Nomination of Successor Mathadhipathi Is Incomplete Without Recognition by Dharmika Parishad Under Section 54(1): Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Disputing Heirs to Approach Civil Court

“A nomination shall not be complete unless it is recognised by the Dharmika Parishad… documents submitted after the death of Mathadhipathi carry no statutory value unless timely recognition was sought.” - In a significant ruling interpreting Sections 53 and 54 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 1 May 2025 held that a nomination made by a Mathadhipathi is legally ineffectual unless recognised by the Dharmika Parishad within the statutory timeframe. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, in W.A. No. 1066 of 2024 and W.A. No. 3 of 2025, refused to entertain competing succession claims over the Peetadhipathi post of the Sri Mad Virat Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamy Mutt, instead directing the parties to pursue remedies before the competent Civil Court.

“Succession cannot be claimed merely on paper; nomination must be recognised by the statutory authority to attain validity”

The dispute arose after the death of Sri Sri Sri Veerabhoga Vasantha Venkateswara Swamy, the Peetadhipathi of the Mutt. Sons from both his wives claimed succession through unregistered wills and oral nominations, asserting custom and personal communication to the Dharmika Parishad. However, the Court was categorical in holding that Section 54(1) required not just a nomination, but formal recognition:

“A nomination shall not be complete unless it is recognised by the Dharmika Parishad… The conditions for recognition shall be such as may be prescribed.”

The Court noted that although one set of claimants alleged a nomination in 2010 and submitted a will in 2018, they failed to ensure recognition within the prescribed 90 days, and any claim surfacing only after the death of the Mathadhipathi was procedurally invalid.

“Even under custom, a successor must meet the statutory qualifications under Section 53(2)”

While recognizing that the founder of the Mutt had directed succession through male heirs and that such practice had become established custom, the Court emphasized:

“According to the said custom, the sons of the Mathadhipathi are entitled to succeed… however, the person claiming succession or the person nominated shall possess the qualification envisaged under Section 53(2).”

These include religious knowledge, familiarity with the Mutt’s sampradaya, the capacity to preach, and moral character.

“A harmonious reading of Sections 53(2) and 54(1)… makes it abundantly clear that nomination alone is not sufficient unless the nominee is also eligible under the Act.”

“Where multiple claimants assert conflicting nominations and wills, writ jurisdiction is not the forum”

As rival claimants presented conflicting unregistered wills and alleged oral or informal nominations, the Court refused to adjudicate the dispute in writ proceedings:

“The present cases involve mixed question of facts… nomination, unregistered wills… which have to be decided by the Civil Court, but not under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

In modifying the order of the Single Judge, the Division Bench granted an interim administrative solution, directing all claimants to approach the Dharmika Parishad to assess their qualifications under Section 53(2). If any are found eligible, an interim Mathadhipathi may be nominated—subject to final adjudication by Civil Court.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court reiterated the statutory supremacy of recognition by the Dharmika Parishad under Section 54(1), and held that even customary rights of succession must comply with qualifications under Section 53(2). It ruled:

“Dehors nomination also, a person entitled as per rule of succession/usage or custom/law of succession can become Mathadhipathi… provided he possesses the statutory qualifications.”

Accordingly, both writ appeals were dismissed with liberty to the parties to seek civil adjudication of the succession dispute and to approach the Dharmika Parishad for interim recognition, strictly in accordance with law.

Date of Decision: 1 May 2025