SECRETARY, HOME (ENDOWMENTS), ANDHRA PRADESH versus DIGYADARSAM RAJINDRA RAM DASJEE

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 891 · Decided: 03-05-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SECRETARY, HOME (ENDOWMENTS), ANDHRA PRADESH 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
DIGYADARSAM RAJINDRA RAM DASJEE 
May 3, 1967 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.) 
Madras Hindu Religious and Charitablo Endowments ;Act 
XIX of 
I 959, '" 53-respo11de11t claiming to have succeeded as trustee of Math 
in accordance with procedure under certain agree1nents--other persons 
also· raising disputes and claiming succession-whether vacancy existed to 
enable exercise of power by Commissioner under s, 53. 
After the death of the Mahant of Sri Swami Ha1ibiramji Math, TJCU-
malai, Tirueati, in 19471 an agreement was arrived at on October 29, 
194 7 resolv1ng certain disputes regarding the suecession to the office of 
Mabant and laying down a procedure for choosing a suecessor when 
a vacancy arose. 
Furthermore, the Akada Panchayat was constituted 
the supreme authority in such matters. 
One C.D. became the Mahant 
in 1958. 
The respondent challenged the succession by a 
declaratory 
suit but eventually there was a compromise and in an agreement dated 
July 15, 1961, it was agreed that C.D. was entitled to continue as Mabant, 
and that after his death tlie respondent would succeed him . 
• 
:1.·· 
On the death of C.D. on March 18, 1962, the respondent claimed 
to have succeeded as Mahant in his own right and the Akada Panchayat 
approved the succession by a resolution on the same date. 
However, 
the Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Andhra 
Pradesh. having received a telegram 
disputing 
the respondent's clain1, 
took action under s. 53 of the Madras Hind.u Religious and Charitable 
E!1dowments Act XIX of 1959 and a5"umed charge of the Math and 
its property on March 24, 1964. The respondent thereafter filed a suit 
for a declaration that he was the rightful successor. 
He als11 filed a 
revision before the Government challenging the action taken under s. 53 
whereupon the Government stayed further proceedings wd the respon-
dent therefore withdrew his suit. 
On Jooe 5, 
1962 the Government 
issued an order stating that as there were disputes about who was the 
. rightful successor, unt!I the Civil Court decided this question, it was 
necessary to make. smtable arrangt;ments for the proper administration 
of the ~ath and its endowments; 1t therefore appointed the respondent 
as 1 ~terim Mahant subject to various conditions laid down in the order. 
In _view 0f the respondent's attitude in the discharge of certain of his 
drties. on August 22, 1964, the Government passed an order directing 
him to show cause why the previous order of June 5 1962 should not 
hf . "'!ncellhed. 
The respondent filed a Writ Petition 'againsi this order 
c aim1ng t at h~ had succeeded to the office of Mahant in his own ri ht 
?"d ~at no .action ~ul~ be taken by the Government ooder 8, 53 eit:er 
·•~pomhng him as mterim Mahan! or cancelling such appointment' 
th~ 
Hrfh Court. thereupo!' stayed further proceedings in pursuance of the 
n~ ice pendmg the drnposal of the writ petition. The State Government 
t en passed a further order on September 9 
1965 
framing 
certa' 
char~es agains~ the res~onde'!t, calling for hi; explan~tions to them and 
at t e same. lime .. placing htm under suspension. 
The respondent filed 
a, ~~cont~ . writ pellt.'on. challeng)ng this new order whereupon the earlier 
"'' P1• •IJ?n ~s. d1sm1ssed as mfructuous. The High Court allowed the 
seconl writ petition. 
892 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1967) 3 S.C.R 
It was condended on behalf of the appcll:int that (i) on the death 
or C.D. on l\farch 18, 1962, a vacancy occurred in the office of l\fahant 
and there was a dispute between the ·respondent and two other persons 
each of whom claimed the right of succession; suits had been filed by 
each of those two persons to establish their claims and although these 
had been dismissed, an appeal was pending in respect of one of them; 
in view of this the necessary conditions exist'ed for invoking the pO\Vcr 
under s. fi3 for .the. prop·zr .management of the l\1ath; furthermore, (ii) 
th:1t inasmuch as the respondent ·had been appointed to m~1nagc the insti-
tution i,~, the departm·znt under s. 53 of the Act, and, as hf.'I was continu-
ing in such management by virtue of that appointment, the State bad 
ampfe jurisdiction to pass orders either of suspending or even dismissing 
the respondent. 
HELD : Dismissing .the appeal; 
The High Court had rightly held that there was no jurisdiction for 
the exercise of the power u

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