Sri Narayana Dossju Varu, the Mahant of Sri Hathiramjee Mutt vs The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board

Govinda Menon, J.—This is an appeal by Sri Narayanadossju Varu, the present Mahant of Sri Hathi Ramji, Tirupati, one of the most well-

known mutts of South India, against the order of the learned Dist. J. of Chittoor, appointing a receiver for the purpose of taking possession &

managing the properties as well as the assets belonging to the Mutt pending disposal of O. S. No. 1 of 1950. The pltf. was recognised as the

Mahant for a concordat as it were to use the language of the learned counsel for the resp, on 15-1-1948. But pending such recognition, the

Endowment Board had appointed one Mr. Bhujanga Rao to be in possession of the properties, after the death of the previous Mahant, which took

place on 5-10-1947. Where once the applt was recognised & installed as the Mahant, the interim trustee appointed by the Board handed over

possession of the properties to the Mahant along with cash to the tune of more than Rs. 1,70,000 & the jewels belonging to the Mutt. It is not

necessary for us to specifically describe the proceedings which took place between the date of handing over of the assets to the applt & the time

when a scheme was framed by the Board for the management of the Mutt u/s 62 Hindu Religious Endowments Act. Suffice it for the present

purpose to state that the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, not being satisfied with the management of the Mutt properties by the applt, framed

a scheme, which in great detail dealt with various matters as to how the Mutt has to be conducted, what expenses have to be incurred for various

things & so on. O. S. 1 of 1950 was a suit u/s 63 Hindu Religious Endowments Act for modifying or setting aside the scheme framed by the Board

filed by the applt. as pltf. Pending that suit, he applied to the learned Dist. J. by I. A. No. 18 of 1950 for an order of temporary injunction

restraining the Hindu Religious Endowments Board from appointing an executive officer or in any way giving effect to the possession of the scheme

settled by the Board on 18-11-1949 till the disposal of O. S. 1 of 1950. That appln was supported by an affidavit, to which the Hindu Religious

Endowments Board filed a counter alleging various acts of mismanagement, malversation & misappropriation of trust funds. It was also alleged by

the Board that the applt. had arrogated to himself ownership of certain properties, which, according to the Board, belonged to the Trust, & in such

arrogation, the applt. had filed O. S. No. 48 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judge''s Ct, Chittoor, for a declaration that certain cash & other

properties did not belong to the Mutt, but were the private properties of the applt. The appln. was heard by the learned Dist. J, who without stating

whether an order of injunction should be passed or refused, expressed his opinion that the interests of the Mutt necessitated the appointment of a

receiver & thereupon a member of the Bar, who was one of the persons in the panel of receivers of that district, was appointed as receiver.

Aggrieved by that order, the pltf. has preferred this appeal.

We have heard lengthy & exhaustive arguments on various aspects of the question from the learned counsel on either side. But, in our opinion, it

is not proper in the circumstances of the case & in the view which we are taking, to give expression to any views of our own. The learned Dist, J.

has not considered the question as to whether the property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated, or wrongfully sold in

execution of a decree, as is necessary if Order 39, Rule 1 has to be invoked in favour of the applt. Nor has the learned Dist. J. considered the

question as to whether it is just & convenient to appoint a receiver. We may remark that there was no appln. either by the applt. or by the resp. for

the appointment of a receiver. The only way in which the order of the learned Dist. J. appointing a receiver can be justified is by invoking the

words in Order 39, Rule 1, namely ""make such other order"". It cannot be stated that this contemplated the appointment of a receiver. No authority

has been brought to our notice, which holds that if a pltf. in a suit asks for an injunction restraining the deft. from interfering with his possession of

the properties, it is open to the Ct. to appoint a receiver & thereby dispossess the pltf. As we are not expressing any opinion on the merits it seems

to us that the reasons given by the learned Dist. J. for the appointment of a receiver in para. 5 of the judgment need not be canvassed at this stage.

But, we feel that the lower Ct. erred in appointing a receiver on this appln. for injunction by the pltf.

As the procedure adopted by the learned Dist. J, is not one, which commends itself to our acceptance, we set aside the order of the learned

Dist. J. & remand I. A. No. 18 of 1950 for disposal according to law in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. Costs of this

appeal will abide & follow the result of the fresh disposal.