. However, in the judgment certain 
observations were made and some of the findings were recorded against N as D 
well. Both the Allahabad Society and N preferred separate appeals before the 
High Court. 
High Court dismissed the appeals and issued directions for the 
appointment of the head of the Math. The High Court found N not to be a duly 
installed or duly appointed htad of the Math and h~ was thus held incompetent E 
to nominate or appoint his successor. The High Court also directed that the 
Commissioner under the T.N. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments 
Act, 1959 could intervene and take steps to fill up the vacancy, if any, in the 
headship of the Math. 
The Allahabad Society filed an appeal before this Court. N died in F 
February 1960 during the pendency of the appeal anri his nominee, S, was 
substituted as a respondent in place of N. The appeal was dismissed as 
withdrawn. The Allahabad Society appointed the respondent-plaintiff as the 
head of the Math by a resolution dated 20-11-1972 in accordance with its 
Memorandum of Association. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit contending G 
that the plaintiff was legally and validly appointed as the head of the Math, 
that S was illegally occupying the said Math without any authority and sought 
a decree of declaration and possession. The trial court dismissed the suit but 
the High Court allowed the appeal. 
In this appeal. on behalf of the appellant, it was contended that N validly H 
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A appointed his successor 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.