Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Hari Kumar vs Swami Sadguru Sharnanad Ji Mahraj on 18 August, 2015
Bench: T.S. Thakur, V.Gopala Gowda, R. Banumathi
1
ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.2 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 38033/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28/05/2013
in CR No. 553/2012 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at
Allahabad)
HARI KUMAR & ORS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SWAMI SADGURU SHARNANAD JI MAHRAJ Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and permission to
file additional documents and permission to file affidavit and
permission to place addl. documents on record and interim relief
and office report)
(For Final Disposal)
Date : 18/08/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.GOPALA GOWDA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. V.Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Ranjan Tiwari, Aadv.
Mr. Prafulla Ranjan Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. A.K.Ojha, Adv.
Mr. Manav, Adv.
Mr. Atishi Dipankar,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. S.R.Singh, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Niranjana Singh,Adv.
Mr. Ram Bhaj, Adv.
Mr. Avnish Singh, Adv.
MR. Ankur Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by Shashi Sareen The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. Date: 2015.09.11 09:48:59 IST Reason:
(Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) AR-cum-PS Court Master (Signed order is placed on the file) 2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 6327 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 38033 of 2013) HARI KUMAR AND ORS. ... Appellant(s) Versus SWAMI SADGURU SHARNANAND JI MAHARAJ ... Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted.
This appeal arising out of an order passed by the High Court of Allahabad has a chequered history behind it. The litigation relates to what is commonly known as Garhwa Ghat Math at Varanasi. It started initially in August, 1951 when Original Suit No. 469 of 1951 was filed by Har Sewanand, Mahant of the Math aforementioned for ejectment of one Awadesh Narain and others from a certain house property situate at Varanasi. The tenants who contested that suit alleged that the property in their occupation was not owned by the Mahant but one Mr. Krishna Singh-the great grand father of the appellants in this appeal. The suit was eventually decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the Math. But the matter 3 reached this court at the instance of Krishna Singh who claimed ownership over the property that was the subject matter of the said suit. In Shri Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir and Ors. 1981 (3) SCC 689 this Court concluded the proceedings in O.S. No. 469 of 1951 and held that the suit property was indeed owned by the Garhwa Ghat trust and that Krishna Singh had no title to the same. In the operative part of the said judgment however this Court left open the issue whether or not Harshanakaranand who claimed to have stepped into the shoes of the original plaintiff Har Sewanand on the latter's demise had been rightly appointed to that office as Mahant.
With the conclusion of the first round of litigation as aforementioned, Krishna Singh filed O.S. No. 153 of 1980 in which he prayed for a declaration to the effect that Harshankaranand who was claiming to be the Mahant of the Garhwa Ghat Math was not a validly installed Mahant according to the customs and usage of the Sant Mat Sampradaya. While the said suit was pending, the Math appears to have filed execution proceedings for execution of the decree passed in O.S. No. 469 of 1951. Krishna Singh intervened in the said proceedings to object to the execution of the decree on the ground that since he had filed O.S. No. 153 of 1980, 4 the execution of the decree against the tenants should not be allowed to proceed till such time the question of Harshankarnand's status as a Mahant was determined by the court. That application was allowed by the Executing Court but the proceedings travelled up to this court and were disposed of by the judgment of this Court reported in Sri Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir and Ors. 1981 (4) SCC 421. This Court in very strong terms deprecated the attempt made by Krishna Singh to obstruct the decree and allowed the execution to proceed to its logical conclusion. That is precisely how the second round of litigation between the parties concluded once again on a note unfavourable to Krishna Singh whose perseverance continued in pursuing O.S. No. 153 of 1980 questioning Harshankaranand's appointment as Mahant of the Math. It was in that background that the third round of litigation symbolised by O.S. No. 153 of 1980 remained pending before the trial court for a considerable length of time until Harshankaranand passed away on 22.02.1983. With the demise of Harshankaranand, the plaintiff Krishna Singh filed an application for bringing on record three individuals who claimed to be his Legal representatives. These were:
Smt. Tapesara described as widow of Harshankarananad, Devnath @ Sarnanand respondent No. 1 in the present 5 appeal and Premanand @ Jant Sahab who claimed to be a chela and successor to deceased Harshankaranand. A detailed order of substitution passed by the trial court on 03.04.1989 brought all the three persons afore-mentioned on record as Legal representatives of the deceased Harshankaranand without determining finally their status. The order of substitution noted that the question of title of the persons to claim succession to the estate of Harshankaranand will be decided in the main suit. To the credit or discredit of the parties we need to mention that even the issue touching the substitution of the Legal representatives was also brought right up to this Court in SLP(C)...CC No. 2395 of 1995 which was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 10.05.1995 with the observation that the order of substitution had not adjudicated upon the title of those brought on record and therefore all the points raised by the petitioners were available to the parties to urge before the Court on merits at the appropriate stage. That concluded the third round of litigation before this Court which incidently did not prove to be the last round of litigation. What led to another round before this Court was an application for amendment filed by Krishna Singh seeking a formal amendment of the plaint in O.S. No. 153 of 1980 so as to challenge the right 6 and the status of Devnath-respondent No. 1 in the present appeal to be substituted in place of the deceased Harshankarananad to assume the office of the Mahantship of the Math in question. This application was dismissed by the trial court, aggrieved whereof plaintiff-Krishna Singh filed W.P.(C) No. 46291 of 2000 which writ petition too came to be dismissed by the High Court in terms of an order dated 15.05.2002. What is important is that the High Court while doing so went a step further and held that since the suit prayed for a declaration about the status of Harshankaranand who had passed away, the demise of Harshankaranand brought an end to the litigation making it unnecessary for the plaintiff to amend the plaint. The court accordingly not only dismissed the writ petition against the order rejecting the prayer for amendment but also dismissed O.S. No. 153 of 1980.
This order was then assailed by Krishna Singh in Civil Appeal No. 5550 of 2003. Krishna Singh having died during the pendency of the said appeal, the present petitioners were substituted in his place as Legal representatives. The appeal was eventually disposed of by this Court by an order dated 25.08.2010 with the following order:
“Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7 Delay in filing substitution application is condoned. Applications for substitution are allowed.
The appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Allahbad dated 15.05.2002.
By the impugned judgment the High Court has directed dismissal of the suit because the original defendant Harshankaranand had died during the pendency of the suit.
We are of the opinion that the plaintiff can file a fresh suit by raising all points of law against Devnath alias Sarnanad-respondent No. 1 and, if such a suit is filed, the same will be heard and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.” This concluded the fourth round of litigation between the parties only to be followed by the fifth and the present round of litigation which started with O.S. No.1098 of 2010 in which the plaintiff-appellant herein inter alia prayed for a declaration that respondent No. 1- Dev Nath @ Sarnanand was neither a virakt sanyasi nor had he been accepted as a chela nor was he installed as a Mahant according to the customs and usage of Sant Mat Sampradaya and was not therefore entitled to hold the office of Mahant of the Math. Plaintiff No. 1-appellant herein also prayed for being appointed as 8 Manager/Administrator of Math to look after the interest and affairs of the math properties. Together with a written statement, the respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same was barred by the law of limitation. It was contended that since Devnath had been appointed as Mahant of the Math on 09.05.1983 any suit challenging his appointment as a Mahant filed after three years of such appointment was barred by limitation. The Trial Court rejected that application holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action in para 41 thereof hence was not liable to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court, the respondent herein preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 553 of 2012 which was heard and allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad by an order dated 28.05.2013. The High Court took the view that the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was barred by limitation as the same had been filed beyond the period of three years prescribed under Article 58 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. The present appeal assails the correctness of the above order.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length who have taken us through the orders passed from time to time as also the pleadings of the 9 parties before the trial court and those before this Court. There are two distinct aspects of the relief which the plaintiff-appellants appear to have sought against the respondent. One relates to the status of the respondent as Mahant of Garhwa Ghat Math and the validity of his appointment to that office. The second aspect relates to the conduct of the respondent as Mahant of Garhwa Ghat Math which according to the plaintiff tentamounts to mismanagement of the Math property and Math affairs. The question of limitation raised by the defendant-respondent herein in our opinion is relevant more to the first aspect of the matter namely whether respondent Devnath had been validly appointed as a Mahant of the Math keeping in view the customs, usage and the rituals connected with such appointment and the eligibility of Devnath to succeed Harshankaranand, the previous Mahant. The second aspect to the controversy namely whether the respondent has committed any act of mismanagement, misconduct or misappropriation of the Math property does not involve any question of limitation ostensibly because such acts of misconduct and/or mismanagement would constitute a recurring cause of action for any one having any interest in the Math property and/or the affairs of the math to seek appropriate redress in appropriate 10 proceedings. What is relevant to the second aspect is whether any one having interest in the math property or affairs of the math can maintain a suit otherwise than under the provisions of Section 92 of the CPC. M/s B.A. Khan and V.Giri learned senior counsel for the appellants argued that the appellant could be permitted to maintain a separate suit under Section 92 of the CPC after obtaining the permission of the jurisdictional court concerned while the controversy relating to the status of respondent or the validity of his appointment as Mahant of the Math could be treated as closed. Mr. Giri submitted that in order that the plaintiff-appellant may file a suitable action under Section 92 of the CPC and in order that any such action does not get bogged down by the defendant questioning the locus standi of the appellant or on account of the defendant alleging that the Math is not a Public Charitable Trust, this Court could clear the decks by making a suitable observation on both these aspects so that the suit does not, like the previous suit, get dragged on indefinitely thereby defeating its purpose.
Mr. S.R.Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that so long as the plaintiff-appellant gave up their challenge to the respondent's appointment as Mahant of the Math, the 11 question whether there was any act of misappropriation, misconduct or mismanagement in regard to the property or affairs of the Trust could be raised by the aggrieved party in a proper suit. He was agreeable to this Court recording on the concession made by respondent No. 1 that Garhwa Ghat Math, Varanasi is a public religious and charitable trust hence amenable to proceedings under Section 92 of the CPC. He has even filed an affidavit to the effect that the Math is a Public Religious and Charitable Trust and has referred to two earlier orders passed by competent courts including one by this Court in Swami Shankaranand Vs. Mahant Shri Sadguru Sarnanand (2008) 14 SCC 642 to the effect that Garhwa Ghat Math is a Public Charitable Trust. He submitted that in the light of the judicial orders on the subject and the affidavit which the respondent has filed before this Court specifically stating and unequivocally declaring that Garhwa Ghat Math is a Public Charitable Religious Trust, the plaintiff should have no apprehension about any unnecessary procastination of the proposed suit that they intend to file. He further stated that while the respondent stoutly deny any act of misconduct, mismanagement or misappropriation as alleged by the plaintiff-appellant herein and should be free to contest any application 12 filed for permission under Section 92, CPC before the competent court but shall not raise any contention that they have no locus standi to file a suit in the light of the submissions made at the Bar.
In the light of the submissions made at the Bar, we consider it unnecessary to go into the merits of the contention whether or not the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation. The concession made on behalf of the appellant about the status and validity of the appointment of respondent as a Mahant of the Math in question shall in our view conclude the first part of the controversy which shall not hereafter be reopened in any future proceedings. What remains is only the second aspect namely whether the respondent as Mahant has committed any act of misappropriation or mismanagement of the property of the Math or its affairs so as to call for his removal from Mahantship of the Math or grant of any other relief such as appointment of a Committee to manage the affairs of the Math. That limited aspect can be left open to be agitated by the appellant, if so advised, in a proper suit that they may bring after obtaining leave of the court concerned. Should any such suit be filed and relief prayed for, the respondent shall be free to resist the grant of such relief on all such grounds as 13 are available to him except the ground that the appellants have no locus standi or interest in the Math. The respondent shall, we make it clear, be free to resist grant of permission to the appellants to file a suit on the ground that there is no justification for grant of such permission in the absence of material to demonstrate that there has been any mismanagement,misconduct or misappropriation by him. Should an application for leave be filed and opposed by the respondent, as incumbent Mahant of the Math, the Court concerned shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. We express no opinion on the merits of any such application or objections that the respondent may raise. We order accordingly. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
................J. (T.S.THAKUR) .................J. (V.GOPALA GOWDA) .................J (R.BANUMATHI) New Delhi, 18th August, 2015.