http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: SECRETARY, HOME (ENDOWMENTS), ANDHRA PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DIGYADARSAM RAJINDRA RAM DASJEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/05/1967

BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. HIDAYATULLAH, M.

CITATION:  1968 AIR  105            1967 SCR  (3) 891  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1970 SC 181  (2)

ACT: Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments ’Act XIX of 1959, s. 53-respondent claiming to have succeeded as trustee of   Math  in  accordance  with  procedure   under   certain agreements--other persons also raising disputes and claiming succession-whether  vacancy  existed to enable  exercise  of power by Commissioner under s. 53.

HEADNOTE: After the death of the Mahant of Sri Swami Hathiramji  Math, Tirumalai, Tirupati, in 1947, an agreement was arrived at on October  29, 1947 resolving certain disputes  regarding  the succession  to  the  office  of Mahant  and  laying  down  a procedure  for  choosing a successor 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 Mahant, and that after  his death the respondent would succeed him. 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  claim,  took-  action under  s.  53 of the Madras Hindu Religious  and  Charitable Endowments  Act XIX of 1959 and assumed 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 also filed a revision  before  the Government   challenging  the  action  taken  under  S.   53 whereupon the Government stayed further proceedings and  the respondent therefore withdrew his suit.  On June 5, 1962 the Government  issued  an  order stating  that  as  there  were disputes  about  who was the rightful successor,  until  the Civil Court decided this question, it was necessary to  make suitable  arrangements for the proper administration of  the Math   and  its  endowments;  it  therefore  appointed   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

respondent  as interim Mahant subject to various  conditions laid down in the order. in view of the respondent’s attitude in  the  discharge of certain of his duties, on  August  22, 1964,  the Government passed an order directing him to  show cause why the previous order of June 5, 1962, should not  he cancelled.   The  respondent filed a Writ  Petition  against this  order claiming that he had succeeded to the office  of Mahant in his own right and that no action could be taken by the  Government under s. 53 other appointing him as  interim Mahant  or  cancelling  such appointment-,  the  High  Court thereupon  stayed  further proceedings in pursuance  of  the notice pending the disposal of the writ petition.  The State Government then passed a further order on September 9, 1965, framing certain charge-, against the respondent, calling for his  explanations to them ’.Ind. at the same  time,  placing him  under suspension.  The respondent filed a  second  writ petition  challenging this new order whereupon  the  earlier writ petition was dismissed as infructious.  The High  Court allowed the second writ petition. 892     It was condendcd on behalf of the appellant that (i)  on the  death of C D. on March 18,1962, a  vacancy occurred  in the  of]fire of Mahant 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  ,tithough  these had been dismissed, an appeal was pending in respect of  one of them;   view of this the necessary conditions existed for invoking the power under s. 53 for the proper management  of the  Math; furthermore, that inasmuch as the respondent  had been  appointed to manage the institution by the  department under  s. 53 of the Act, and, as he, was continuing in  such management  by  virtue of that appointment,  the  State  had ample  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 under s.  53  of the Act. (i) Before s. 53 can be invoked. two conditions are necessary  viz.,  (a) a vacancy must have  occurred  in  the office  of  the trustee of a Math; and (b) there must  be  a dispute  respecting the right of succession to such  office. In  the present case although it. was possible to  say  that there  was a dispute resperting the right of  succession  to the office of Mahant, the further condition that there  must be a vacancy could not be said to have existed and the  High Court had rightly accepted the claim of the respondent  that by  virtue of the Panchayat agreement of October  29,  1947, the compromise agreement of Julv  15, 1961, and the approval given  to  his succeession by the Akada  Panchayat.  he  had succeeded  as  Mahant March 18, 1962, on the death  of  C.D. 1898 B-D. H]     (ii)  If the respondent had succeeded as Mahant  on  the death of C.D., in his own right. the mere circumsta’nce that the  Government  also  passed an  order  appointing  him  as interim  Mahant, later would not take away the right of  the respondent  to function as Mahant.  Once it is held that  he was  not holding the office exclusively on the basis of  the order of the Government of June 5, 1962. it follows that the appellant had no jurisdiction to. pass an order, placing the respondent under suspension, as that virtually amounted  10. a removal of the trustee of a Math which could only be  done in accordance with the provisions of s. 52 of the Act.  [899 G-900 A]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2586  of 966.     Appeals from the judgment dated November 17, 1966 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 1589 of 1965. P. Ram Reddy and A.V.V. Nab’, for the appellants.     1.  V. Rangacharya, B. Parthasarathy and P.C.  Bhartari. for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Vaidialingam,  J.   This  appeal,  by  certificate,   is directed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, allowing  a  writ petition, filed by the  respondent,  under Art. 226 of the Constitution.     The facts leading up to the filing of the Writ Petition, by the respondent, may be briefly indicated.  In respect  of Sri  Swami  Hathiramji Math. Tirumalai,  Tirupati,  disputes arose  regarding 89 3 the  succession  to the office of the Mahant  of  the  Math, after the death, in 1947, of the then Mahant, Prayag Dossji. An  agreement seems to have been arrived at, on October  29, 1947, laying ,town the procedure for choosing a successor to the office of ’the Mahant, when a vacancy arises.  The Akada Panchayat  appears  to  have been  constituted  the  supreme authority,  in such matters.  That agreement also  provided, as  to who, among the respondent, and one Chetham Doss,  was to succeed to the office of the Mahant, on the death of  one Narayan  Doss.  Narayan Doss died on December 9,  1958,  and Chetham  Doss succeeded as Mahant.  The respondent filed  O. S.  84 of 1958, in the Subordinate Judge’s Court,  Chittoor, for  a  declaration that he is entitled to  succeed  to  the office of Mahant.  The suit was resisted, by Chetam Dass, on the  basis that under the agreement of October 29, 1947,  he was  legitimately entitled to succeed as  Mahant.   Sometime later,  the  respondent  and Chetam  Dass,  entered  into  a compromise, by virtue of an agreement, dated July 15,  1961. Both  of  theta  agreed  that Chetam  Das  was  entitled  to continue   as  Mahant,  and  that,  after  his  death,   the respondent  was  to  succeed as Mahant.  III  view  of  this agreement, the respondent got dismissed, as settled, O.S. 84 of 1958. Chetam  Dass  died, on March 18, 1962,  and  the  respondent claims to have succeeded as Mahant, in his own right.   But, according  to the appellant, the Commissioner H.R.  &  C.E., Andhra  Pradesh, received telegram stating that there was  a dispute about the person who was to succeed as Mahant.  The, Assistant  Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., took action, under  s. 53  of  the Madras Hindu Religious &  Charitable  Endowments Act,  1951 (Act XIX of 1951). (hereinafter called the  Act), which  is  applicable to the State of  Andhra  Pradesh,  and assumed  charge,  on  March 24. 1962, of the  Math  and  its properties.   The respondent filed. on March 26, 1962,  O.S. 24  of  1962,  for a declaration that  he  is  the  rightful successor to the office of the Mahant of the Institution, in question.   The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., was made a  party to  the suit.  The respondent also filed a revision,  before the Government, on April 18, 1962, challenging the  assuming charge of the Math, under s. 53 of the Act, by the Assistant Commissioner.   The Government stayed  further  proceedings; and, in consequence, O.S. 24 of 1962, was withdrawn, by  the respondent,  on April 24, 1962.  The Government also  passed an order, on June 5, 1962, stating that it was necessary  to take action, for making suitable arrangements for the proper

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

administration  of  the Math and its  endowments,  till  the civil  court decided as to who should succeed to the  office of  the  Mahant.  In this connection, the  State  Government referred to an objection, received, from one Devendra  Dass, stating that he is the proper person entitled to succeed  to the  office of the Mahant.  Ultimately, by the  said  order, the Government appointed the respondent, as an 894 interim Mahant, subject to the various conditions, laid down therein.  Devendra Dass filed writ petition No. 602 of 1962, on June 21, 1962, in the High Court, challenging this  order of  the  State  Government dated June 5,  1962.   That  writ petition  was,  dismissed  on  August  27,  1962.   In   the meanwhile,  Devendra Dass, who was a minor,  had  instituted two  suits, O.S. Nos. 50 of 1962 and 57 of 1962, to  declare him  as the person entitled to succeed to the office of  the Mahant,  on the death of Chetam Dass.  In the first suit  he was  represented, by one Mukundd Dos!,, as next friend,  and in the second suit he was represented by one Bhagwant  Doss, as  the next friend.  When Devendra Doss attained  majority, later  on,  he preferred to continue O.S. 50  of  1962.  and therefore O.S. 57 of 1962 was dismissed, as unnecessary. On August 22, 1964, the Government passed an order,  direct- ing  the  respondent to show cause why its  previous  order, dated  June 5, 1962, appointing the respondent,  as  interim Mahant, should not be cancelled.  This appears to have  been issued,  by the State Government, in view of the  fact  that the  respondent was taking a particular  attitude  regarding the  pada kanikkas received by him.  In the said order,  the Government  also  proceeded,  on the basis that  it  has  no jurisdiction  to  appoint an interim Mahant when  action  is taken, under s. 53 of the Act. On  receipt  of  this  notice,  the  respondent  filed  writ petition No. 1534 of 1964, challenging the said order.   His claim  appears  to have been that he had  succeeded  to  the office  of  Mahant.  in his own right, after  the  death  of Chetam Dass, and that no action can be taken, under s. 53 of the  Act,  and therefore, the question  of  the  Government, either  appointing  him  as interim Mahant.  or  taking  any action to cancel such an order, does not arise.  It is  seen that further proceedings, in pursuance of the notice, issued by  the Government, were stayed, by the High Court,  pending the  disposal  of the writ petition.  The  State  Government passed  an  order,  on September 9,  1965,  framing  certain charges,  as  against the respondent, and directing  him  to furnish  his  explanation. regarding the same, and,  at  the same  time,  placed him under  suspension.   The  respondent filed,  writ  petition no. 1589 of  1965.  challenging  this order  of the Government, placing him under suspension.   In view  of this writ petition, the earlier writ petition.  no. 1534  of 1.964, was dismissed, as infructuous, on April  14. 1966. In   the  meanwhile,  Bhagwant  Doss,  who  had   originally instituted  O.S.  no.  57 of 1962, as  the  next  friend  of Devendra  Dass,  and  which suit was got  dismissed  by  the minor,  after attaining majority, instituted  another  suit, O.S.  no. 69 of 1965 on September 29. 1965, claiming in  his own right to be the person entitled to succeed to the office of Mahant.  This suit appears to be still pend- 89 5 ing.   But  O.S.  50  of  1962,  which  was  decided  to  be continued, by Devendra Doss, was contested by the respondent and, ultimately, dismissed, on April 28, 1966.  It is stated that  an appeal., A.S. No. 476 of 1966, has been  filed,  on November  17,  1966.  against this decree and  it  is  still

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

pending. The main contention, taken by the respondent, in writ  peti- tion  no.  1589  of 1965, was that he  had  already  in  law succeeded  as Mahant, on March 18, 1962, when the  presiding Mahant,  Chetam  Doss, died.  Therefore, according  to  him, there  was no vacancy which can be aid to have occurred,  in the  office  of  the  trustee of the Math,  so  as  to  give jurisdiction   to   the  Assistant  Commissioner,   or   the Commissioner,  H.R. & C.E., to take action, under S.  53  of the  Act.  The respondent also relied upon the  circumstance that  the suit filed by Devendra Doss, O.S. 50 of 1962,  had been dismissed and the Court had accepted his title to  hold the  office  of the Mahant, on the basis  of  the  Panchayat Agreement, dated October 29, 1947, as well as the agreement, dated  July 15, 1961, entered into between him and the  then Mahant,  Chetam Dass.  The respondent also relied  upon  the circumstance  that his assumption of office, as  Mahant,  on the  death of Chetam Dass, has been approved, on  March  18, 1962, by the supreme authority, namely, the Akada Panchayat. The appellant resisted the claim of the respondent., on  the ,,round  that  when  Chetam Doss died,  and  the  respondent attempted to take charge as Mahant, a claim was made, by one Devendra Doss, that he was the person, lawfully entitled  to succeed to the office of the Mahant.  On the death of Chetam Doss,  on March 18, 1962, a vacancy occurred, in the  office of  the  trustee of the nath, and there is also  a  dispute, between  the  respondent and Devendra  Doss,  regarding  the right  of  succession to such office.  In view of  the  fact that the necessary conditions, for invoking s. 53 exist, the assumption of management of the Math was taken over, by  the Assistant   Commissioner,  H.R.  &  C.E.,  for  the   proper management of the institution.  It was also pointed out that the suit instituted, by Bhagwant Doss, O.S. no. 69 of  1965, claiming in himself the right to succeed, as a trustee,  was still  pending  and  that also shows  there  is  a  dispute, regarding  succession  to the office of the-  trustee.   The appellant has also urged, that in any event, inasmuch as the respondent has been appointed, to manage the institution, by the  department,  under  s. 53 of the Act, and.  as  he  was continuing in such management by virtue of such appointment, the  State had ample jurisdiction to pass orders  either  of suspending, or even dismissing the respondent. The learned Judges of the High Court have held that the res- pondent  has succeeded as Mahant, on March 18, 1962, on  the death of Chetam Dass, by virtue of the Panchayat  Agreement, of  October  29. 1947, and the compromise  agreement,  dated July 15, 896 1961.   Therefore,  it  Cannot be said that  there  was  any vacancy  in the office of the trustee of the Math, so as  to enable the appellant to take action, under s. 53 of the Act. The  High  Court has, in this connection,  referred  to  the findings  recorded,  by the Subordinate  Judge’s  Court,  in favour  of  the respondent, in O.S. 50 of  1962.   The  mere circumstance that after a person has succeeded to the office of the trustee, other people lay claims to that office,  and institute  litigation for that purpose, will not,  according to  the High Court, give jurisdiction to the  appellants  to take  action,  under s. 53 of the Act.  The  High  Court  is further of the view that the appellant’s action, in  placing the   respondent  under  suspension,  is  contrary  to   the directions  given  by  the High Court,  on  April  9,  1965, pending  the disposal of the writ petition.  The High  Court is  further  of  the  view that  the  stand,  taken  by  the appellants, is quite contrary to the earlier stand, taken in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

their   order,  dated  June  5,  1962,  wherein   they   had categorically stated that the civil Court’s decision will be conclusive and final, regardin- the succession to the office of the Mahant.  This reason, is given by the High Court,  as it  was  of  the view that the  appellant  should  give  due respect  to  the  decision, in O.S. 50 of  1962.   On  these grounds  the  High Court quashed the order  passed,  by  the State Government, dated September 9, 1966, placing the peti- tioner, under suspension. Mr.   Rain   Reddy,  learned  counsel  appearing   for   the appellants. has raised the same contentions that were taken, before  the  High  Court.  In  addition,  counsel  has  also pointed  out that the decision, in O.S. 50 of 1962, has  not become  final,  inasmuch  as Devendra Doss,  who  lost  that litigation,  has filed A.S. No. 476 of 1966, which is  still pending.   Counsel further points out that, in view  of  the dispute raised, by Devendra Doss, by making a claim for  the trusteeship  or  the Math, before the  Government  the  writ petition, No. 602 of 1962, filed by the said party, Lis well as  the various suits, referred to above, will clearly  show that  there  is a dispute regarding the  succession  to  the office of the trustee of the Math. when a vacancy  occurred, on the death of Chetam Dass, on March 18, 1962.   Therefore, action  taken  by  the appellant, in the  interests  of  the institution,  was perfectly valid.  Counsel also urged  that inasmuch as the respondent is functioning as Manager of  the institution, by virtue of his appointment, on June 5,  1962, by  the  Government,  subject to  the  conditions  mentioned therein,  the Government was competent to take  disciplinary action,  as  against  the respondent, for  breach  of  those conditions. Mr.  1. V. Rangacharya, learned counsel for the  respondent, of  Lilly supports the reasons, given by the  learned Judges of  the  High  Court, for accepting the claim  made  by  his client, in the writ petition. 897     The short question, that arises, for .consideration,  is as  to whether the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E.,  had jurisdiction to assume management of the Math, in  question, under  s.  53 of the Act.  That will depend on  the  further question as to whether the State Government had jurisdiction to  place  the respondent, under suspension,  as  they  have purported  to do, ’by their order. dated September 9.  1965. The  answer  to  the above question is  to  be  decided,  by reference  to  s.  53 of the Act.  Section 53  of  the  Act. occurs  in  ’Chapter IV, relating to Maths.  Sub-s.  (1)  of that  Section enables the commissioner or any two  or  more’ persons having interest and having obtained the consent,  in writing, of the Commissioner, to institute a suit to  obtain a  decree  for  removing  the trustee  of  ,a   math  or   a specific  endowment attached to a math, for any one or  more of  the  grounds  mentioned  in cls.  (a)  to  (f)  therein. Section 53, which is the material section, and which relates to filling of vacancies, is as follows:     "53.  (1)  When a vacancy occurs  in the office  of  the trustee  of a math or specific endowment attached to a  math and there is a dispute respecting the right of succession to such office or, when such vacancy cannot be filled up immediately or     when the trustee is a minor and has no guardian fit  and willing to act as such or there is a dispute respecting  the person who is entitled to act as guardian, or     when  the trustee is by reason  of unsoundness  of  mind or   other mental or physical defect or infirmity unable  to discharge the functions of the trustee,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

   the Assistant Commissioner may take such steps and  pass such order as he thinks proper for the temporary custody and protection of the endowments of the’ math or of the specific endowment,  as the case may be, and shall report the  matter forthwith to the Commissioner.     (2)   Upon   the  receipt  of  such   report,   if   the Commissioner,   after  making  such  inquiry  as  he   deems necessary.   is  satisfied  that  an  arrangement  for   the administration  of  the math and its endowments  or  of  the specific’  endowment, as ’the case may be, is necessary,  he shall  make  such arrangement as  he thinks  fit  until  the disability of the trustee ceases or another trustee succeeds to the office, as the case may be.     (3)  In  making any such arrangement,  the  Commissioner shall have due regard  to the  claims  of  the’ disciples of the math, if any. 898 (4)  Nothing  in  this section shall  be  deemed  to  affect anything contained in the Madras Court of Wards Act, 1902." Section  53(1) contemplates four contingencies, under  which the Assistant Commissioner may take steps for the  temporary ,custody  and protection of the math.  We are concerned,  in this  case, only with the first contingency, referred to  in that subsection.  Before that provision can be invoked,  two conditions  are  necessary, viz., (a) a  vacancy  must  have occurred,  in the office of the trustee of a math;  and  (b) there must be a dispute, respecting the right of succession, to  such  office.  In this case, it is possible to  say,  in view of the claim made by Devendra Das. and the  litigations referred to, above, that there was a dispute Tespecting  the right  of  succession to the office of the Mahant.   But  in order to give jurisdiction to the appellant to take  action, tinder  the first contingency, referred to in sub-s. (1)  of s.  53, the two conditions adverted to above, will  have  to exist.  In this case, it is the claim of the appellant  that there  was a vacancy, in the -office of the trustee  of  the Math, on March 18, 1962, when Chetan Das died.  On the other hand,  according to the resPondent, there was no vacancy  in the  office  of the Mahant, it that time,  because,  on  the death of Chetan Das, the respondent succeeded to the  office of the Mahant.  Therefore, the point to be considered is, as to  whether  a vacancy has occurred, in the  office  of  the trustee of the Math, on March 18, 1962.  That there must  be an  actual vacancy, unfilled, is clear, from the wording  of s.  53(1), when it deals with two  different  contingencies. providing for the assumption of management.  Under the first contingency, a vacancy should have occurred in the office of a  trustee of a Math, and there is a dispute in  respect  of the succession to such office.  That is, the office has  not been filled in. by anybody having a prima facie legal, right to  assume management.  Similarly, the  second  contingency, contemplated  unders. 53(1), when assumption  of  management can  be made by the Department, is when a vacancy occurs  in the  office  of a trustee of a Math and  when  such  vacancy cannot  be filled up immediately.  This clearly  shows  that there must be a vacancy, as I fact, in the sense that nobody with any legal right has assumed Office of the trustee of  a Math. In this case, as we have pointed out earlier, the High Court has  accepted the claim of the respondent that by virtue  of the  Panchayat  agreement dated October 29,  1947,  and  the compromise  agreement, dated July 1.5, 1961, the  respondent has  succeeded to the office of the trustee of the Math,  on March  18,  1962, on the death of Chetan Das.   The  supreme authority. according to the High Court, the Akada Panchayat,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

has also 899 approved of the said appointment, by resolution of the  same date.   We do not propose to consider the findings  recorded in  O.S.  50 of 1962, which are no doubt in  favour  of  the respondent,  because  that  decision is the  subject  of  an appeal,  in  A.S.  no. 476 of 1966.  Nor do  we  propose  to consider  the  claim of Bhagwant Doss in O.S.  69  of  1965, which  is  still pending adjudication, at the hands  of  the Court.  But even without reference to those litigations, the view  of  the  High Court that there is no  vacancy  in  the office  of  the trustee of the Math which  alone  will  give jurisdiction to the appellant to take action under s. 53(1), can  be  accepted  its  correct,  for  the  other   reasons, mentioned by us, earlier. Mr.  Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants,  further points  out  that,  in  this  case,  the  respondent  is  in management  or the Math, by virtue of the appointment  made, by the State Government, on June 5, 1962, and therefore  the State  Government  is entitled to take  disciplinary  action against  him  for breach of conditions, under which  he  was holding  that office.  Counsel also united our attention  to the  averments  made  by the  respondent  himself,  in  Writ Petition  No.  602 of 1962, that the  State  Government  has appointed  him  as interim Mahant.  The stand taken  by  the respondent, in writ petition no. 602 of 1962, cannot  assist the  appellant, because he was interested then  in  fighting the claim made by Devendra Dass, in the said writ  petition. In resisting such claim, he has, no doubt, made reference to the  fact that his right to function, as Mahant,  cannot  be disturbed,  as the State Government has appointed  him  a-,; interim   mahant.   Therefore,  the  stand  taken   by   the respondent, in the said writ petition, must be understood in the said context. No   doubt,  normally,  if  it  is  established   that   the respondent’s  only  right  to function as  Manager  of  this institution,  is exclusively on the basis of the  Government order, dated June 5, 1962, there will be considerable  force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant  that the   State   Government  has  got  jurisdiction   to   take disciplinary action, against the respondent.  But ’the facts in  this case show that the position is entirely  different. If the respondent, as held by the High Court-with which view we  are  in  agreement has succeeded to the  office  of  the trustee  of the Math, on the death of Chetam Dass, on  March 18, 1962, in hi,-; own right, the mere circumstance that the Government  also passe,; an order appointing him as  interim Mahant,  or Manager, later, will not take away the right  of the  respondent to function as trustee. on the basis of  his original right.  Once it is held that the respondent is  not holding  the office of the Mahant, exclusively on the  basis of  the  order  of the Government, dated June  5.  1962,  it follows  that the appellant has no jurisdiction to  pass  an order,  placing  the respondent under  suspension,  as  that virtually  amounts  to a removal of the trustee of  a  Math. The removal of 900 trustee of a Math can be done only in the manner, and in the circumstances,  mentioned in S. 52 of the  Act.   Therefore, the view of the High Court that the order of the Government, placing  the respondent Linder suspension, is not valid,  is correct. The result is, that the appeal fails, and is dismissed.   In the Circumstances of the case, there will be no order as  to costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

R.K.P.S.                                           Appeal dismissed 901