SRI MAHALINGA THAMBIRAN SWAMIGAL versus HIS HOLINESS SRI LA SRI KASIVASI ARULNANDI THAMBIRAN SWAMIGAL

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 74 · Decided: 19-10-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

74 
SRI MAHALINGA THAMBIRAN SW AMIGAL 
v. 
HIS HOLINESS SRI LA SRI KASIV ASI ARULNANDI 
THAMBIRAN SWAMIGAL 
October 19, 1973 
[K. K. MATHEW, M. H. BEG AND A. K. MUKHERJEA, JJ.) 
Hindu Law-of Religious and Charitab.'e Trust-By a will, the head 'Jf 
the 
A-full nominated the iunior Elavarasu but later, by another will, terminated the 
appellant-If valid-Whether status was acquired by the junior after nomina· 
tion-Meaning of 'Status'. 
The appellant filed a suit for a declaration that he was entitled to continue 
as the junior head (Elavarasu) of the Tiruppandal or the Kasi Mutt ·and for a 
A 
B 
perpetual injunction against the . defendant, the head of the Mutt.· Iroµi inter· 
C 
fedng with his functioning as the junior head of the Mutt. 
The defendant, now dead, contended that the appellant 
was 
not validly 
nominated as the junior head of the Mutt and that even if he was nominated as 
such, the appellant acquired no right by the 
nomination to 
continue as 
the 
junior head after the head of the Mutt cancelled the nomination by another 
document Ex. B-9 will. 
The trial court found that by Ex. B-1 will, the defendant nominated the 
appellant as the Elavarasu of the Mutt but that he-'acquired no status nor did 
D 
he become the holder of an office by virtue of the nomination. The court 
further fo1.in<l that the defendant was competent to cancel the noinination and 
that he had cancelled it by executing Ex. B-9 will. 
The trial court, therefore, 
dismissed the suit. 
The District Co.urt _also confirmed the findings of the trial 
court and dismissed the appeal. , 
In the second appeal, the learned single judge of the High Court granted a 
decree to the appellant on the .sround that by the nomination of the appellant 
he acquired a status and be beCame a holder of an office and that the defendant 
E 
coqld terminate t_he office :o'"r status only on good cause; but since the appellant 
was not guilty of any misconduct, the cancellation of the nomination by Ex. B-9 
will was ineffective. " 
On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the decree passed 
by the single judge on the basis of its finding that the appellant did not become 
a h'Jlder of an office by virtue of the nomination and so it was open to 
the 
defendant to cancel the nomination without notice and without assigning any 
reas·on. 
F 
The questions for .consideration before this Cou~t were :-
( 1) \Vhether. by virtue of the nomination, the appdlant obtained a status 
or a right .in law or became the holder of an office, and 
(2) whether the defendant was competent to cancel the nomination without 
good cause. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : (i} During the first part of the 19th century, there were two manaa:-
G 
ing Thambirans both at Banaras and at Tiruppanandal, a senior and a junior; 
and the peculiar feature of th'is period consisted in this double agency tit each 
centre Of control. r7SF1 
Succession to the office of Mahant or Head of a Mutt is ta be regulated by 
the custom of the particular Mutt and one who claims the office by right of· 
succession is bound to allege and prove what the custom of the particular insti .. 
tution is. 
[78GJ 
Giyana Sambandha Pandra San11adhi 
v. 
Kandasanii 
Thambiran, 
l.L.R. 
ff 
10 Madras 375; Greedharee 
Doss 
v. 
Nandokissore 
Doss Mohunt [867] 
M.l.A. 405: Ramalingam Pillai v. Vythial'ngam Pillai [1893] 20 I.A. 150 etc., 
!Ire referred to. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
MAHALINGA THAMIHRAN v. LA SRI KASIVASI (Mathew, J.) 
7 s 
(ii) The custom in the Kasi Mutt was for the head of the Mutt to nol'.hinate: 
a successor to succeed him by will and was attended by c~rtain religious cere-
monies. 
The appellant, in th~ present case, was nominated by Exhibit B-1 
will and whether the nomination was accompanied by perfornlance of any 
religious ceremony was not essential-[79C] 
B. K. J.fukherjea's Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts" 3rd Ed. 
1940 p. 257 and M. B. Bhagat v. 
G. N. Bhagat [1972] 
2 S.C.R. 
1005· 
Krishnagil'i, Trikanigiri 
v. 
Slzeriddar Kavlekar A.I.R. 1922 Bombay 202 and 
Raghunarh v. Ganesh A. I. R. 1932 Allahabad 603, refe·rred to. 
(iii) In the present case, although the power of nominai:fon was exercised by 
a will, it is pro-tanto a non-testamentary instrument. 
The definition of ''Will". 
in Section 2(h) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, would show that it is the 
legal declaration of the intention of the testator with respect to his :property 
which he desires to be carried into eff

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