Madras High Court: In a civil revision petition filed by a self-styled “godman” Sri Nithyanadha Swami under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the impugned order passed by the Principal Subordinate Court, wherein the Court permitted Sri Harihara to replace Sri Arunagirinatha Swamigal, the 292nd head of the Madurai Aadheenam, in a 2012 suit, R. Vijayakumar, J. has dismissed the revision petition, and said that the substitution of Sri Harihara in the place of Sri Arunagirinatha Swamigal is only for the limited purpose of prosecuting the suit and the same would not confer any additional advantage to the Sri Harihara in the suit proceedings.
Background:
292nd Madurai Aadheenam had filed a suit for the relief of declaration that the deed of declaration of trust executed on 12-04-2012 is null and void and to restrain Sri Nithyanadha Swami, his men and agents from interfering in the Madurai Aadheenam’s administration and management of the suit property.
Pending suit, the 292nd Aathinakarthar had attained Mukthi and Sri Harihara become the 293rd Aadheenakarthar. Sri Nithyanadha Swami had filed an application to amend the plaint to substitute himself in the place of Sri Arunagirinatha Swamigal. Sri Nithyanadha Swami was called absent, and he was set ex-parte in the said amendment application.
The Trial Court had allowed the said application on the ground that it will not change the character of the suit and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. The Trial Court had further found that the successor to the Mutt is being brought on record in the interest of justice and allowed the amendment of cause title and body of the plaint to the said effect. Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed.
Analysis:
The Court said that the appointment Sri Harihara had been recorded by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department also. Therefore, the Court opined that the application for amendment filed by Sri Harihara for substituting himself in the place of 292nd pontiff does not call for any interference. However, the substitution of Sri Harihara in the place of Sri Arunagirinatha Swamigal is only for the limited purpose of prosecuting the suit and the same would not confer any additional advantage to the Sri Harihara in the suit proceedings.
Further, the Court said that whether the documents executed by 292nd pontiff are liable to be declared as null and void or whether the appointment of Sri Harihara as the 293rd pontiff is valid or not have to be decided by the Trial Court on merits and in accordance with law.
[Sri Nithyanadha Swami v. Sri La Sri Harihara, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 2543, decided on 27-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate Isaac Mohanlal
For Respondents: Senior Counsel B. Saravanan, Government Advocate C.Satheesh, Special Government Pleader P.Subbaraj
Buy Constitution of India HERE
