Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned succession to the junior headship (Elavarasu) of the Tiruppanandal or Kasi Mutt, a monastic institution affiliated to the Dharmapuram Adhinam. The appellant, who had been nominated as junior head, filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the defendant, the head of the Mutt, after the defendant revoked the nomination. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit on the ground that nomination conferred no status or office and was revocable at will. A learned single judge of the High Court allowed the second appeal, holding that nomination created a status revocable only for good cause, and since no misconduct was proved, the revocation was ineffective. On further appeal, the Division Bench reversed, holding that the appellant acquired no office and the nomination could be cancelled without notice or reason. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by special leave. The Court traced the historical evolution of the Kasi Mutt and Dharmapuram Adhinam, noting that succession to the office of Mahant was governed by custom of the particular Mutt. It found that the custom in Kasi Mutt was for the head to nominate a successor by will, and that religious ceremonies were not essential. The Court held that although the power of nomination was exercised by a will, it was a non-testamentary instrument, as the head was not disposing of his own property but merely declaring his intention as to succession, which took effect in praesenti. Mahantship was not property, and nomination was not a disposal of office but creation of a relationship generating a capacity to succeed. Drawing on jurisprudence, the Court distinguished status and capacity, holding that capacity was an incident of status. Consequently, the status created by nomination could not be withdrawn at the mere will of the parties; it could be cancelled only for good cause. As no good cause was shown for the revocation by Exhibit B-9, the cancellation was bad in law. The Court declared that the appellant held the status of Elavarasu during the defendant's lifetime and was entitled to succeed to the headship of the Mutt on the defendant's death.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Religious and Charitable Trusts - Succession to Mahantship - Custom of particular Mutt governs succession; burden to prove custom - Customary law; no statutory provision - The court examined the historical evolution of Kasi Mutt and Dharmapuram Adhinam and held that succession to the office of Mahant or Head of a Mutt was regulated by the custom of that Mutt; one claiming office by right of succession had to allege and prove the custom. Held that custom of the Mutt determined succession and required proof. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Hindu Law - Religious and Charitable Trusts - Nomination of successor - Custom of Kasi Mutt allowed head to nominate successor by will; religious ceremonies not essential - Customary law; Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 2(h) referred later - The court found that custom in Kasi Mutt was for head to nominate successor by will, and performance of religious ceremonies was not essential to validity of nomination. Held that nomination by will was valid if custom permitted. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Succession Law - Testamentary and Non-Testamentary Instruments - Exercise of power of nomination by will is pro tanto non-testamentary; takes effect in praesenti - Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 2(h) - The power of nomination, though exercised by will, was not a testamentary disposition of property; it was declaration of intention and created rights in present. The court held that definition of will under Section 2(h) did not apply as nomination did not dispose of property after death. Held that nomination instrument was revocable only for good cause. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Hindu Law - Religious and Charitable Trusts - Mahantship not property; nomination creates relationship and capacity - Customary law - The court rejected the notion that Mahantship was property or that nomination was disposal of office/property taking effect after death. It held nomination created a relationship generating capacity in nominee to succeed. Held that junior as successor designate carried status. (Paras Not mentioned) E) Jurisprudence - Status and Capacity - Distinction between legal state of being and legal power of doing; capacity incident of status - General legal principles; no specific Act - The court distinguished status as a legal state of being from capacity as a legal power of doing; capacity was an incident of status. Held that status imposed fixed capacities and incapacities. (Paras Not mentioned) F) Hindu Law - Religious and Charitable Trusts - Revocation of nomination - Status created by nomination cannot be withdrawn at mere will; only for good cause - Customary law; no specific Act - The court held that legal nomination as junior head created a status; capacity to succeed was incident of that status; this status could not be cancelled at the mere will of the parties, but only for good cause. Since no good cause was shown, cancellation by Exhibit B-9 was bad in law; appellant held status of Elavarasu during defendant's lifetime and was entitled to succeed to headship on defendant's death. Held that revocation was invalid and appeal allowed. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether by virtue of nomination the appellant obtained a status or a right in law or became the holder of an office, and whether the defendant was competent to cancel the nomination without good cause
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that nomination of appellant as Elavarasu created a status which could not be revoked without good cause. Since no good cause was shown, the cancellation by Ex. B-9 was bad in law. The Court declared that appellant held the status of Elavarasu during the defendant's lifetime and was entitled to succeed to the headship of the Mutt on the defendant's death.
Law Points
- Succession to office of Mahant regulated by custom
- nomination by head of Mutt is not testamentary disposition
- nomination takes effect in praesenti
- nomination creates status
- capacity to succeed is incident of status
- status cannot be revoked without good cause
- exercise of power of nomination by will is non-testamentary instrument
