- (1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the Courts below are the appellants.
(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: THE plaintiffs for themselves and also representing the public worhsippers filed a suit for declaration that the lease in favour of the 2nd respondent by the 1st defendant under a document dated 20.10.1987 is null and void and a consequential injunction. THE suit property is a Public Religious Trust belongs to Sri Vyasaraja Mutt, which is having the main office at Sosalai in Karnataka State (hereinafter referred to as "the Mutt"). This Mutt is essentially a religious institution of the Madhwa Community. Vyasaraja, a saint and Philosopher, founder of the Mutt had many disciples. THEy were living in various places in South India preaching Madhwa Philosophy and wherever they attained Mukthi, their mortal remains were interned and Samadhis were constructed and the people offer worship at the samadhi and there were religious functions as well performed in those places of worhsip like Guru Pooja, etc. THEse Samathis were held in reverence by the devotees and daily poojas are also performed for this and sometimes abishekams are also carried out by the devotees. THE Madhwas worship Lord Krishna as their Presiding deity in their temple in the Mutt. Besides daily poojas, festival is also conducted and one such festival in the temple is Gokulashtami and this carried on for ten days. All Hindus join and they also offer worship in the temple. THE Samadhis and the temple in the branches in Mutts have become places of public worhsip in due course of time. THE members of the public offer donations to the Mutt head when he visits the Holy places. THE Mutt is a Public Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as H.R. & C.E. Act). Though the main Mutt is established and situated at Sosalai in Karnataka State, yet the branches in Tamil Nadu are subject to the control of the H.R. & C.E. Act prevailing in this State. This Mutt is having a branch at Kumbakonam in T.S.R. Big Street. In this place, 3 Mahants have been interned and their mortal remains are kept in these Samadhis. THEy are more than 100 years old and daily pooja is offered at the Samadhi and Guru Pooja is celebrated. THEre is a Gopuram and Praharam and a well which is called Pushkarani. THEre is open space on the rear side of the samathi and it is used s Nandhavanam, where flower plants were raised. THEre are 7 shops in the front portion of the Mutt building and they are rented out to several persons and rent collected is used for the maintenance of the temple. The 1st defendant is the present Madadhipath of the Mutt and he is not maintaining the properties and neglected them. The 1st defendant wants to alienate the Mutt properties by all possible ways. The 1st defendant has no right to alienate the properties. There is no need or necessity for the 1st defendant to sell any of the properties and alienation's are not beneficial to Mutt. Pontiff of the Mutt has no right to alienate the trust properties according to his whims and fancies. The 2nd defendant is now purchasing the rear portion of the property, which was used as Nandhavanam. The 1st defendant has purported to lease out the suit property to the 2nd defendant for a period of 99 years under a lease deed dated 20.10.1987. The enquiry revealed that the 1st defendant has been substantially paid, off the record to lease out the suit schedule property to the 2nd defendant. The sacred places of Samathis and temple can never be leased out to any individual. Any lease of the trust property for more than 5 years is absolutely void and not enforceable. The 2nd defendant is going to demolish the suit property and construct building according to his choice. The 1st defendant had authorised the 2nd defendant to take execution proceedings in pursuance of the decree in O.S. Nos.7 to 10 of 1982 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam to take possession and demolish the building. The actions of the defendants are detrimental to the Trust and its properties. The plaintiffs being worshippers are interested in preserving the Mutt and its properties and they are only acting in the interest of the Mutt. There are numerous disciples and worshippers and all of them are interested in preserving the properties and hence the suit. Defendants 1 and 2 filed separate written statement and denied the various averments made in the plaint. There is no Mutt as contemplated in para 7 of the plaint. The 3 Samadhis are not Mutt within the definition of Sec.6(13) of H.R. & C.E. Act. The 1st defendant being the "Peedathipathi" is the absolute owner of the schedule mentioned property and he cannot be sued for a relief for the property at Kumbakonam. Even if the lease deed is not a valid in the eye of law, it has to be challenged in Karnataka State. Vyasaraja was a human being and was the 8th Pontiff of Madvacariya Math in Mysore State. After the demise of Vyasaraja, his mortal remains were interned in a Samathi in a village in Karnataka, where it is called as "Brindavan" for which annual Gurupoojas are being done. All the plaintiffs are not persons belonging to Madhwa community. The plaintiffs are now colluding with the tenants against whom ejectment decrees have already been obtained by the Peedathipathi in O.S. Nos.7 to 10 of 1982. In order to prevent the execution proceedings, the suit has been filed with an ulterior motive. The suit property is a Samadhi and is being called as "Brindavan" by the members belonging to Mathwa community. The lease was executed in the interest of the institution and for its benefit. The 2nd defendant is already owning a considerable property behind the leased out property. There are 8 shops in the leased out place and the monthly rent collected is only Rs.80. There is no Math building or a temple for Lord Krishna in the leased out property. The building is in a dilapidated condition and to renovate the same and increase its value, the lease of the property was given. The suit is also barred legally. The jurisdiction of the Court is ousted under Sec.108 of H.R. & C.E. Act. The plaintiffs should seek a declaration, if so advised under Sec.63(a) or (c) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959. The suit is also bad for non joinder of Mutt itself. The plaintiffs have not worshipped as claimed by them. The intention should not be illusory but must arise from the allegations raised. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 have affiliation to the Philosophy and persuasion of Ragaveandraswami Mutt and they are not disciples of suit Mutt. Plaintiffs 3 and 4 belong to Viswa Karma Community and they cannot claim any interest in the suit Mutt. Plaintiffs 5 and 7 belong to Kalla community and they cannot also claim any interest in the Mutt. The mere fact that a person claims to participate in feeding or is allowed to worship in a temple does not convert his rights as an interest entitling him to sue. If constructions are made, they will be getting an income of Rs.1,000 per month without any investment by the Mutt. During the lifetime of the 1st defendant, no action of him can be called in question except after getting a declaration that the properties form part of a religious endowment. The plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any relief. The trial Court framed 6 issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-19 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-12 were marked. The trail Court dismissed the suit and aggrieved against this, the plaintiffs preferred A.S. No.1 of 1989 on the file of District Court, Thanjavur and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against this, the plaintiffs have come forward with the present second appeal. At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration: " (1) Whether the suit property is not a religious institution or temple as contemplated under the H.R. & C.E. Acte " (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to file the present suite " (3) Whether the Krishna temple has got any right over the suit property which has been declared to be the property of the Mutte
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiffs filed the suit for themselves and representing the public worshippers filed the suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. The headquarters of the Mutt is at Sosalai, Karnataka State and the Mutt had properties throughout India. The suit property is at Kumbakonam and it is one of the properties belonging to the Mutt. There are 3 Samadhis and also a Brindavanan and Krishna temple in the property. The 1st defendant being a peedathipathi of the Mutt, executed a lease deed under the original of Ex.A-1 dated 20.10.1987 in favour of the 2nd defendant. Now the plaintiffs in the name of worhsippers have questioned the validity of the said deed. Sec.6(15) of H.R. & C.E. Act defines "person having interest" means in the case of a math, a disciple of the Math of a person of the religious persuasion to which the math belongs. The plaintiffs are not disciples of Vyasaraja Mutt or persons of religious persuasion to which the Mutt belongs. There are also no common interest among the plaintiffs themselves since they belong to different religions. Only plaintiffs 1 and 3 belong to Mathwa community and the plaintiffs 5 and 6 belong to different community. Under the circumstance, it has to be considered whether the plaintiffs are competent to file a suit in a representative capacity on behalf of all worshippers. ;