SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 9 S.C.R. 974 · Decided: 13-07-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
974
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRs. & ANR.
v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 2020)
JULY 13, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 –
Chapter III of Part-I, Sections 18 to 23 – Constitution of India –
Arts. 363 and 366 (22) – Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple –
Shebaitship or the managership of the temple – There are many
versions as regard to the origin and how the temple was set up,
however, every version accepts that the King of Travancore had a
role in the administration of the temple – After a major fire incident
occurred in the year 1686, it was the king who re-constructed the
temple and installed a new idol and took full control of the temple –
Since then the management of the temple was with the king of
Travancore – Thereafter, a Covenant was entered into by the rulers
of Travancore and Cochin with the Government of India on
27.05.1949 and 29.05.1949 respectively – Art. VIII(b) of the
Covenant preserved the administrative right of the ruler of
Travancore in respect of the Sree Padmanabhswamy temple – The
Constitution of India made certain provisions with regard to privy
purse payable to the rulers in terms of any Covenant entered into
by the ruler of the State – Soon after the coming into force of the
Constitution, the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions
Act, 1950 was enacted and Chapter III of Part-I of the same
comprising of Sections 18 to 23 deals specifically with Sri
Padmnabhaswamy temple – Then came the Constitution (Twenty Sixth
Amendment) Act, 1971 which deleted Arts. 291 and 362 and inserted
Art. 363A which now expressly stipulates, inter-alia, that any person
who was recognised as ruler or successor, and all rights, liabilities
and obligation in respect of Privy purses stand extinguished – On
19.07.1991, the ruler who had executed the Covenant passed away
– Since then, the appellant no. 1, younger brother of the deceased
ruler had been exercising all the functions as ‘Ruler of Travancore’
with respect to the affairs of the temple – A writ petition was filed by
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 974
974
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
975
a advocate before the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto
directing appellant no. 2, the Executing Officer (appointed by the
ruler of Travancore as per covenant) to show the authority under
which he was holding the post of Executing Officer of the temple –
Thereafter, another writ petition was filed by the appellants referring
to the relevant Articles of the Covenant – Also, there were civil suits
pending, which challenged the authority of the appellants herein
with the affairs of the temple – Whether the appellant no.1-younger
brother of the last ruler of Travancore could after the death of the
last ruler on 19.07.1991 claim to be the ‘ruler of Travancore’ within
the meaning of the term contained in s.18(2) of the 1950 Act to
claim ownership, control and management of the Sree
Padmanabhaswamy Temple – The High Court held that neither
appellant no. 1 nor any of the successors of his family can claim
control or management of the temple u/s. 18(2) of the 1950 Act and
the State Government was directed to constitute a body corporate
or trust or other legal authority to take control of the temple –
Aggrieved, the appellants filed appeal before the Supreme Court –
Held: The Supreme Court has laid down that when the idol is
installed and the temple is constructed or an endowment is founded,
the shebaitship is vested in the founder and unless the founder himself
has disposed of the shebaitship in a particular manner or there is
some usage or custom or circumstances showing a different mode
of devolution, the shebaitship like any other species of heritable
property follows the line of inheritance from the founder, and it is
not open to the Court to lay down a new rule of succession or alter
the rule of succession – In the instant case, the shebaitship or the
managership of the temple passed on to the succeeding kings, coming
from the royal family of Travancore and represented a continuous
and unbroken line of successive shebaits from the original founder
– The Art. VIII of the Covenant acknowledged and accepted in the
latter part of Sub-Article (b) of Art. VIII of the covenant that the
administration in respect of the temple was already vested in the
ruler of the Covenanting State of Travancore – Therefore, when the
Covenant was entered into by the Ruler of the 

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