HIS HOLINESS SRIMAN SADAGOPA SRI VEDANTHA DESIKA YATHINDRA MAHADESIKAN 44TH JEER OR SRI AHOBILA MATH HEREDITARY TRUSTEE OF VEDANTHA DESIKAR SANNADHI WITHIN THE PRECINCTS OF SRI RANGANATHASWAMI TEMPLE Vs. COMMR H R AND C E ADMN DEPT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant. Defendants 1 to 6, 8 to 10, 12 to 17, 19, 22 and 24 to 26 are the respondents. 21st respondent has been impleaded in the appeal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff there is an established usage to bring Sri Vedantha Desikar to Adhyayana Mandapam of Lord Ranganatha on the days of Yugathi, Deepavali, Kanu, etc and on Tirunakshathram day into the sanctum sanctorum of Lord Ranganatha with Vadakalai mark and with all paraphernalia like Vadakalai Namam, Pathram, Vazhithirunamam, etc. In order that the established usage is followed in the temple, the plaintiff made an application to the trustees of Sri Ranganatha Swami Devas-thanam to take Sri vedantha Desikar idol to worship Lord Ranganatha on the occasions mentioned above with the Vadakalai mark on his fore-head. The trustees imposed a condition that the idol should bear only the Thenkalai mark on His fore-head. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, H. R. & C. E. , Department, to permit and follow the established usage while taking the idol of Sri Vedantha Desigar with all Vadakalai paraphernalia for mangalasasanam on the Thirunakshatram day into the sanctum sanctorum of Lord ranganathar. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order that the established usage was to take Sri Vedantha Desikar to the sanctum sanctorum of Lord Ranganathar only with the Thenkalai mark. The appeal to the Commissioner, H. R. & C. E. Department, having proved futile, the plaintiff filed the suit under section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Act 22 of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for cancelling the order of the commissioner.

(3.) THE decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent in Province of Madras v. Vikroma Deo, (1943) 1 M. L. J. 53:1943 M. W. N. 56 was a suit under section 14 of the Survey and Boundaries Act and the suit was filed only against the Government. THE scope and scheme of the Survey and boundaries Act are certainly not in pari materia with the scope and scheme of tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959. THE other decision relied on by him in Ebrahimbhai v. State, A. I. R. 1975 Bom. 13 was again a suit against the Government filed under rule 13 (2), Schedule II of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and being a suit against the Government, it was held therein that section 80, Civil procedure Code, notice is necessary. In the absence of the State Act, viz. , madhya Pradeeh Land Revenue Code, it is difficult to state whether the scope and scheme under that Act is analogous to the Madras Act 15 of 1949. Learned counsel for the respondent is unable to point out any decision arising under tamil Nadu Act 15 of 1949 holding that even in respect of a statutory suit under section 70 of the Act, notice under section 80. Civil Procedure Code, is necessary for the maintainability of the suit.