Browse

Sridhara babu. N

Abolition Act, 1954 is not

maintainabl e. However, liberty is reserved to the

petitioner towork out his remedy in the manner

known to law. Dealing with the application

filed bythe fourth respondent under Section

77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961,

thelearned Single Judge was of the view that it is a

mischievou s exercise and he has set aside the grant in

favour of the fourth respondent. The application

filed by the fourthrespo ndent is under Section

77A. The authority under the Land Reforms act

who isvested with the power to adjudicate

such claims is the Assistant Commissio ner and

not the Tribunal. Though the application is filed to

the Assistant Commissio ner, theAssistant

Commissio ner being the Chairman of the Land

Reforms Tribunal, the Tribunalhas taken up the

said application and has considered the said

application along with theapplicati on of the petitioner.

The Land Reforms Tribunal has no jurisdiction

to considerthe application under Section

77A of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by

the LandRefor ms Tribunal granting occupancy

rights is one without jurisdiction and to that extent

it is rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. If it

is an order under Section77A , a statutory appeal is

provided if that order had been passed by the

Assistant C ommissione r. As the order is passed by

the Tribunal writ petition is

the only remedy. Stumpp Scheule And Somappa

(P) ... vs Chandrappa ILR 1985 KAR 3872 After theinams

were abolished and the lands vested in

the State Governmen t, the only right preser ved to the

parties is to apply for registration of occupancy

rights either as 'Kadim'tena nt, permanent

tenant or other tenants recognised under the

law. When suchapplica tions are made, the Special

Deputy Commissio ner,who is the statutory

authorityco nstituted under the Inams Abolition

Act, is required to make an enquiry and grant relief.

His order is appealable under Section 28 to the

Karnataka Revenue AppellateTr ibunal and the decision

of the Tribunal becomes final. Section

31(3) states that noorder passed by the Deputy Commissio

ner or Tribunal shall be liable to be cancelled

ormodified except by the High Court under Section 31.

The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 31

is, however, limited and confined only to

orders determining compensati on except those referred to

in Section 28. .. It is thus seen that the

Inams Abolition Act attaches finality to

the orders granting registration of occupancyri

ghts. What does it mean ? Is it not an implied

exclusion of the jurisdiction of CivilCourts

? Is not the Inams Abolition Act a complete

Code by itself ? Does it not providemac hinery for

adjudicatin g the rights of parties with appellate

forum to correct theerrors of the adjudicatin

g authority ? If that is so, could Civil Courts still

exercise generaljuris diction over the same dispute.

Had the Legislature intended to provide dualremedi

es to parties or intended to establish two authorities

to determine the samequesti on ? We

think not. The grant of occupancy right as

'Kadim' tenant, permanent t enant or any other

tenant is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the

special authorityco nstituted under the Inams

Abolition Act which is a special enactment. Its order

isappealabl e to the prescribed authority and it then

becomes final. It is, therefore,le gitimate to infer that by

reason of the provisions of Section 28 read

with Section 31(3)of the Inams Abolition

Act, the adjudicatio n as to registration of

occupancy right inrespect of the land which

immediatel y before the date of vesting was properly

includedin the holding of the applicant becomes

final and conclusive. The Civil Court has nojurisdicti

on to reopen that matter.

Sridhara babu. N

Court in Rangappa v.Chinnappaia h 1965(1) KLJ 145

while referring to the earlierdecisi on in

Kempamma -v.Kempanna 1964(2) KLJ 444

has taken a similar view. Thereit was observed :

"So, it becomes clear that the very provision

for an adjudicatio n by theDeputy Commissio

ner under Section 10 and for an appeal from his

adjudicatio n undersubsection (1) of Section 28, are by

themselves more than sufficient to support theview

that that adjudicatio n should be made only in manner

provided by the Act and onlyby those tribunals

entrusted with the power to make that adjudicatio

n and by no other.If, in addition sub-section (I) of

Section 28 adds that the decision of the prescribeda

uthority in appeal shall be final, the inference deducible

from the fact that there is acomplete machinery

provided by the Act for the adjudicatio n of a claim

that the CivilCourts shall not exercise jurisdiction

for such adjudicatio n stands reinforced." In another decision of

a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.47 19

&4720/1979 , K.S. Ranganna and another vs. State of

Karnataka dated 10.09.1980, alsoreporte d as a short

notes case in 1981 (1) KLJ Short Notes 43, it is held that

when landvests in the State Governmen t by virtue

of the notification issued under the InamsAboli

tion, the question of its resumption under the

provisions of the KVOA Act, did not arise.

Therefore, the land in question would not have been

treated as a service inamland resumable by the State

Governmen t under the KVOA Act, when that Act

wasinapplic able to the land in question. In Stump Shule and

Somappa Private Limited vs. S.M. Chandrapp

(1985 (2) KLJ483), another Division Bench of this Court

has laid down that, after the inams wereabolish

ed and lands vested in the State Governmen

t, the only right reserved to theparties is to apply for

registration of occupancy rights either as a khadim

tenant orpermanen t tenant or other tenants

recognized under the law and when suchapplica

tions are made to the statutory authority constituted

under the Inams AbolitionA ct, he is required to

make an enquiry and grant the relief. The order is

appealableu nder Section 28 and the decision of

the Appellate Authority is final. The order

passedby the competent authority or the

Appellate Authority is not liable to cancellation ormodificat

ion except by the High Court under Section 31. Even that

power is limited andconfine d to orders determining

compensati on except those referred to in Section

28.The Division Bench has held that the Act

attaches finality to the orders grantingregi stration of

occupancy rights and that a Civil Court would not

have jurisdiction toreopen that matter. Seshammal and Ors.,

etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 2 SCC 11,

which examinesth e practice of temples having

priests or Archakas and their unique role ordained

bycustom, particularly on the following observation

s: "10.....With the establishme nt

of temples and the institution of Archakas,

treatises on rituals were compiled and they areknown

as 'Agamas'. The authority of these

Agamas is recognised in several decidedcase s and by

this Court in Sri Venkataram ana Devaruv.

The State of Mysore[195 8]1SCR895 . Agamas are

described in the last case as treatises of ceremonial

Lawdealing with such matters as the constructio

n of temples, installation of idols thereinand

conduct of the worship of the deity. There are 28 Agamas

relating to the Saivatempl es, the important

of them being the Kaimi kagama the

Karanagam a and the

Sridhara babu. N

Suprabedag ama. The Vaishnavas also had their own

Agamas. Their principal Agamaswer e the

Vikhanasa and the Pancharatra . The Agamas

contain elaborate Rules as to howthe temple is to

be constructed, where the principal deity is to

be consecrated , andwhere the other Devatas are

to be installed and where the several classes

of worshipp ers are to stand and worship. Where the

temple was constructed as perdirection s of the

Agamas the idol had to be consecrated in

accordance with an elaboratean d complicated

ritual accompanie d by chanting of mantras and

devotional songsappro priate to the deity. On the

consecratio n of the image in the temple the

Hinduwors hippers believe that the Divine Spirit has

descended into the image and from thenon the

image of deity is fit to be worshipped . Rules with

regard to daily and periodicalw orship have been laid

down, for securing the continuance of the Divine

Spirit. Therituals have a twofold object. One is to

attract the lay worshipper to participate

in theworship carried on by the priest or

Archaka. It is believed that when a congregatio n

of worshipp ers participates in the worship a

particular attitude of aspiration and devotionis

developed and confers great spiritual benefit. The

second object is to preserve theimage from

pollution, defilement or desecration. It is part of

the religious belief of aHindu worshipper

that when the image is polluted or defiled the Divine

Spirit in theimage diminishes or even vanishes.

That is a situation which every devotee

orworshipp er looks upon with horror. Pollution or

defilement may take place in variety of ways.

According to the Agamas, an image becomes

defiled if there is any departure orviolation of any of

the rules relating to worship. In fact, purificatory

ceremonies have tobe performed for restoring

the sanctity of the shrine [1958]1SC R895 .

Worshipper s laygreat store by the rituals and whatever

other people, not of the faith, may think about these

rituals and ceremonies, they are a part of the Hindu

Religious faith and cannot bedismissed as either

irrational or superstitiou s. ... In all these temples in

which theimages are consecrated , the

Agamas insist that only the qualified Archaka or

Pujari stepinside the sanctum sanctorum and that too

after observing the daily disciplines whichare

imposed upon him by the Agamas. As an Archaka

he has to touch the image in thecourse of the

worship and it is his sole right and duty to touch it.

The touch of anybodyels e would defile it.

Thus under the ceremonial law pertaining

to temples even thequestion as to who is to enter the

Garbhagrih a or the sanctum sanctorum and who is

not entitled to enter it and who can worship and from

which place in the temple are allmatters of religion

as shown in the above decision of this Court.11.

The Agamas have also Rules with regard to

the Archakas. In Saivite temples only

adevotee of Siva, and there too, one belonging

to a particular denominati on or group orSub-

group is entitled to be the Archaka. If he is a

Saivite, he cannot possibly be anArchaka in a

Vaishnavite Agama temple to whatever caste he

may belong and howeverlea rned he may be

Similarly, a Vaishnavite Archaka has no place as an

Archaka in aSaivite temple. Indeed there is no

bar to a Saivite worshippin g in a Vaishnavite

templeas a lay worshipper or vice versa. What

the Agamas prohibit is his appointmen t as

anArchaka in a temples of a different denominati

on....They only can touch the idols andperform

the ceremonies and rituals. None others,

however, high placed in society aspontiffs or Acharyas

or even other Brahmins could touch the idol, do

puja or even enterthe Garbha Griha. Not

even a person belonging to another Agama is

competent to dopuja in Vaikhanasa temples. That is the

general rule with regard to all these sectariande nomination

al temples. It is, therefore, manifest that the

Archaka of such a templebesid es being proficient

in the rituals appropriate to the worship of

the particular deity,

Sridhara babu. N

must also belong, according to the Agamas, to

a particular denominati on...Any Stateaction which

permits the defilement or pollution of the image by

the touch of anArchaka not authorised by the

Agamas would violently interfere with the

religious faithand practices of the Hindu worshipper

in a vital respect, and would, therefore, be

primafacie invalid under Article 25(1) of the

Constitutio n." In KRISHNA SINGH v. MATHURA

AHIR AND OTHERS AIR 1980 SC 707 the SupremeCo

urt in paragraphs 20 & 21 observed thus: " 20.

The property belonging to a math is infact

attached to the office of the mahant, and passed by

inheritance to no one who doesnot fill the office.

The head of a math, as such, is not a trustee in the sense in

which that term is generally understood, but in legal

contemplati on he has an estate for life in itspermanen

t endowment s and an absolute property in

the income derived from theofferings of his

followers, subject only to the burden of maintaining

the institution. He isbound to spend a large part of

the income derived from the offerings of his

followers oncharitabl e or religious objects. The

words `the burden of maintaining the institution'

must be understood to include the maintenanc

e of the math, the support of its head andhis

disciples and the performanc e of religious

and other charities in connection with it,in accordance

with usage. 21. From these principles, it will be

sufficiently clear that amath is an institutional sanctum

presided over by a superior who combines in

himself the dual office of being the religious or spiritual

head of the particular cult or religiousfrat ernity, and

of the manager of the secular properties of the

institution of the math." Rajkali Kuer vs. Ram Rattan

Pandey [ 1975 (2) SCR 186 ] wherein it was observed"th

at religious offices can be hereditary and that the

right to such an office is in thenature of property

under the Hindu Law is now well established. "On the

view that Shebaiti is property, Supreme Court has

also recognized the right of afemale to succeed to

the religious office of Shebaitship in the case

reported as Angurbalav s. Debabrata[( 1951) SCR

1125], where the question as to the applicabilit

y of HinduWom en's Right to Property Act to the

office of Shebaitship came up for consideratio n.On the

same analogy as that of a Shebaiti right, the

right of a hereditary priest or Pujariin a temple

must also amount to property where emoluments

are attached to such anoffice." Ram Rattan, through Lrs. Vs. Bajrang

Lal and ors. [ 1978 (3) SCC 236] whereinwhi le dealing with the

question whether hereditary office of Shebait is

immovable property, it was noted that : "The question

then is whether the hereditary office of Shebait

is immovable property. Much before the

enactment of the Transfer of PropertyAct a question

arose in the context of the Limitation Act then in

force whether a suit fora share in the worship

and the emoluments incidental to the same would be a

suit forrecovery of immovable property or

an interest in immovable property. In Krishnabhat

bia Hiragange vs. Kanabhat bia

Mahalbhat etc. [ 6 Bom HCR 137] after referring

tovarious texts of Hindu Law and the commentari

es of English commentat ors thereon, aDivision

Bench of the Bombay High Court held as under :

Although, therefore, the officeof a priest in a temple,

when it is not annexed to the ownership

of any land, or held by

Sridhara babu. N

virtue of such ownership, may not, in the ordinary

sense of the term, be immovable property, but is an

incorporeal hereditame nt of a personal nature, yet

being by thecustom of Hindus classed with

immovable property, and so regarded in their law"

Raj Kali Kuer vs Ram Rattan Pandey 1955 AIR

493, 1955 SCR (2) 186 Though afemale is personally disqualified

from officiating as a Pujari for the Shastrically

installedand consecrated idols in the temples, the usage of a

Hindu female succeeding to apriestly office and

getting the same performed through a competent

deputy has beenwellrecognised and it is not contrary to

textual Hindu Law nor opposed to publicpolic

y. - Subject to the proper and efficient discharge

of the duties of the office beingsafegu arded by

appropriate action when necessary, a Hindu female has

a right tosucceed to the hereditary priestly

office of a Pujari and Panda held by her husband

andto get the duties of the office performed by a

substitute except in cases where usage tothe contrary is

pleaded and established. In Bishwanath v. Sri Thakur

Radha Ballabhji, AIR 1967 SC 1044 , the Hon'ble

ApexCourt has observed as under : "When such

an alienation has been effected by the

shebait acti ng adversely to the interests of the idol

even a worshipper can file the suit, thereason

being that the idol is in the position of a minor and

when the personrepre senting it leaves it in a lurch, a

person interested in the worship of the idol

cancertainly be clothed with an ad hoc power of

representati on to protect its interest." In Veerbasavar

adhya and Ors. v. Devetoees of Lingadagudi Mutt and

Ors. , AIR1973 Mys 280 the Division Bench of

Mysore High Court held as under: ...An archak

orPoojari in a temple is not a shebait as the said

expression is understood in NorthernIn

dia or a dharmadars hi as those expressions are

understood in Southern India. APoojari is always

appointed by the shebait or dharmadars hi or

dharmadhik ari for thepurpose of conducting

the wordship. Such appointmen t would not

have the effect of conferrin g any right on the

poojari. He is ordinarily not entitled to be continued

as amatter of right in his office as Poojari. Poojaries

and archaks are liable to be removed forany act of

misconduct or indiscipline which would be

inconsistent with the duties of theoffice

which they hold.... In Yagnapurus hdasji v. Muldas

Bhundardas, AIR 1966 SC 1119 while dealing withHindu

religion Supreme Court observed: "Whilst we

are dealing with this broad andcompre hensive

aspect oi: Hindu Religion, it may be permissible

to enquire what accord ing to this religion, is the ultimate

goal of humanity? It is the release and freedomfro

m the unceasing cycle of births and rebirths.

Moksha or Nirvana, which is theultimate aim of

Hindu religion and philosophy, represents the state of

absoluteabs orption and assimilation of the individual

soul with the infinite. What are the meansto attain this

end? On this vital issue, there is great divergence

of views; someempha sise the importance of Gyan or

knowledge, while others extol the virtues of Bhakti or

devotion; and yet others insist upon the paramount

importance of theperforma nce of duties with

a heart full of devotion and mind inspired by trueknowle

dge. In this sphere again, there is diversity of opinion,

though all are agreedabout the ultimate goal.

Therefore, it would be inappropriat e to apply the

traditionalte sts in determining the extent of the

jurisdiction of Hindu religion. It can be safelydescri

bed as a way of life based on certain basic

concepts to which we have already

Sridhara babu. N

referred." .. "The developmen t of Hindu

religion and philosophy shows that fromtime to time saints

and religious reformers attempted to remove

from the Hinduthoug ht and practices elements of

corruption and superstition and that led to

theformatio n of different sects. Buddha

started Buddhism; Mahavir founded Jainism;Bas

ava became the founder of Lingayat religion, Gyaneshwa

r and Tukaram initiated theVarakari cult; Guru

Nanak inspired Sikhism; Dayanand founded

Arya Samaj, andChaitan ya Mahaguru

began Bhakti cult; and as a result of the teachings of

Ramakrishn aand Vivekanand a, Hindu religion

flowered into its most attractive, progressive

anddynamic form. If we study the teachings of these Saints

and religious reformers, wewould notice an

amount of divergence in their respective views; but

underneath that diverge nce, there is a kind of subtle

indescribabl e unity which keeps them within

thesweep of the broad and progressive

Hindu religion." In S. P. Mittal v. Union of

India, AIR 1983 SC 1, Chinnappa Reddy, J., also expressedth

e same views: "I apprehend, I share the views of

those who have neither faith norbelief in religion and

who consider religion as entirely unscientific

and irrationalCh anting of prayer appears to

me to be mere jingoism and observance

of ritual, plainsuperst ition. But my views about

religion, my prejudices and my predilection s, if they

besuch, are entirely irrelevant. So are the views of the

credulous, the fanatic, the bigot andthe zealot. So

also the views of the faithful, the devout, the Acharya,

the Moulvi, thePadre and the Bhikshu each of

whom may claim his as the only true or revealed

religion.For our present purpose, we are concerned

with what the people of the Socialist,Se cular

Democratic Republic of India, who have given each of its

citizens freedom of conscien ce and the right to

freely profess, practise and propagate religion and

who havegiven every religious denominati

on the right to freely manage its religious affairs,

meanby the expression 'religion' and 'religious

denominati on'. We are concerned with what these

expressions are designed to mean in Articles 25

and 26 of the Constitutio n." IN CASE OF MVC

DEATH OF SWAMIJI MUTT CAN SEEK COMPENS ATION

AND NOTNATU RAL FAMILY OF SWAMIJIN

orth West Karnataka Road ... vs Matadipathi And Successor

2006 (4) KarLJ 172 ,The Tribunal dismissed the claim of

the parents correctly on the ground that afterrenoun

cing the mundane world there will be a civil death

of the person enteringmo nastic order. The

deceased after becoming Swamiji becomes

member of the Guruparam para and his links with natural

family gets severed. . the head of the Mutt is entitled to

maintain the petition to seek compensati on though

not for loss of depende ncy but for loss to estate

caused to the Mutt. The decision of the Supreme Court in

Sital Das v. Sant Ram AIR 1954 SC 606, at para 20, the

following observation s are made: It is wellknown that

entrance into areligious order generally

operates as a civil death. The man who becomes an

asceticsever s his connection with the members of

his natural family and being adopted by hisprecepto

r becomes, so to say, a spiritual son of the latter, the

other disciples of his Guru

Case Law Digest on Mutt Disputes and the Inam - Archak - Temple Matters
The Indian case laws on mutt succession, management and temple institutions Add To Collection 444 Reads 3 Likes 1.7K Embed Views

Published by Sridhara babu. N - ...

TIP Press Ctrl-F to search anywhere in the document.

Get Scribd Mobile

To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.

We'll never share your phone number. Or, click here and we'll send an email to your iPad and Android tablet.

iTunes App Store | Google Play Store

Info and Rating

Category: Business/Law Rating: Added to Scribd: Jun 26, 2013 Copyright: Attribution Non-commercial Tags: case laws Free download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File (.pdf), Text file (.txt) or read online for free. Flag for inappropriate content

.PDF

.DOCX

Recommended

29 p. Written Arguments in Favour of Defendant Where Identification of Pr... Sridhara babu. N - . 391 Reads

120 p. Case Law Digest on Civil Court and Involved Procedure Sridhara babu. N - . 766 Reads

21 p. Legal Effect and Use of Recording Conversation Between Parties Sridhara babu. N - . 769 Reads

More From This User

38 p. Domestic Violence Case Written Arguments on Behalf of Husband to Qu... Sridhara babu. N - . 454 Reads

14 p. The Witness is Only Person Who Has No Personal Interest Other Than ... Sridhara babu. N - . 375 Reads

79 p. Case Law on Evidence Sridhara babu. N - . 516 Reads Notes

Post Note About

About Scribd Team Blog Join our team! Contact Us

Subscriptions

Subscribe today

Advertise with us

Get started AdChoices

Support

Help FAQ Press

Partners

Developers / API

Legal

Terms Privacy Copyright

Get Scribd Mobile

Mobile Site

Copyright 2013 Scribd Inc. Language: English