Madurai Adheenam Succession Row: Madras High Court Dismisses Nityananda Sami's Plea Against Substituting Senior Pontiff In Suit

The senior pontiff had filed the main suit for the relief of the declaration that the deed of declaration of trust initially executed was null and void and to restrain Nithyananda and his men/agents from interfering with the administration and management of the Madurai Adheenam.

Pending the suit, the senior pontiff attained mukti and his successor Sri Harihara Gnanasambanda Desiga Paramachariya Swamigal became the 293rd Aadheenakarthar/pontiff. Harihara also filed an IA to amend the plaint and substitute himself as the plaintiff, which the trial court allowed, noting that the same would not change the suit's character and no prejudice would be caused to Nithyananda. The present revision petition was filed challenging this order of the trial court.

Nithyananda claimed that during the life of the senior pontiff, he had declared Nithyananda as his successor and therefore Harihara could not be nominated as the 293^rd successor of the Adheenam. He contended that as soon as the senior pontiff attained mukti, the position of Aadhinakarthar automatically came in his favor and no other person could make a claim to the position.

He further argued that allowing Harihara to substitute himself in the suit would amount to decreeing the main suit itself which was not permissible under the law. He pointed out that the senior pontiff had filed the case in his personal capacity and thus no right will succeed to Harihara.

Harihara, on the other hand, contended that the nomination of Nithyananda was canceled and he had no locus standi to question the nomination. He added that his appointment as the 293^rd pontiff had been taken on record by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and in such circumstances, he is legally entitled to get himself substituted in the suit.

Taking note of this submission, bench of Justice R Vijayakumar opined that the application for amendment did not call for any interference but made it clear that Harihara's substitution was only for the limited purpose of prosecuting the suit and would not confer any additional advantage to him.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Isaac Mohanlal For M/s.Isaac Chamber

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.B.Saravanan Senior Counsel For Mr.R.M,Arun Swaminathan, Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate, Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 274

Case Title: Sri Nithyanadha Swami v .Sri La Sri Harihara

Case No: C.R.P.(MD).No.2735 of 2023