# SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRs. & ANR v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2020] 9 S.C.R. 974
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-07-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 2020
- **Bench:** Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sri-marthanda-varma-d-thr-lrs-anr-v-state-of-kerala-ors-34607
- **Pages:** 188

## Headnote

Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 -
Chapter III of Part-I, Sections 18 to 23 - Constitution of India -
Arts. 363 and 366 (22) - Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple -
Shebaitship or the managership of the temple - There are many
versions as regard to the origin and how the temple was set up,
however, every version accepts that the King of Travancore had a
role in the administration of the temple - After a major fire incident
occurred in the year 1686, it was the king who re-constructed the
temple and installed a new idol and took full control of the temple -
Since then the management of the temple was with the king of
Travancore - Thereafter, a Covenant was entered into by the rulers
of Travancore and Cochin with the Government of India on
27.05.1949 and 29.05.1949 respectively - Art. VIII(b) of the
Covenant preserved the administrative right of the ruler of
Travancore in respect of the Sree Padmanabhswamy temple - The
Constitution of India made certain provisions with regard to privy
purse payable to the rulers in terms of any Covenant entered into
by the ruler of the State - Soon after the coming into force of the
Constitution, the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions
Act, 1950 was enacted and Chapter III of Part-I of the same
comprising of Sections 18 to 23 deals specifically with Sri
Padmnabhaswamy temple - Then came the Constitution (Twenty Sixth
Amendment) Act, 1971 which deleted Arts. 291 and 362 and inserted
Art. 363A which now expressly stipulates, inter-alia, that any person
who was recognised as ruler or successor, and all rights, liabilities
and obligation in respect of Privy purses stand extinguished - On
19.07.1991, the ruler who had executed the Covenant passed away
- Since then, the appellant no. 1, younger brother of the deceased
ruler had been exercising all the functions as 'Ruler of Travancore'
with respect to the affairs of the temple - A writ petition was filed by
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 974
974
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
975
a advocate before the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto
directing appellant no. 2, the Executing Officer (appointed by the
ruler of Travancore as per covenant) to show the authority under
which he was holding the post of Executing Officer of the temple -
Thereafter, another writ petition was filed by the appellants referring
to the relevant Articles of the Covenant - Also, there were civil suits
pending, which challenged the authority of the appellants herein
with the affairs of the temple - Whether the appellant no.1-younger
brother of the last ruler of Travancore could after the death of the
last ruler on 19.07.1991 claim to be the 'ruler of Travancore' within
the meaning of the term contained in s.18(2) of the 1950 Act to
claim ownership, control and management of the Sree
Padmanabhaswamy Temple - The High Court held that neither
appellant no. 1 nor any of the successors of his family can claim
control or management of the temple u/s. 18(2) of the 1950 Act and
the State Government was directed to constitute a body corporate
or trust or other legal authority to take control of the temple -
Aggrieved, the appellants filed appeal before the Supreme Court -
Held: The Supreme Court has laid down that when the idol is
installed and the temple is constructed or an endowment is founded,
the shebaitship is vested in the founder and unless the founder himself
has disposed of the shebaitship in a particular manner or there is
some usage or custom or circumstances showing a different mode
of devolution, the shebaitship like any other species of heritable
property follows the line of inheritance from the founder, and it is
not open to the Court to lay down a new rule of succession or alter
the rule of succession - In the instant case, the shebaitship or the
managership of the temple passed on to the succeeding kings, coming
from the royal family of Travancore and represented a continuous
and unbroken line of successive shebaits from the original founder
- The Art. VIII of the Co

## Text

_Characters 0–39,995 of 422,981. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39995 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
974
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRs. & ANR.
v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 2020)
JULY 13, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 -
Chapter III of Part-I, Sections 18 to 23 - Constitution of India -
Arts. 363 and 366 (22) - Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple -
Shebaitship or the managership of the temple - There are many
versions as regard to the origin and how the temple was set up,
however, every version accepts that the King of Travancore had a
role in the administration of the temple - After a major fire incident
occurred in the year 1686, it was the king who re-constructed the
temple and installed a new idol and took full control of the temple -
Since then the management of the temple was with the king of
Travancore - Thereafter, a Covenant was entered into by the rulers
of Travancore and Cochin with the Government of India on
27.05.1949 and 29.05.1949 respectively - Art. VIII(b) of the
Covenant preserved the administrative right of the ruler of
Travancore in respect of the Sree Padmanabhswamy temple - The
Constitution of India made certain provisions with regard to privy
purse payable to the rulers in terms of any Covenant entered into
by the ruler of the State - Soon after the coming into force of the
Constitution, the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions
Act, 1950 was enacted and Chapter III of Part-I of the same
comprising of Sections 18 to 23 deals specifically with Sri
Padmnabhaswamy temple - Then came the Constitution (Twenty Sixth
Amendment) Act, 1971 which deleted Arts. 291 and 362 and inserted
Art. 363A which now expressly stipulates, inter-alia, that any person
who was recognised as ruler or successor, and all rights, liabilities
and obligation in respect of Privy purses stand extinguished - On
19.07.1991, the ruler who had executed the Covenant passed away
- Since then, the appellant no. 1, younger brother of the deceased
ruler had been exercising all the functions as 'Ruler of Travancore'
with respect to the affairs of the temple - A writ petition was filed by
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 974
974
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
975
a advocate before the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto
directing appellant no. 2, the Executing Officer (appointed by the
ruler of Travancore as per covenant) to show the authority under
which he was holding the post of Executing Officer of the temple -
Thereafter, another writ petition was filed by the appellants referring
to the relevant Articles of the Covenant - Also, there were civil suits
pending, which challenged the authority of the appellants herein
with the affairs of the temple - Whether the appellant no.1-younger
brother of the last ruler of Travancore could after the death of the
last ruler on 19.07.1991 claim to be the 'ruler of Travancore' within
the meaning of the term contained in s.18(2) of the 1950 Act to
claim ownership, control and management of the Sree
Padmanabhaswamy Temple - The High Court held that neither
appellant no. 1 nor any of the successors of his family can claim
control or management of the temple u/s. 18(2) of the 1950 Act and
the State Government was directed to constitute a body corporate
or trust or other legal authority to take control of the temple -
Aggrieved, the appellants filed appeal before the Supreme Court -
Held: The Supreme Court has laid down that when the idol is
installed and the temple is constructed or an endowment is founded,
the shebaitship is vested in the founder and unless the founder himself
has disposed of the shebaitship in a particular manner or there is
some usage or custom or circumstances showing a different mode
of devolution, the shebaitship like any other species of heritable
property follows the line of inheritance from the founder, and it is
not open to the Court to lay down a new rule of succession or alter
the rule of succession - In the instant case, the shebaitship or the
managership of the temple passed on to the succeeding kings, coming
from the royal family of Travancore and represented a continuous
and unbroken line of successive shebaits from the original founder
- The Art. VIII of the Covenant acknowledged and accepted in the
latter part of Sub-Article (b) of Art. VIII of the covenant that the
administration in respect of the temple was already vested in the
ruler of the Covenanting State of Travancore - Therefore, when the
Covenant was entered into by the Ruler of the Covenanting State of
Travancore, apart from other incidents which normally follow the
rulership, he was holding the office of Shebait of the Temple and
represented a continuous and unbroken line of successive Shebaits
traced from the original founder - Insofar as the Constitution
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRs. & ANR. v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
976
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
(Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 is concerned, despite this
amendment, the private properties of the ruler would continue to be
available for normal succession and devolution in accordance with
the law and custom - Though the concepts such as Ruler or Rulership
have ceased to operate, succession to the Gaddi as an incident may
still operate - So, the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act,
1971 did not affect the administration of the temple - Therefore,
the death of the last ruler who signed the Covenant would not in
any way affect the Shebaitship of the Temple held by the royal family
of Travancore, that after such death, the shebaitship must devolve
in accordance with the applicable law and custom appearing in
Chapter III Part-I of the 1950 Act must include his natural successors
according to law and customs.
Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 -
Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple - Constitution of Administrative
Committee and Advisory Committee - A Note was given by the
appellants about the composition an Administrative Committee and
an Advisory Committee to take care of the affairs of the Temple - It
was suggested, inter-alia, that the Administrative Committee shall
consist of five members: a) a retired Indian Administrative Service
Officer of the rank of Secretary to Government of Kerala to be
nominated by the Trustee in consultation with Government of Kerala
who shall be the Chairperson of the Committee; (b) one member
nominated by the trustee; (c) one member nominated by the
Government of Kerala; (d) one member nominated by the Ministry
of Culture, Government of India; and (e) the Chief Thantri of the
temple - Held: The suggestions made by the appellants in their Note
with regard to the constitution of the Administrative Committee and
the Advisory Committee is accepted subject to the modification with
respect to the Chairperson of the Administrative Committee - A minor
change in the Administrative Committee is made - Instead of a retired
Indian Administrative Service Officer of the rank of Secretary to
the Government of Kerala as the Chairperson of the Administrative
Committee, in the interest of justice, the District Judge,
Thiruvananthapuram shall be the Chairperson of the Administrative
Committee.
Words and Phrases :'Shebait' - meaning of - The expression
Shebait is derived from "Sewa" which means service and shebait,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
977
in literal sense, means one who renders "sewa" to the idol or a
deity.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1. In the backdrop of the facts and circumstances
on record, the issues concerning the status and entitlement of
the appellant No.1 including the relationship vis-a-vis the Temple
are concerned, the controversy can be considered under the
following five segments:-
A] Situation obtaining before and upto the date when the
Covenant was entered into in May 1949.
B] Effect of the Covenant that was entered into in May
1949.
C] Effect of the Constitution of India as it stood before the
Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 and of the
provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions
Act, 1950 (TC Act).
D] Effect of the Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment)
Act, 1971.
E] Effect of the death of the person who had signed the
Covenant as the Ruler of Travancore. [Para 50][1078-C-E]
2. A] Situation obtaining before and upto the date when the
Covenant was entered into in May 1949
2.1 Though there may be different accounts and beliefs with
regard to the origin and how the Temple was set up, every version
accepts that the King of Travancore had a role in the
administration of the Temple to begin with, and that he was the
one who re-constructed the Temple after a major fire that
occurred in the year 1686, and installed a new idol and took full
control of the Temple. The King of Travancore was thus
responsible for setting up the Temple, in the form that it stands
today, and it was the King who installed the new idol, and since
then the management of the Temple, till the Covenant was signed,
had always been with the Kings of Travancore. [Para 54][1080G-H; 1081-A]
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRs. & ANR. v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
978
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
2.2. Tested on any parameter, such as historical accounts,
popular and customary beliefs, certain practices connected with
the rituals and affairs of the Temple that mandatorily require the
presence and participation of the Ruler, deep involvement of the
members of ruling family and their connection with the Temple
and Sri Padmanabhaswamy at various stages of their lives, "The
Thrippati Danam" and its significance, and long recognised and
accepted fact that the management of the Temple had always been
with the Ruler, leads this Court to conclude that for centuries,
the Temple had been under the exclusive management of
successive Rulers from the ruling family of Travancore and that
the Rulers of Travancore, till the signing of the Covenant, were
in the capacity as Managers or Shebaits of the Temple.
[Para 60][1085-G-H; 1086-A-B]
2.3 As laid down by this Court in various decisions, when
the idol is installed and the temple is constructed or an endowment
is founded, the shebaitship is vested in the founder and unless
the founder himself has disposed of the shebaitship in a particular
manner or there is some usage or custom or circumstances
showing a different mode of devolution, the shebaitship like any
other species of heritable property follows the line of inheritance
from the founder; and it is not open to the Court to lay down a
new rule of succession or alter the rule of succession. It has also
been laid down that the shebaitship has the elements of office
and property, of duties and personal interest blended together
and they invest the office of the shebait with the character of
proprietary right. It has further been laid down that the shebait
is the custodian of the idol, its earthly spokesman and the human
ministrant; is entitled to deal with the temporal affairs and to
manage the property of the idol; and even where no emoluments
are attached to the office of the shebait, he has the right or interest
in the endowed property which has the characteristics of a
proprietary right. [Para 73][1110-G-H; 1111-A-B]
2.4 If the instant case is considered on the touchstone of
these settled principles, it is clear that after the major fire that
occurred in the year 1686, the Temple was reconstructed and a
new idol was installed by the then King of Travancore and since
then right upto the day the Covenant was signed, the management
of the Temple had always been with the Kings of Travancore.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
979
The shebaitship or the managership of the Temple passed on to
the succeeding Kings, coming from the royal family of Travancore.
This chain was unbroken till the then Ruler of Travancore signed
the Covenant in May 1949. [Para 73][1111-C]
2.5 This Court must thus conclude that as on the day when
the Covenant was entered into by the Ruler of the Covenanting
State of Travancore, apart from other incidents which normally
follow the rulership, he was holding the office of Shebait of the
Temple and represented a continuous and unbroken line of
successive Shebaits traced from the original founder; and being
a Shebait of the Temple, he was having all the rights and interest
as laid down by decisions of the Courts. [Para 74][1111-F-G]
3. B] Effect of the Covenant that was entered into in May
1949
3.1 Sub-Article 'b' of Article VIII used the expression "now
vested in trust in the Ruler of the Covenanting State of Travancore"
and thus acknowledged the factum that the administration in
respect of the Temple, Sri Pandaravaga properties and all other
properties and funds of the Temple was already vested in the
Ruler of Covenanting State of Travancore. Sub-Article 'b' further
contemplated that with effect from the appointed day, the
administration of the Temple, Sri Pandaravaga properties and all
other properties and funds of the Temple would be subject to the
control and supervision of the "Ruler of Travancore". This SubArticle was the centre of debate and fulcrum of submissions by
the counsel appearing for various parties. [Para 77][1114-D-E]
3.2 What then would be the import of the expression "the
Ruler of Travancore" in the latter part of Sub-Article 'b' of Article
VIII is the question that needs to be addressed.
The only place in the Covenant where the person who
signed as the Ruler of the Covenanting State would continue to
enjoy his erstwhile powers as the Head of that Covenanting State,
was Article XXI. The references as "the Ruler of the Covenanting
State" and as the Ruler of Travancore or as "the Ruler of Cochin"
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRs. & ANR. v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
980
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
in rest of the Articles, were only by way of reference to the person
concerned, and not by way of reference to or because of his official
capacity as the Ruler. This gets fortified by proviso to Sub-Article
'd' of Article VIII, in terms of which "the Ruler of Cochin" would
continue to exercise regulation and control with respect to rituals
and ceremonies in certain temples. Upon the Covenant coming
into effect, he had lost his capacity as the Head of the erstwhile
State of Cochin. Thus, the retention of the powers under said
proviso in him was not because he had any official status as Head
of the State after the appointed day in terms of the Covenant but
only with a view to describe and locate the person concerned. A
person answering the description in said proviso would continue
to exercise such power. Similar thought can, therefore, be validly
entertained that the description in the latter part of Sub-Article
'b' of Article VIII was only to refer to or locate the person.
Furthermore, the historical background and the
association of the royal family with the Temple and the nature of
Shebaitship held by a successive line of Rulers from time to time,
were such that the Covenant designedly let the management of
the affairs of the Temple - with the royal family, and in the hands
of the Ruler of Travancore, principally because his official capacity
or status as the erstwhile Head of the State apparently had nothing
to do with the capacity as Shebait of the Temple.
It is also pertinent to note here that other Devaswoms
and Endowments in the erstwhile State of Travancore also used
to be under the control of the erstwhile Ruler of Travancore.
Going by the Travancore Interim Constitution Act, though such
control was to be retained by the ruling family, the Covenant
expressed clearly to the contrary. Sub-Article 'c' of Article VIII
acknowledged that administration with respect to said other
Devaswoms and Endowments and other properties was earlier
under the management of the Ruler of the Covenanting State of
Travancore. It, however, stated that with effect from the
appointed day in terms of the Covenant, such management would
now vest in Travancore Devaswom Board. This part also finds
mention in the relevant paragraphs of the White Paper.
Thus, wherever the official capacity of the Head of the
State was responsible for enabling the Ruler to be in charge of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
981
the management or administration, upon ceasing to have such
capacity, the erstwhile Ruler would have nothing to do with the
management of such other Devaswoms or Endowments. In
contrast, the case with respect to the Temple and other properties
referred to in Sub-Article 'b' stands on a completely different
footing. [Para 79][1115-F-H; 1116-A-C; 1119-D-F]
3.3 In the premises, it must be held that the expression
"the Ruler of Travancore" used in the latter part of Sub-Article
'b' of Article VIII was only by way of reference and the purport of
said Sub-Article was not to invest the said authority and power
because he was the Ruler or enjoyed and represented any official
status. [Para 79][1119-H]
3.4 The Article VIII of the Covenant not only acknowledged
and accepted the factum that the administration with respect to
the Temple, its properties, as well as with respect to Pandaravaga
properties, had already vested in "the Ruler of the Covenanting
State of Travancore", but the said Article expressly continued
the same status and stipulated that such administration shall be
conducted subject to the supervision and control of "the Ruler
of Travancore". [Para 81][1121-A-B]
4. C] Effect of the Constitution of India as it stood before
the Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 and of
the provisions of TC Act
4.1 Art. 291 of the Constitution of India dealt with Privy
Purses payable to the Rulers and stipulated that if under any
covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian
State, any sums were guaranteed or assured by the Government
of the Dominion of India to be paid as Privy Purse, the sums in
that behalf would be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated
Fund of India and that the sums so paid to any Ruler would be
exempt from all taxes on income. Article 362 of the Constitution
of India stipulated that in the exercise of the power of Parliament,
or of the Legislature of a State, to make laws or in the exercise of
their respective executive powers, due regard shall be had to
the guarantee or the assurance given under any such covenant
or agreement, as was referred to in Art. 291 of the Constitution
of India, with respect to personal rights, privileges and dignities
of the Ruler of an Indian State.
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRs. & ANR. v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
982
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
Art. 366(22) defined the expression "Ruler" to mean, inter
alia, one who had signed the Covenant referred to in Article 291
and who, for the time being, was recognized by the President of
India to be the Ruler of that State and would include successor to
such Ruler. It may be stated here that there is no dispute that
the Ruler of Travancore who signed the Covenant was recognized
by the President of India to be the Ruler of Travancore. Article
363, which has remained unamended, speaks of "Bar to
interference by Courts in disputes arising out of certain treaties,
agreements etc." [Para 82][1121-D-G; 1122-A]
4.2 Soon thereafter, the TC Act came into force. The
relevant provisions of the TC Act have already been extracted
earlier. Chapter III of the TC Act specifically dealt with Sree
Padmanabhaswamy Temple and matters pertaining to the
administration of the Temple. Said Chapter III of the TC Act is
consistent with the latter part of Sub-Article 'b' of Article VIII of
the Covenant and stipulates inter alia that the administration of
the Temple, Sri Pandaravaga properties and all other properties
and funds of the Temple "vested in trust in the Ruler of
Travancore" and the sum of Rs.6 lakhs contributed in terms of
Sub-Section 1 of Section 18 of the TC Act shall be conducted,
"subject to the control and supervision of the Ruler of
Travancore" by an Executive Officer appointed by him. Said
Chapter III did not confer any right or benefit for the first time,
where none existed earlier but gave statutory recognition to what
was acknowledged and accepted in the latter part of Sub-Article
'b' of Article VIII of the Covenant to be the continuing status.
Section 20 of the TC Act then deals with the constitution of Sree
Padmanabhaswamy Temple Committee, which is also in tune with
said Article VIII of the Covenant. [Para 83][1122-B-D]
4.3 Insofar as the present segment is concerned, it must,
therefore, be concluded that the relevant provisions of the
Constitution of India as well as that of the TC Act did not, in any
way, upset or abridge the status enjoyed by the Ruler of
Travancore as Shebait of the Temple and also did not, in any
manner, adversely impact the right of administration vested in
the Ruler of Travancore. As a matter of fact, the relevant
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
983
provisions of the TC Act afforded statutory flavour to the status
contemplated by Article VIII of the Covenant. [Para 86][1130-FG]
5. D] Effect of the Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment)
Act, 1971
5.1 The assurances and guarantees given in the covenants
or agreements entered into with various Rulers normally had
four elements; i) that certain sums shall be payable to the Rulers
by way of Privy Purses; ii) that certain properties mentioned as
private properties of the Ruler would vest in the Ruler in his
personal capacity; iii) that succession to the Gaddi would go strictly
by the prevalent law and custom; and iv) that personal rights,
privileges and dignities enjoyed by the Rulers and in some cases
by the members of the family of the Ruler, would continue to be
available. [Para 91][1137-B-C]
5.2 Out of the aforesaid four elements, the elements (i)
and (iv) were covered by Articles 291 and 362 as they stood before
being deleted. The effect of such deletion has been discussed
and dealt with. The elements (ii) and (iii) are normal incidents
which were not within the scope of said Articles 291 and 362.
Despite the Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971,
the private properties of the Ruler would continue to be available
for normal succession and devolution in accordance with the law
and custom. Though concepts such as Ruler or Rulership have
ceased to operate, succession to the Gaddi as an incident may
still operate. For instance, there could be a sword or any other
ceremonial weapon, or a sarpech, or heirloom jewellery, which
must go by rule of primogeniture, as against the normal way of
succession with regard to other personal properties. All such
incidents have not been terminated. [Para 92][1137-D-F]
5.3 These four elements were covered by Articles XIV, XV,
XVII and XVI respectively in the Covenant in the present case.
However, apart from the said four assurances, the Covenant also
dealt with an additional and important aspect in Article VIII(b).
It accepted and acknowledged that the administration with
respect to the Temple, Sri Pandaravaga properties, and the
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
property of the Temple which was also vested in the Ruler of the
Covenanting State would continue to be conducted in the manner
stipulated therein, subject to the control and supervision of the
Ruler of Travancore. The effect of such Article and the fact that
such vesting was not in the capacity as Ruler has already been
dealt with. It has also been concluded that the expression "The
Ruler of Travancore" was only to locate and describe the person
who would be in control and supervision of the administration.
[Para 93][1137-H; 1138-A-C]
5.4 In the premises, this Court must conclude that the
Constitution (Twenty -Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 did not in
any way impact or affect the administration of the Temple, Sri
Pandaravaga properties and the properties of the Temple, which
continued to be under the control and supervision of the Ruler of
Travancore. [Para 94][1138-C-D]
6. E] Effect of the death of the person who had signed the
Covenant as the Ruler of the Covenanting State of Travancore
6.1 In the instant case, since the Shebaitship had vested in
the Ruler of Travancore, not in his official capacity, the normal
incident of heritability must get attached to the office of such
Shebaitship in accordance with governing principles of succession
and custom. Therefore, when it comes to the matter concerning
the administration of the Temple, Sri Pandavaraga properties and
the properties of the Temple, the expression "the Ruler of
Travancore" as appearing in Chapter III of Part I of TC Act must
mean the successor in accordance with the prevalent law and
custom. In the process one need not go to the definition of Ruler
either under Art. 366(22) or under Art. 363 of the Constitution of
India. Consistent with the principles that have been culled in the
various established judgments of the Courts after the death of
the person who was in control and supervision of the
administration, the heritable interest must devolve in accordance
with the customary rights. [Para 105][1142-G; 1143-A-B]
6.2 In the circumstances, this Court holds that the death of
the last ruler who had signed the Covenant, would not in any way
affect the Shebaitship of the Temple held by the royal family of
Travancore; that after such death, the Shebaitship must devolve
in accordance with the applicable law and custom upon his
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
985
successor; that the expression "Ruler of Travancore" as
appearing in Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act must include his
natural successors according to law and custom; and that the
Shebaitship did not lapse in favour of the State by principle of
escheat. [Para 107][1147-C-D]
7. The provisions of the TC Act with respect to the
administration of the Temple are clear:-
A. Under Section 18(2), the administration shall be
conducted. "Subject to the control and supervision of the Ruler
of Travancore, by an Executive Officer appointed by him."
B. "Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple Committee"
composed of three members nominated by the Ruler of
Travancore in terms of Section 20 is to advise the Ruler of
Travancore in the discharge of his functions.
The Statute has thus vested the power of appointing the
Executive Officer and of forming the Advisory Committee, in the
Ruler of Travancore.
In the Note, the appellants have stated:-
(i) "The Trustee shall delegate his powers of administration
under Section 18(2)" to the Administrative Committee which
"shall administer the Temple through an Executive Officer to be
appointed by the Committee".
(ii) On all policy matters, the Trustee shall be guided by
the advice of the Advisory Committee. [Para 113][1156-C-F]
8. Having given anxious consideration to the rival
suggestions, the composition of the Committees as suggested
by the appellants (Note adverted in detail in paragraph 47 of the
judgment) deserves acceptance, especially in light of the
conclusions arrived by this Court that the Managership or the
Shebaitship of the Temple continues with the Family. As against
the administration contemplated by Chapter III of Part I of the
TC Act in the hands of the Ruler of Travancore in absolute terms,
the course now suggested by the appellants is quite balanced.
The Composition of the Administrative Committee as suggested
is broad based and would not be loaded in favour or against the
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
Trustee. However, considering the fact that the present interim
Administrative Committee headed by the District Judge is in
seisin for the last more than five years, and various District Judges
as Chairpersons of the Committee conducted themselves quite
well, in view of this Court, a minor change in the Administrative
Committee suggested by the appellants in their Note is called
for. Instead of a retired Indian Administrative Service Officer of
the rank of Secretary to the Government of Kerala as the
Chairperson of the Administrative Committee, in the interest of
justice, the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram shall be the
Chairperson of the Administrative Committee. Needless to say
that the present Chairperson of the Interim Administrative
Committee shall continue to be the Chairperson so long as he
holds the post of the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The
composition of the Advisory Committee will ensure that the
administration of the Temple is conducted in a fair and transparent
manner. [Para 114][1156-F-H; 1157-A-C]
Revathinnal Balagopala Varma v. His Highness Shri
Padmanabha Dasa Bala Rama Varma (since deceased)
and Others (1993) 1 Suppl. SCC 233 : [1991] 3 Suppl.
SCR 30; The Commissioner, Hindu Religious
Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [1954] SCR 1005;
M. Siddiq (dead) through LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das
and Others (Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case) (2020) 1
SCC 1; Maharaja Pravir Chandra Bhanj Deo Kakatiya
v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1961] 2 SCR 501;
Rani Ratna Prova Devi v. State of Orissa and Another
[1964] 6 SCR 301- followed.
Mahant Sital Das v. Sant Ram and Others AIR 1954
SC 606; His Holiness Digya Darshan Rajendra Ram
Doss v. Devendra Doss (1973) 1 SCC 14 : [1973] 2
SCR 911; Profulla Chorone Requitte v. Satya Chorone
Requitte (1979) 3 SCC 409 : [1979] 3 SCR 431;
Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick [1951] SCR
1125; Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna
Kshetra Trust v. Collector, Haridwar (2017) 16 SCC
418 : [2017] 9 SCR 766 - relied on.
Deep Chand and Others v. State of U.P. and Others
[1959] 2 Suppl. SCR 8; Sawai Tej Singhji of Alwar v.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
987
Union of India (1979) 1 SCC 512 : [1979] 2 SCR 62 -
held inapplicable.
Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India
(1971) 1 SCC 85 : [1971] 3 SCR 9; Raghunathrao
Ganpatrao v. Union of India (1994) 1 Suppl. SCC 191:
[1993] 1 SCR 480; Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v.
General Electric Company and Ors. (1984) 4 SCC 679:
[1985] 1 SCR 432; Bala Shankar Mahashankar
Bhattjee and Others v. Charity Commissioner, Gujarat
State (1995) 1 Suppl. SCC 485 : [1994] 2 Suppl. SCR
687; Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. The State of
Rajasthan and Others [1964] 1 SCR 561; National and
Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of
Greater, Bombay (1969) 1 SCC 541 : [1969] 3 SCR
565; Desh Bandhu Gupta and Co. and Others v. Delhi
Stock Exchange Association Ltd. (1979) 4 SCC 565 :
[1979] 3 SCR 373 - referred to.
Gossamee Sree Greedharreejee v. Rumanlolljee
Gossamee 16 M.I.A.137 : (1889) L.R. 16 I.A. 137;
Ganesh v. Lal Behary (1935-36) 63 I.A. 448; Bhaba
Tarini Debi v. Asha Lata Debi AIR 1943 PC 89 : (1943)
ILR 2 P.C. 137; Vidya Varuthi Thirtha Swamigal v.
Balusami Ayyar and Ors. AIR 1922 PC 123 -
referred to.
Manohar Mukherjee v. Bhupendra Nath Mukherjee
and Ors. I.L.R (1993) 60 Cal. 452 - referred to.
"Sree Padamanabhaswamy Temple" authored by
Princess Aswathi Thirunal Gouri Lakshmi Bayi -
referred to.
"History of Sri Padamanabhasvami Temple till 1758"
by Dr. A.G. Menon - referred to.
"The Hindu Law of Religious Endowments and
Charitable
Trusts"
Edited
by
Hon.
P.B.
Gajendragadkar, former Chief Justice of India -
referred to.
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
White Paper on the Indian States prepared in July 1948
and updated in March 1950 by the Government of India,
Ministry of States - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1971] 3 SCR 9
referred to
Para 16
[1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 30
followed
Para 22(a)
[1993] 1 SCR 480
referred to
Para 22(b)
[1985] 1 SCR 432
referred to
Para 42
[1979] 3 SCR 431
relied on
Para 43
[1951] SCR 1125
relied on
Para 43
[1959] Supp 2 SCR 8
held inapplicable
Para 45
[1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 687
referred to
Para 45
[1954] SCR 1005
followed
Para 65
[1973] 2 SCR 911
relied on
Para 67
(2020) 1 SCC 1
followed
Para 69
[1964] 1 SCR 561
referred to
Para 70
[1961] 2 SCR 501
followed
Para 98
[1964] 6 SCR 301
followed
Para 98
[1969] 3 SCR 565
referred to
Para 104
[1979] 3 SCR 373
referred to
Para 104
[2017] 9 SCR 766
relied on
Para 106
[1979] 2 SCR 62
held inapplicable
Para 110 (I)(iii)
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL/INHERENT JURISDICTION
: Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2011 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Petition (C) No. 36487 of 2009.
With
Civil Appeal No. 2733 of 2020, Writ Petition (C) No. 518 of 2011
and Contempt Petiton (C) No. 493 of 2019 in SLP(C) No. 12361 of
2011.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
989
Krishnan Venugopal, Arvind P. Datar, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,
P. N. Ravindran, Sr. Advs., Kuriakose Varghese, V. Shyamohan, Gaurav
Ray, Udai Rathore, Surya Prakash, Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Surekha
Raman, Ms. Viddushi, Akhil Abraham Roy, Sahil Singh, M/s. K.L. John
& Co., J. Sai Deepak, Suvidutt M.S., Avinash K. Sharma, Ms. Shaktiki
Sharma, Ms. Smita Pandey, Yogesh Kumar, G. Prakash, Jishnu M.L.,
Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash, P.B. Suresh, Karthik
Jayashankar, Vikrant Yadav, Rajat Nair, B.K. Satija, Raj Bahadur, V. K.
Sidharthan, Karri Venkata Reddy, Ms. Anil Katiyar, P. S. Sudheer, Rishi
Maheshwari, Ms. Anne Mathew, Bharat Sood, Ms. Shruti Jose, N.P.
Rakeesh Panicker, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Nishad L.S., Ms. Anzu K.
Varkey, Ms. Manju Jetley, M.K.S. Menon, Shashank Menon, Vishnu
Sharma, K. R. Sasiprabhu, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K. Joy, Alim
Anvar, Reegan S. Bel, Ms. Usha Nandini V., Biju P. Raman, M.S. Vishnu
Sankar, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Ms. Deepti R. Mehrotra, Ankit Agarwal,
Venkita Subramoniam T.R, Rahat Bansal, Varun Mudgal, Rajesh Kumar,
Ms. S. Geetha, Ms. Smitha Rani, Abid Ali Beeran P., Sarath S. Janaradnan,
R. Sathish, Mohan Das K.K., B. Rajesh, Anupam Lal Das, Balaji
Srinivasan, Sumit Attri, Ranjan Kumar, M. P. Devanath, K. Rajeev,
Gautam Narayan, M. P. Vinod, Ms. Liz Mathew, Ramesh Babu M. R.,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
Dr. M. Velayudhan Nair, Party-in-Person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11295 of
2011 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12361 of 2011.
2. Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma who as Ruler of
Covenanting State of Travancore had entered into a Covenant in May
1949 with the Government of India leading to the formation of the United
State of Travancore and Cochin, died on 19.07.1991. His younger brother
Uthradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma and the Executive Officer of Sri
Padmanabhaswamy Temple, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Temple') as appellants 1 and 2 respectively have filed these
appeals challenging the judgment and order dated 31.01.2011 passed by
the High Court1 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.36487 of 2009 and in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.4256 of 2010.
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
1 The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulum
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
990
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
A) Writ Petition (C) No.36487 of 2009 was filed by one T.P.
Sundara Rajan, a practising Advocate praying that the High Court be
pleased to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto directing the appellant No.2
herein to show the authority under which he was holding the post of
Executive Officer of the Temple and that the State be directed to take
immediate steps to administer the Temple on the lines of Guruvayoor
Devaswom. The Writ Petition was filed by the licensee of premises
belonging to the Temple, against whom the management had taken steps
for eviction.
B) Thereafter Writ Petition (Civil) No.4256 of 2010 was filed by
the present appellants. After referring to relevant Articles of the Covenant
entered into between the Ruler of the Covenanting State of Travancore
and the Central Government which Covenant is dealt with in extenso
hereinafter, it was submitted:-
"Acknowledging the terms contained in the Covenant the
Government of the United State of Travancore and Cochin enacted
Act 15 of 1950, the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions
Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') which was later
acknowledged by the State of Kerala, as evidenced by later
amendments making specific provisions in relation to Sree
Padmanabhaswamy Temple and its properties and its
administration. Chapter II of Part I of the Act deals with the
Travancore Devaswom Board, Section 2(c) defines the
incorporated and unincorporated Devaswom, which says that
'incorporated Devaswoms' means the Devaswoms mentioned in
the schedule 1 and 'unincorporated Devaswoms' means those
Devaswoms including Hindu Religious Endowments whether in
or outside Travancore which were under the management of the
Maharaja of Travancore and are separately dealt with.
... ... ...
7. The right of the Maharaja that existed prior to the execution of
the Covenant Ext. P1, which is nothing but the sovereign right, to
control and supervise the administration of the Temple, the
Pandaravaka properties etc. are insulated from they being made
the subject matter of attacks before Courts, including The Supreme
Court by Article 363 of the Constitution-Construing the Article
the Supreme Court has held that no dispute touching the subject
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
991
matter of a covenant etc., shall be entertained by courts including
the Supreme Court. The only remedy is the one prescribed by
Article 143.
... ... ...
10. The above-mentioned rights, privileges, status etc. of the 1st
petitioner vis-à-vis of the Padmanabhaswamy temple the 2nd
petitioner, guaranteed by the Central Government, as discernible
from Ext. P1 and preserved and protected by Article 363 of the
Constitution, notwithstanding, a few members of the public with
the backing of certain political parties, have filed a representative
Suit O.S. 625/2007 for a permanent prohibitory injunction
restraining the second petitioner from opening the six Kallaras
(cellars) inside the Nalambalam."
The Writ Petition prayed that Original Suit Nos.625 of 2007, 1618
of 2009 and 1831 of 2009 be transferred by the High Court to itself and
the same be disposed of on the basis of the preliminary issue regarding
maintainability.
i) Original Suit No.625 of 2007 was filed in the Court of Subordinate
Judge, Thiruvananthapuram alleging that the plaintiffs (respondents 3
and 4 in appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No.12361 of 2011) were
aggrieved by the state of affairs prevailing in the Temple and prayed,
inter alia, for following reliefs:-
"A. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the
defendants, his agents, henchmen or any other person claiming to
have any right in the affairs or the Temple from opening the six
Kallara (cellars) inside the nalambalam which is plaint B schedule
herein or take any articles from the Cellar in any form, in any
manner or for any purpose or act in any manner detrimental to
the interest of the deity or the devotees.
B. To pass a decree of mandatory injunction removing all articles
brought inside the temple that is plaint A schedule by the 2nd
defendant against the customs, practice and traditions at his own
expenses or in the alternative permit the plaintiffs to remove the
same at their own expenses and to recover the same from the
defendants and their assets.
... ... ...
SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
992
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES
PLAINT "A" SCHEDULE
Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple situated inside the Fort Area
with eight entrances spread over a sprawling 7.04 acres of land
together with numerous buildings, temples and all other things
attached thereto of Vanchiyoor Village, Trivandrum Taluk,
Trivandrum District.
PLAINT "B" SCHEDULE
a. Kallara No.1 on the southern side of the Nalambalam inside
the chandanamandapam.
b. Kallara No.2 on the South west corner outside the
chandanamandapam inside the nalambalam.
c. Kallara No.3 on the north western side inside the
Nalambalam.
d. Kallara No.4 on the northern side inside the Nalambalam
e.