Allahabad High Court
Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Disciple ... vs Jagat Guru Shankarcharya Jyotishpeeth ... on 22 September, 2017
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(AFR)
Reserved on 03.01.2017
Delivered on 22.09.2017
Court No. - 34
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 309 of 2015
Appellant :- Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Disciple Of Swami Shantanand Saraswati
Respondent :- Jagat Guru Shankarcharya, Jyotishpeeth Peethadeshwar Sri Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati
Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Goel, V.D. Ojha, Arun Kumar Gupta, Bhoopendra Nath Singh, Devendra Pratap Singh, K.D.Tripathi, Om Prakash Misra, Ravi Anand Agarwal, Satish Chandra Mishra, Ved Mani Tiwari, Advocates,
Sri Ravi Kant and Sri V.B.Upadhya, Senior Advocates.
Counsel for Respondent :- Shashi Nandan, W.H. Khan, Senior Advocate, Parmeshwar Nath Mishra S.P.S. Parmar, A.B.Singhal, Anoop Trivedi, B.P.Singh, Harsh Bardhan Chaubey, Ramanand Pandey,,Shruti Agarwal, Swati Agarwal, Udayan Nandan,Vijay Gautam,Vivek Kr. Singh (Advocates)
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)
1. This is defendant's appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") arising from judgment and decree dated 05.05.2015 passed by Sri Gopal Upadhayay, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad in Original Suit No. 513 of 1989 (Jagatguru Shankaracharya, Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Sri Swami Swaroopa Nand Saraswati Vs. Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati).
2. Plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') instituted Original Suit No. 513 of 1989, seeking permanent injunction restraining defendant appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') from being installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth Badrika Ashram Himalaya (hereinafter referred to as "Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth") and proclaim himself as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and restrain from holding Danda, Chhatra Chanwar and Singhasan of the office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Plaint Case
3. Plaint case set up by plaintiff, vide plaint dated 10.11.1989 is that plaintiff is duly installed Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth from 07.12.1973 and performing religious duties and functions provided in "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan", the books prescribed to regulate and govern functioning of Jagat Guru Shankaracharya.
4. Several centuries ago, Jagat Guru Shankaracharya propounded theory of absolute Monism, based on the authority of Upnishads. His philosophy succeeded in combating Buddhism and re-establishing religion of Vedas. He preached Non-dualistic Philosophy. He established four Maths as Monasteries in four extremities of India namely, Jyotirmath near Badrika Ashram, (Badri Nath in Pauri Garhwal) (Now Chamoli Garhwal) in the North; Sharda Math in West (Gujarat); Shringeri Math in Mysore (South) and Goverdhan Math at Puri (East). He placed each one of aforesaid Maths in the charge of one of his principal ascetic disciples. He also prescribed Rules and Regulations governing aforesaid four Maths in booklets named 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan' written by him. Adi Shankracharya in the said two booklets prescribed territorial jurisdiction, qualifications for appointment and dethroning a Head of Math who was to be known as 'Shankracharya' of that 'Peeth'.
5. Primary object of establishing these Maths was to encourage and foster Vedic teachings by maintaining a competent line of teachers to impart religious instructions to disciples and others; manage and strengthen doctrine of Vedic teachings so as to prevent any possibility of Vedic religion being affected by Philosophies, foreign to it.
6. The two books "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan" (later on also called as "Books of Command") are considered to have highest authority on the subject, being directly laid down by propounder of Math/Peeth, i.e. Adi Shankaracharya.
7. Requisite qualifications for a Shankaracharya are contained in the following two verses of "Mathamnaya":
^^'kqfpftfrfUnz;ks osn osnkaxkfn fo'kkjn%] ;ksxK% loZ'kkL=.kka l enLFkku eokIuqxkr~A mDr y{k.k lEiUu% lekPpsUeIrhB HkkXHkosr~] vU;Fkk :<+ihBks·fi fuxzgjkseuhf"k.kke~AA** "He who is unsullied, has subdued the senses, is well versed in the Vedas and Vedangas, and is conversant with the application of the shastras can obtain my Peeth otherwise, one devoid of these merits even if installed, is to be deposed by the wise and learned."
(English translation by Court)
8. The commands in the aforesaid books are mandatory and to be strictly followed. Besides, there have been long established customs and traditions in all the four Maths/Peeths, separate, independent and distinct, to install highly learned Sanyasis, who possess all qualifications/qualities laid down in 'Mathamnaya ' and 'Mahanushasan' as 'Peethadheeshwar'. These customs and traditions are being followed and observed without least deviation. In Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth, according to aforesaid Rules and Regulations prescribed in 'Mathamnaya', forty one learned and competent Sanyasis having requisite qualifications/qualities were installed to the Headship of Peeth, one after another. They performed duties, responsibilities and managed affairs of said Math/Peeth in the manner prescribed in the above books.
9. For a period of about 165 years (prior to 1941) i.e. since around 1776 A.D., Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth remained without a Head. In 1941, three Shankaracharya of Shringeri, Sharda and Govardhan Math/Peeth, Rulers of various States, learned people and Sanyasis etc., authorised a registered institution known as "Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Banaras" (now Varanasi) (hereinafter referred to as "B.D.M., VNS") to search a Sanyasi, satisfying qualifications/ qualities prescribed in above books of command so as to install 'Shankaracharya' of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth with an object to restore above Peeth/Math to its prestine stage and prestige.
10. Late Brahmanand Saraswati, a great learned Sansyasi was chosen and installed as Head of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth by "B.D.M., VNS". Above selection was approved by aforesaid three Shankaracharyas of other three Peeths, Sansayis and other learned men and followers of Vedic teachings. 'B.D.M., VNS' also executed a deed of declaration of trust, dated 11th May, 1941 (Baisakh Sudi 15 Samvat 1998). Entire land and site of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, Pauri Garhwal, including land and Ashram at Banaras (Varanasi) was placed under Trust of "Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati" with the conditions mentioned in the said deed. Late Brahmanand Saraswati performed his functions with great ability, resulting in reviving prestige of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth among people residing in northern India and became very famous. People made generous donations of moveables and immovables so that there may not be any financial scarcity in management of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth as well as Sanyasis attached to it. Late Brahmanand Saraswati managed property of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth as Trustee thereof and as a Sanyasi who renounced the world and devoted to religion.
11. Adi Shankaracharya had oriented principles of Trust in "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan" and same continued, as it is, in all four Math/Peeths.
12. Late Brahmanand Saraswati breathed his last on 20.5.1953. Then a question arose about his successor. While three Shankaracharyas, were pondering over the matter, it was claimed that a 'Will' was executed by Late Brahmanand Saraswati, nominating four persons as successors, namely, (a) Ramji Triapthi (subsequently known as Shanta Nand Saraswati) (b) Dwarika Prasad Shastri (c) Swami Vishnu Deva Nand Saraswati (d) Swami Parmanand Saraswati. According to 'Will', they were to succeed, one after another, and name of Ramji Tripathi alias Shanta Nand Saraswati was mentioned at first place. However, claim of Ramji Tripathi alias Shanta Nand Saraswati to succeed Math/Peeth as Shankaracharya was rejected by three Shankarachayas of other Peeths, learned, Pandits and Sanyasis. In fact, 'Will' was not executed by late Brahmanand Saraswati on the basis whereof Ramji Tripathi alias Shanta Nand Saraswati staked his claim. Three Shankarachayas and others rejected claim of Ramji Tripathi alias Shanta Nand Saraswati on the ground of incompetence, since he had not previously taken any education and till few years back, he was working as a Book Binder in Geeta Press, Gorakhpur. He was not conversant with Sanskrit Language and incapable to interpret Vedic philosophy etc. Plaintiff asserted in para 22 of plaint that said 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 was a forged and fabricated document for the reason that it was not executed by Late Brahmanand Saraswati and circumstances under which its execution was alleged, also made it suspicious. It was not a genuine 'Will'. Moreover, Late Brahmanand Saraswati was not competent to make any 'Will' or nominate by 'Will' any successor(s) as Peethadheeshwar. He could not and did not own or possess any property of his own. Properties of Math/Peeth were held by him in Trust and not as personal property, hence could not have been disposed of through 'Will'. He also did not possess sound disposing mind at the time of execution of 'Will', when alleged 'Will' was executed on 18.12.1952. He had been suffering with sleeplessness and other ailments for a long time, preceding the date of alleged execution of 'Will'. Hence, it was illegal and invalid and did not have effect of making Ramji Tripathi and other three nominees, entitled to become Shankaracharya or clothe themselves with any right or title to hold and deal with the properties of Math/Peeth. According to Rules, directions, customs and traditions of Peeth, and further directions contained in declaration/deed dated 11.5.1941, successor to the office of Shankaracharaya had to be chosen by a body of learned men of Kashi Vidvat Parishad, a registered body (hereinafter referred to as 'K.V.P.') and to be approved by three Maths/Peeths. K.V.P. and other Shankaracharyas did not recognize alleged 'Will', hence neither selected nor installed him as 'Shankaracharya'. Instead, Swami Krishna Bodhashram was installed on Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on or about 25.6.1953 and he continued to hold office till his death on 10.9.1973.
13. Swami Krishna Bodhashram fell ill in September 1973, hence appointed plaintiff to perform duties of the seat and manage affairs of Math/Peeth during his ailment. However, he breathed his last at Delhi on 10.9.1973. Before his death, he proposed name of plaintiff for installing as "Shankaracharaya". Again, question of installation of "Shankaracharya" of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth was considered by three "Shankaracharayas" of different Maths/Peeths and other learned persons. They selected and appointed plaintiff as "Shankaracharaya" of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, since he possessed all qualifications prescribed in 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan'. Installation ceremony of plaintiff was held at Delhi on 7.12.1973 in which 'Shankaracharaya' of Sharda Peeth and Gowardhan Peeth were personally present and offered Pattabhishek to plaintiff. Shankaracharya of Shringeri Peeth sent his representative who offered Patta Vastra, on his behalf, in the said ceremony. Besides, several other Sanyasis, Grihasths, Pandits, Scholars were also present and participated in aforesaid ceremony. All necessary religious ceremonies were performed. After installation of plaintiff, a procession was taken out from Gandhi Maidan, Delhi in which all three Shankaracharyas including plaintiff joined. Procession terminated at Azmal Khan Park of Karol Bagh and turned into a huge sabha, wherein various religious institutions of Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal including followers and leaders of Jain Religion, Mandleshwars, Sanyasis and Grihasths welcomed and acclaimed plaintiff as 'Shankaracharya' of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and offered their homage. Since installation on 7.12.1973, plaintiff as 'Shankaracharya' of said Peeth is performing duties and discharging responsibilities in the said capacity i.e. Jyotish-Peethadhishwar.
14. Plaintiff was attracted to asceticism at a very early age of 13 years. He studied Sanskrit at Narsinghpur and Kashi. In 1941 he joined Sanskrit Pathshala at village Rampur District Ghazipur. Before taking Danda (Sanyas), he accompanied many great religious and spiritual Sanyasis and Yogis namely Sri Vallabhanand, Sri Oriya Baba, Sri Karpatriji, Late Sri Krishna Bodhaharamji, Sri Maheshwarnandji, Sri Adwaitnand and Sri Akhandanand etc. Plaintiff learnt and discussed with aforesaid religious persons Vedas, Vedangas, Upnishads, Shastras, etc. His quest for knowledge brought him to Late Shankaracharya Brahmanand Saraswati in 1950 and he is Chela, senior to Ramji Tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati. Plaintiff became Dandi Sanyasi and was introduced to Dasnami order. After learning religious philosophy for sometimes, plaintiff left Late Shankaracharya Brahmanand Saraswati to propagate Shankar philosophy and Sanatan Dharma, Hindu religion. Plaintiff mostly propagates Vedantic teachings in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal. Plaintiff has a large number of followers in the aforesaid States. In May, 1964 plaintiff established "Adhyatmic Utthan Mandal", a registered body at Paramhansi Ganga in Distt. Narsinghpur (Madhya Pradesh), having branches in Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat and is run by plaintiff's followers to impart religious instructions according to Sanatan Dharma. Plaintiff opened several other institutions to impart religious teachings. Ramji Tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati, wrongly and illegally, claimed himself Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on the basis of a forged and fictitious will dated 18.12.1952, alleged to have been executed by Late Brahmanand Saraswati. Remaining three nominees, namely, Dwarika Prasad Shastri, Swami Vishnu Deva Nand Saraswati and Swami Parmanand Saraswati also had successive claim, watching exit of nominees, earlier to his name, also threatened to assume office of Shankaracharya of Badrikasharam Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth.
15. Plaintiff was compelled to file suit no. 1-A of 1974 Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Jyotish Peethadheswar Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati versus Ramji Tripathi and 3 others, in the Court of District Judge, Seoni. Subsequently, it was transferred to Court of District Judge Allahabad, who sent it to the Court of Civil Judge Allahabad and was assigned ultimately to the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad. Defendants therein with an objective to prolong disposal of aforesaid suit no.1A/1974, filed a revision in this Court against an interlocutory order passed by Additional Civil Judge for recording statement of witnesses. Ramji Tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati, apprehending trouble to explain about his wrongful activities and competence to hold the office of Shankaracharya and also accounting for huge amount of Trust, withdrawn and misappropriated by him, executed a deed of relinquishment of said office of Shankaracharya on 28.4.1980 though he legally never held the said office nor was ever installed as Shankaracharya. He was also not competent to hold the said office. Without any right or authority he nominated Sri Vishnu Devanand Saraswati to be next Jagat Guru Shankaracharya, ignoring even line of succession stated in the alleged 'Will' dated 18.12.1952. Sri Vishnu Devanand Saraswati was at serial no. 3 in the alleged 'Will' and Swami Dwarikeshanand at number two. Without execution of valid 'Will' and even otherwise, Ramji Tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati had no right to nominate a person at serial no. 3, bypassing the person mentioned at serial no. 2 in the alleged 'Will' dated 18.12.1952. Dwarikeshanand Saraswati was alive and had taken Sanyas long back. Late Brahmanand Saraswati had no right to execute a 'Will' creating and formulating line of succession of Shankaracharya and it was against provisions of 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan'. In fact, no such 'Will' was executed by him. Hence, Ramji Tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati had no right to hold office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Therefore, question of relinquishment and nomination of other person by deed dated 28.4.1980 did not arise. In any case, aforesaid nomination was also without any right, authority and against conditions of alleged 'Will' dated 18.12.1952. No right, title and interest to Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth was ever approved in favour of Vishnudevanand Saraswati and he was never legally installed to the said office, which is possessed and occupied by plaintiff since 7.12.1973.
16. Vishnudevanand Saraswati died on 1.11.1989. After death of Vishnudevanand Saraswati, appellant started manipulating himself to be installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, though plaintiff was already installed and functioning thereat with due recognition by all three remaining Shankaracharyas. According to conditions provided in 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan', only one Sanyasi having requisite qualification is entitled to be installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya and there cannot be more than one Jagat Guru Shankaracharya in same Peeth, hence appellant could not have claimed his installation as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya, since there was no vacancy. No question could have arisen of his installation in the said office.
17. From various newspapers published from 5.11.1989 to 7.11.1989, it had come to notice of plaintiff that appellant was manipulating his installation as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 15.11.1989 at Alopi Bagh, which will affect and hit religious feelings of plaintiff and Hindu devotees, followers of Vedic and Sanatan Dharma propunded by Adi Guru Shankaracharya. Appellant was threatening to do so without any right and authority. He also did not possess requisite qualification as provided in 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan' for such installation. In any case, there cannot be two persons to be installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya in the same Peeth. Appellant, therefore, was not entitled for installation as Shankaracharya, hold and possess Danda, Chhatra, Chanwar and Singhasan of said office. Plaintiff was entitled to restrain appellant, by means of a decree of permanent injunction, from being installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and proclaim himself as such and to hold various decorations like Danda, Chhatra, Chanwar and Singhasan etc. of such office. Since appellant was bent upon for his installation as Shankaracharya, hence the suit. Cause of action arose on 7.11.1989 and 8.11.1989 when news items were published in newspapers that appellant would be installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 15.11.1989, though he had no such right and his act of getting such installation is wholly without jurisdiction. The suit accordingly was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad with the relief as stated above. Amendment of plaint after appellant's installation
18. After filing of suit, appellant, however, proceeded to get himself installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Thereafter, by way of amendment, allowed vide Court's order dated 22.12.2006, paragraph 44/1 was inserted in the plaint which reads as under:
"44/1. That after filing the suit the defendant has been alleging and claiming that he was installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth on 14th November and 15th November, 1989."
Appellant's defence in written statement
19. Appellant contested the suit by filing written statement dated 12.5.1992. It was pleaded that plaintiff was never installed Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and never exercised duties as such. According to 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan', plaintiff had no locus standi to encroach upon rights and functions of appellant who was recognized and duly installed as Shankaracharya in the said Peeth in accordance with norms, customs and usage of Peeth. Establishment of four Maths/Peeths by Adi Guru Shankaracharya in four extremities in India was not disputed but it was denied that affairs of Peeths are governed only by conditions prescribed in the two books 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan'. Shankaracharya of one Peeth can neither have any say nor function on the Peeth of another Shankaracharya and in this regard following versus have been quoted in para 2 of written statement:
^^7- ijLijfoHkkxs rq izos'kks u dnkpuA ijLijs.k dÙkZO;k vkpk;sZ.k O;ofLFkfr%AA "Acharyas should never interfere in the apportionments (jurisdiction) of each other, they should settle their obligations mutually."
9- ifjozkMk;Ze;kZnka ekedhuka ;Fkkfof/kA prq% ihBkf/kxka lÙkkaiz;q¥~¥~;kPp i`Fkd~ i`Fkd~AA "A highly esteemed Sanyasi may acquire power of four seats but he should utilise them separately in accordance with distinct law made by me, the omniscient Lord."
14- ,d ,okfHk"ksP;% L;knUrsy{k.klEer%A rÙkr~ihBs dzes.kSo u cgq;qZT;rs Dofpr~AA** "At last according to Supreme knowledge one should be consecrated on concerned peeth in succession, in any case more than one should not be appointed."
(English translation by Court)
20. Functional area of Shankaracharya is limited within the boundaries of their respective Peeth. 'Mathamnaya' contains Rules which are regulatory in nature. Certain Code of conduct and qualifications have been dealt with in the two books but qualifications mentioned therein are not mandatory. They are only recommendatory and prescribes ideal character of a Shankaracharya. Plaintiff is neither qualified for the office of Shankaracharya nor ever nominated or installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. There existed separate customs and traditions in all four Peeths for selection, nomination and installation of learned 'Sanyasi' as Shankaracharya. Amongst four Peeths, there are fundamental difference with regard to source, terms and conditions, Sampradai (Sect), title, God, Goddess, Acharya, Tirth, Brahmchari, Ved, Mahavakya, Gotra, Area etc. Shankaracharya of one Peeth cannot become Shankaracharya of another Peeth in any circumstance, whatsoever. In the deed of declaration dated 11th May, 1941, "B.D.M., V.N.S." and Saints and Sanyasis bestowed title of Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth in accordance with customs and norms upon Late Brahmanand Saraswati. He occupied the seat and functioned to redeem and restructure the Peeth/Math which had lost and fallen into oblivion in the past 165 years. B.D.M., V.N.S. did not and could not reserve any power or right in itself or to anybody else for further installation. Late Brahmanand Saraswati had unrestricted discretion in the matter of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Averments in regard to learning and qualifications of Late Brahmanand Saraswati as stated in para 11 of plaint are admitted in para 11 of written statement. It is also not disputed that Brahmanand Saraswati took possession of all properties of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth when installed as Shankaracharya. After death of Brahmanand Saraswati there was no question of any selection or appointment since Late Brahmanand Saraswati himself appointed, in his lifetime, and nominated Ramji Tripathi alias Swami Shantanand Saraswati as his successor. Plaintiff challenged 'Will' deed dated 18.12.1952 but lost litigation upto highest Court, cannot raise the same issue again. Plaintiff has no right to challenge competence of Ramji Tripathi alias Swami Shantanand Saraswati, particularly when tenure is already over and challenge failed in different proceedings. Late Brahmanand Saraswati possessed considerable cash and personal property of his own which was never mixed up with the property of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Late Brahmanand Saraswati was best person to judge and assess qualification of his successor and in that view of the matter, nominated Ramji Tripathi alias Swami Shantanand Saraswati as successor to Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Succession passes from Guru to Chela through nomination by Presiding Guru and this custom of successor is also admitted to plaintiff. Swami Krishna Bodhashram was never appointed Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth at any point of time. He was not a Chela of Late Brahmanand Saraswati. Even otherwise, he lost his claim in Original Suit No.3 of 1963 filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Garhwal for declaration of his claim, which was not recognised in the aforesaid suit decided by 5th Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Allahabad. Suit filed by plaintiff is fabricated one and only to gain his private ends. His claim of so-called appointment has never been accepted by Court or any other authority. Plaintiff was not even Chela of Late Krishna Bodhashram. No question arose for appointment of Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth nor the seat was ever vacant after death of late Brahmanand Saraswati. Plaintiff was neither competent nor ever installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth nor can claim himself to be Shankaracharya of said Peeth in any manner whatsoever. Plaintiff left Brahmanand Saraswati after severing all connections, laid another establishment. Swami Shantanand Saraswati relinquished seat on 22.2.1980. He nominated and appointed Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Swami Shantanand Saraswati held office of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth upto 27.2.1980 and due to old age, considering the qualifications required for the post of Shankaracharya, nominated and installed Swami Vishnudevanand on 28.2.1980. Swami Vishnudevanand held office upto 1.11.1989, when he breathed his last. He was very learned and qualified Sanyasi for the coveted seat of Shankaracharya. His nomination and installation of Shankaracharya was fully justified by customs, usage and practice. He was recognised by Sanyasis, Grihasths, Pandits and learned Scholars. He was in possession of all the properties of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati found appellant, most suitable and qualified person for installation as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and as such nominated him vide registered 'Will' dated 17.4.1989. As per norms, customs and usage, prevalent and recognised by Peeth for the said office, appellant was installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth with all religious formalities, due ceremonies and requirements on 14th and 15th November, 1989. He got possession of entire property of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and since then, functioning and discharging duties of the said office. Installation of appellant is valid and otherwise claim set up by plaintiff is false, baseless and fabricated. No cause of action has arisen to plaintiff to file the suit on the basis of news published in newspapers. Succession had already proceeded from the 'Will' and nomination. Appellant is a qualified Sanyasi, well versed in Vedas, Darshan, Vedanta, Yoga, Vendangas and Adhyatamik (spiritual) philosophy etc. He is capable of maintaining high prestige of the seat and able to preach Shastras and religious philosophy to Sanyasis and Grihasthas. His religious attainments are well acclaimed and beyond doubt. Besides his attainments, his academic qualifications are (a) M.A. in Hindi and Philosophy (b) Vedantacharya (c) Pursharthacharya (d) Sahityaratna (e) Sanskrit Prabhakar (f) Ph.D. in Shankar Vedanta. He also possesses knowledge of Purusharth. He worked as Head of Department of Vedanta Vibhag in Sri Jyotish Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya (at Allahabad). His installation as Shankaracharya is most appropriate and appreciable. Plaintiff is not in possession of Danda, Chhatra, Chanwar and Singhasan of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth which, in fact, are in absolute possession of appellant. Plaintiff is not in possession of immoveable or moveable properties of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth. Plaintiff has no right to sue. Plaintiff is a stranger to Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and without any qualification and relation. He is not competent to initiate any proceeding against appellant in any capacity whatsoever. Suit is under valued and Court fee paid is insufficient. It is not stated as to how suit is valued.
21. It is further pleaded by appellant in written statement that on the death of Brahmanand Saraswati, an interim Committee of Management was set up with plaintiff as its president. He recognized Swami Shantanand Saraswati as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth after Late Brahmanand Saraswati. Subsequently out of sheer greed, plaintiff turned hostile and fought various legal battles to create hurdles in smooth functioning of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. This futile suit has been filed to disturb peace and affairs of Math/Peeth. Plaintiff's action is deliberate with mala fide intention. He has concealed and omitted to mention various litigations regarding affairs of Math/Peeth in question. Properties belong to Krishnanand Trust, has got distinct entity and those properties do not belong to Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth Trust. Management of said property, belong to Krishnanand Trust, is in the hands of Trustee, which office is also with the appellant as Shankaracharya (ex-officio president). Properties and gifts received by Late Brahmanand Saraswati in different capacities, neither, ever blended together nor mis-invested with other Heads against the 'Will' of donor. Office of Shankaracharya is not for preaching religion only and that too within the restrictive limits of any particular country or particular region. It is for the entire world as the basic moto and Slogan is "Vishwa ka kalyan ho". If a person praying for welfare of world visits foreign countries, he cannot be disqualified for a coveted office of Shankaracharya. Plaintiff himself has visited Mauritius and other foreign countries in the capacity of Shankaracharya. Appellant never visited any foreign country in the capacity of Shankaracharya and any averment contrary to it is false. Appellant is more suitable and competent person to function according to tenets, rituals, teachings and also to manage properties and affairs of the Peeth. He is a man of strong character and exceptional capability needed for coveted office of Shankaracharya. Educational qualification is not a standard to judge capability of Peethadeshwar. He should be competent to observe the vitals and tenets of a particular sect for the benefit of Math/Peeth. For attainment of final Purushartha, knowledge becomes essential and for acquiring knowledge, a pure mind is essential, inasmuch as, for purity of mind, performance of rites becomes essential. This performance of rites becomes integral part of teachings of Adi Shankaracharya. Suit is barred by Section 92 C.P.C. as also principles of res judicata and estoppel. Plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 11 Rule 7 C.P.C. and also barred under Specific Relief Act. Plaint contains various pleas which are unnecessary, scandalous and frivolous and likely to prejudice, embarrass and delay fair trial of the suit. Pleas taken therein amount to abuse of the process of Court, as such liable to be struck off under Order 6 Rule 16 C.P.C. Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, hence suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Replication
22. Replication dated 19.04.1995, paper no. 66-Ka was also filed by plaintiff. It is stated therein that plaintiff was installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 07.12.1973 and is performing religious duties, functions, obligations as provided in 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan', books of command prescribed by Adi Guru Shankaracharya for installation and functioning of Shankaracharyas of four Peeths established and founded by him in four corners of India. Plaintiff has full and absolute right to perform such duties having been installed on 07.12.1973. He has been recognized as such by rest three Shankaracharyas of Sharda Peeth, Goveradhan Peeth and Shringeri Peeth. Besides, Sanyasis, Pandits, Sadhus, Grahisthas and various religious Heads have also recognized and acclaimed plaintiff as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, Jyotishpeeth, KVP vide its letter dated 12.09.1973, "B.D.M., V.N.S." vide letter dated 22.10.1973, Shringeri Peeth vide letter dated 12.11.1974, Dwarika Peeth vide letter dated 07.12.1973. Other religious institutions have also recognized and appreciated installation of plaintiff as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Appellant is neither Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of said Peeth nor has been installed at any point of time. His claim to have been installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth is wholly illegal, baseless and void ab initio. It is not in accordance with Rules and Regulations laid down by books of command namely 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan' etc., customs and usage of Peeth. Defendant, 'suffering with leprosy' is unfit to be installed as Shankaracharya. He has visited foreign countries, hence also unfit. He was working and serving as teacher on monthly salary, hence could not have become a 'Sanayasi' and installed as Shankaracharya. Appellant did not possess requisite qualification for being installed as Shankaracharya, as per books of commands, namely 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan'. Rules and Regulations contained in the aforesaid books of command are mandatory and not recommendatory. It is incorrect that a duly installed Shankaracharya of one Peeth cannot become and installed as Shankaracharya of another Peeth. Plaintiff was rightly installed as Shankaracharya of Dwarika Peeth by learned Pandits, Sadhus, Sanyasis and religious institutions. Appellant has no right or authority to challenge the same. There is prohibition that there cannot be two Shankaracharya at one Peeth.
23. Plaintiff further said in replication that "B.D.M., V.N.S." has power and right for installation and recognition of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth to a person who is learned Sanyasi and possesses requisite qualification laid down in the books of commands i.e. 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan'. All gifts, donations, offerings etc. made by worshipers, religious persons and other concerned to late Brahmanand Saraswati (Former Jagat Guru Sankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth), were in the capacity of such office and not individual, therefore, entire property vests in Peeth and not individual property of any one. Ramji alias Shantanand Saraswati was not qualified to be installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya nor he was so installed as such. No 'Will' was executed by late Brahmanand Saraswati in favour of Ramji Tripathi and others. Alleged 'Will' relied by appellant said to be executed by late Brahmanand Saraswati is forged and fictitious. It is a manufactured and manipulated document prepared by interested persons, namely Ramji Tripathi and others. Late Brahmanand Saraswati was not in sound disposing mind at the time when alleged 'Will' is said to have been executed. He was also not entitled to execute any 'Will' making line of succession to the office of Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of the Peeth. Such execution of 'Will' is foreign to spirit of Rules and Regulations laid down in books of command, namely, 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan'. Plaintiff has right to challenge the aforesaid 'Will' as forged and fictitious. Late Sri Krishna Bodhaharamji was chela of late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. He was installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth. He performed duties and obligations of said office and assertions contrary thereto in written statement are incorrect. Suit has been filed to protect interest of Peeth and its property from being usurped and possessed by persons having self vested interest. Plaintiff is disciple of late Swami Krishna Bodhaharamji and qualified for the office of Shankaracharya. He was installed as such on 07.12.1973. Sri Ramji Tripathi alias Shankaranand Saraswati was neither installed as Shankaracharya nor entitled to nominate or appoint Swami Vishnu Devanand Saraswati as Shankaracharya and allegations otherwise in the written statement are false and contrary to Rules and Regulations laid down in the books of commands. Swami Vishnu Devanand Saraswati was not Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth nor was so installed at any point of time. Shantanand Saraswati was also not installed as Shankaracharya, hence question of his relinquishment of office does not arise. He was not entitled to nominate or appoint Swami Vishnu Devanand as Shankaracharya. Vishnu Devanand never held the office of Shankaracharya. Appellant's claim is false, frivolous and baseless. Vishnu Devanand Saraswati expired in individual capacity and not as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. He was never recognized as Shankaracharya by learned Pandits, Sanyasies etc. Alleged nomination/appointment of appellant by Vishnu Devanand is false. No 'Will' was executed by Vishnu Devanand in favour of appellant on 17.04.1989. Vishnu Devanand otherwise had no right to execute any 'Will' in favour of appellant, appointing or nominating him as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth. Alleged 'Will' dated 17.04.1989 is forged and fictitious. Documents, if any, relied by appellant are all manipulated, inadmissible in evidence and void. Appellant does not possess requisite qualifications for installation as Shankaracharya. Appellant is neither duly installed Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth nor holds or entitled to hold Danda, Chhatra, Chawar and Singhasan of the office of Shankaracharya and allegations otherwise contained in the written statement are concocted and false. Suit is neither bad for want of cause of action nor is barred by the principles of res-judicata or any other legal principle. Plaintiff has never visited any foreign country and the allegations otherwise are incorrect. Appellant has no right and authority to claim himself as duly installed Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth. He has no locus standi to put a false claim to the said office suffering several disqualifications and suit is liable to be decreed with special costs under Section 35-A of C.P.C. Amendment Application dated 01.09.2005
24. A detailed amendment application dated 01.09.2005 (paper No.366-Ka) was filed by plaintiff, seeking addition of several paragraphs, grounds and relief in the plaint. Trial Court vide order dated 22.12.2006 rejected substantial proposed amendments and instead allowed it partially. Operative part of the order reads as under:-
"1- izkFkZuk i= 366d ds i`"B 4 ls lEcfU/kr iSjk ,d ls lEcfU/kr la'kks/ku lEcU/kh izkFkZuk fujLr dh tkrh gSA 2- izkFkZuk i= 366d ds i`"B 4 ls lEcfU/kr iSjk nks ds ek/;e ls iSjk 44@2 okni= ds ckn iSjk 44@1 tksM+us dh la'kks/ku lEcU/kh izkFkZuk Lohd`r dh tkrh gSA 3- izkFkZuk i= 336d ds i`"B 5 ls lEcfU/kr la'kks/ku lEcU/kh izkFkZuk dks iSjk 44 okni= ds ckn iSjk 44@2 tksM+us ls lEcfU/kr gS ftlds lkFk dqy ckbl vk/kkj ftuds dzekad jkseu fxurh esa ntZ gS rFkk tks iSjk nks ls lEcfU/kr gS dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA 4- izkFkZuk i= 366d ds i`"B 14 ds iSjk 3 esa of.kZr la'kks/ku ds ckor izkFkZuk Lohd`r dh tkrh gSA 5- izkFkZuk i= 366d ds ist 14 ds iSjk 4 ,oa vuqrks"k , ds ckn vuqrks"k ,@1 tksM+us lEcU/kh la'kks/ku dh izkFkZuk fujLr dh tkrh gSA 6- izkFkZuk i= 366d ds ist 14 ds iSjk 5 esa of.kZr izkFkZuk tks fjIyhds'ku 66d ds lEcfU/kr la'kks/ku lEcU/kh izkFkZuk gS mls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA 7- rnuqlkj mijksDr fcUnq dzekad ,d o N% ds vk/kkj ij izkFkZuk i= 366d fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gS oknh dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS og mijksDrkuqlkj izkFkZuki= 366d ds ek/;e ls ;kfpr izkFkZuk ls lEcfU/kr Lohd`r gq;s Hkkx ds lEcU/k esa la'kks/ku rhu fnu esa dj ysaA 8- pawfd dy fnukad 23-12-2006 ds ckn fnukad 24-12-2006 ls fnukad 1-1-2007 rd rhu vodk'k jgsxk vr% dy fnukad 23-12-2006 dks ,d fnu ,oa U;k;ky; [kqyus ds ckn ds nks fnu tksM+dj rhu fnu dh vof/k fnukad 3-1-2007 rd ekuh tk;sxhA** "1. Prayer for amendment in para 1 at page 4 of application 366A is rejected.
2. Prayer for amendment by adding para 44/1 after para 44/2 of plaint as contained in para 2, page 4 of application 366A is allowed.
3. Prayer relating to amendment by adding contents of page 5 of application 366A, after para 44 of plaint, as paragraph 44/2, which are 22 grounds written in roman figure and concerns with para 2, is rejected.
4. Prayer for amendment as sought vide para 3, page 14 of application 366A is allowed.
5. Prayer for amendment as sought vide para 3, page 14 of application 366A, for adding Relief "A/1" after relief "A" is rejected.
6. Prayer for amendment, sought vide para 5, page 14 of application 366A, in replication 66A is rejected.
7. Accordingly, on the basis of directions in aforesaid points no. 1 and 6, application 366A is disposed of, directing the plaintiff to incorporate amendments sought through application 366A, to the extent it has been allowed, within three days.
8. Since, after 23.12.2006 there shall be three days' holiday from 24.12.2006 to 1.1.2007 and thereafter Court is open on 23.12.2006, so adding this one day and two more days thereafter, total three days will come till 03.01.2007."
(English translation by Court) Additional written statement
25. Pursuant to partial amendment allowed by Court below, an additional written statement dated 03.01.2007 was filed stating that appellant was duly and validly installed Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth on 14th and 15th November 1989, after due ceremony at Allahabad and has come into possession over Danda, Chatra, Chanwar and Singhasan of the office of Shankaracharya of the said Peeth. Appellant is qualified to become Shankaracharya and instead plaintiff lacks qualification. Plaintiff also does not possess any degree from recognized University or institution within the territory of India and abroad. Inclusion of amended cause of action is mala fide and not maintainable. Suit as initially instituted has become infructuous after installation of appellant as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 of C.P.C. in view of earlier Suit No.1-A of 1974 filed by plaintiff and pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-1, Room No.13, Allahabad. In earlier suit plaintiff had sought a declaration that he is Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth with effect from 07.12.1973 and has also sought for recovery of certain property of the said Peeth. The said suit is still pending. Subsequent suit is consequential to declaration sought in earlier suit, hence not maintainable and liable to be rejected or in any case deserves to be stayed till earlier suit is decided. Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth is a Mourusi Math. Succession to Headship is in accordance with Guru-Shishya Parampara, whereby reigning Mahant chooses his successor from amongst, disciples of Peeth to become successor Mahant. This is evident from custom prevailing in all four Maths, established by Adi Shankaracharya. It is admitted by plaintiff that only disciples of Adi Shankaracharya are given charge of Headship of four Maths, established in four extremities in India. There is no other custom prevailing anywhere other than the custom as said above. On account of natural calamity, seat of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth remained extinct for a period of 165 years. After due perserverance of learned Sadhus, Sanyasis and with the help of British officials, the same old seat of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth was resurrected with its original glory, functions and customs. It is not establishment of a new Peeth after resurrection. Declaration deed was prepared in 1941 in respect of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth only with an intention to lay down procedure for selection of Shankaracharya and confer upon him legal right to hold august seat of Shankaracharya. Guru-Shishya Parampara, stood broken due to extinction of Peeth for a considerable period of time i.e. about 165 years. Declaration of 1941 recognizes Guru-Shishya Parampara for future guidance and management of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth. Declaration contained stipulation that for any extraneous reason, in future, if the seat of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth is extinct and customs could not be adhered, then there may be selection of eligible person as Shankaracharya with approval of learned Sadhus and Sannaysis. Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth is following strictly Guru-Shishya Parampara for appointment of successor Mahant right from the time of Bramanand Saraswati. The seat since then has never remained vacant or became extinct. Appellant has been appointed as per the customs of Math and otherwise claim set up by plaintiff is incorrect. As per customs of Mourusi Math, reigning mahant is best judge to decide, who possesses requisite qualification to become Shankaracharya. Successor of said office is religious and spiritual person and no judicial authority or Law Courts can investigate into such matters and record findings over qualifications needed for installation as Shankaracharya. Qualification of Shankaracharya is not justiciable. Suit as framed is not maintainable. As per norms of Math, laid down by Adi Shankaracharya, respective Head of Maths cannot be interfered by Courts and they are beyond jurisdiction of Courts. The management of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth is being looked after, smoothly, since 1941, as per customs, and, no otherwise custom can be incorporated or imported by anyone including 'B.D.M., VNS'. Plaintiff is an arch litigant, fighting cases against all Mahants of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth for the last 50 years or more, for its personal gains and hampering sentiments of people at large in the society. Plaintiff himself is not qualified to become Shankaracharya in the light of the norms set out by customs. Valuation of the suit is very high, but it has been undervalued. Issues
26. Trial Court formulated total 23 issues, as under:-
"1. D;k oknh dks fnukad 07++-12-1973 dks T;ksfreZB ds txrxq:] 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa LFkkfir fd;k x;k vkSj os rc ls T;ksfrZeB cfnzdkJe ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds dk;ksZa ,oa@drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu dj jgs gSa ?;fn gkW rks izHkko ?"
"1. Whether plaintiff has been installed as Jagatguru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath on 07.12.1973 and, since then he has been discharging functions and duties as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, Badrikashram. If so, its effect."
"2- D;k vkfnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z }kjk fyf[kr iqLrdksa eBkEU;k; egkuq'kklu esa muds }kjk Hkkjro"kZ esa LFkkfir T;ksfrZeB cfnzdkJe lfgr pkjksa ihBksa ij 'kadjkpk;ksZa dks LFkkfir djus ,oe~ dk;ksZa ds lEcU/k esa fu;e fn;s x;s gSa\ ;fn gkWa rks D;k oknh dks T;ksfrZeB cfnzdkJe ij 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa mu fu;eksa ds vuq:i LFkkfir fd;k x;k gS\"
"2. Whether rules have been propounded in the books Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan composed by Adi Guru Shankaracharya for installation of Shankaracharya on four Seats (Peethas) including badrikashram, established by him in India? If so, whether plaintiff has been installed as Shankaracharya according to those rules?"
"3- D;k T;kssfrZeBksa esa LFkkfir 'kadjkpk;ksZa }kjk viuk mRrjkf/kdkjh ukfer djus gsrq dksbZ fu;e] izFkk vFkok izkfo/kku gS\ "
"3. Whether there is any rule, custom or provision for nominating his successor by Shankaracharya installed in Jyotirpeethas?"
"4- D;k fo}r ifj"kn dks 'kadjkpk;Z LFkkfir djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr gS\ "
"4. Whethther Vidvat Parishad has any authority to install Shankaracharya ?"
"5- D;k czEgyhu txr~xq: 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfrZeB cfnzdkJe Lokeh czEgkuUn ljLorh dks 'kadjkpk;Z dh fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa fu;e cukus dk vf/kdkj Fkk\ ;fn gkWa rks izHkko\ "
"5. Whethther Brahmleen Jagat Guru Shankaracharya, Jyotirmath, Badrikashram, Swami Brahmanand Saraswati had any authority with respect to appointment of Shankaracharya? If so, its effect?"
"6- D;k Jh fo".kw nsokuUn dks T;ksfrZeB dk 'kadjkpk;Z Lo0 czEgkuUn ljLorh }kjk fyf[kr dfFkr olh;;rukesa fnukafdr 16-12-1952 ds vuq:i cuk;k x;k Fkk\ ;fn gkWa rks izHkko\ "
"6. Whethther Sri Vishnu Devanand had been appointed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, according to alleged will dated 16.12.1952, executed by Late Brahmanand Saraswati? If so, its effect."
"7- D;k Jh fo".kwnsokuUn ljLorh dks T;ksfrZeB cfnzdkJe ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds dk;kZy; dk mRrjkf/kdkjh olh;r vFkok vU; fdlh izdkj ls ukfer djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr Fkk\ "
"7. Whether Sri Vishnudevanand Saraswati had authority to nominate successor of the office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath Badrikashram by will or any other manner ?"
"8- D;k izfroknh eBkEU;k; ,oe~ egkuq'kklu esa nh x;h vko';d vgZrk;sa t;ksfrZeB cfnzdkJe ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa LFkkfir gksus ds fy;s j[krs gSa\"
"8. Whether defendant is eligible and possesses essential eligibility qualifications to be installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath Badrikashram as provided in Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan?"
"9- D;k Lokeh d`".k cks/kkJe fnukad 25-06-1953 ls 10-09-1973 rd cfnzdkJe ds 'kadjkpk;Z jgs\ "
"9. Whethther Swami Krishna Bodhashram remained Shankaracharya of Badrikashram since 25.06.1953 to 10.09.1973 ?"
"10- D;k Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dks oknh dks 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa ukfer djus dk vf/kdkj Fkk\ "
"9. Whethther Swami Krishna Bodhashram had authority to nominate plaintiff as Shankaracharya ?"
"11- D;k oknh cfnzdkJe ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa fu;qDr fd;s tkus dk vgZrk j[krs gSa\ "
"11. Whether plaintiff possesses eligibility qualification to be installed as Shankaracharya of Badrikashram ?"
"12- D;k izfroknh cklqnsokuUn ljLorh T;ksfr"kihB cfnzdkje ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa LFkkfir gksus dh ;ksX;rk;sa ugha j[krs gSa\"
"12. Whether defendant does not possess eligibility qualification to be installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth Badrikashram ?"
"13- D;k fnukad 14@15 uoEcj 1989 dks izfroknh dk T;ksfr"kihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa dfFkr vfHk"ksd voS/k ,oe~ vfof/kiw.kZ gS\ "
"13. Whether alleged Abhishek (coronation) of defendant on 14/15th November 1989 as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth is illegal and against Rules ?"
"14- D;k izLrqr okn /kkjk 92 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds izkfo/kkuksa ls ckf/kr gS\ "
"14. Whether the suit is barred by provisions of Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code ?"
"15- D;k izLrqr okn iks"k.kh; ugha gS\ "
"15. Whether the suit is not maintainable ?"
"16- D;k izLrqr okn izkax U;k; ds fl)kUr ls ckf/kr gS\ "
"16. Whether the suit is barred by principles of res judicata?"
"17- D;k okn voewY;kafdr gS\ "
"17. Whether the suit is undervalued ?"
18- D;k vnkdnkZ U;k;'kqYd vi;kZIr gS\ "
"18. Whether Court fee paid is insufficient ?"
"19- D;k izLrqr okn ifjlhek ls ckf/kr gS\ "
"19. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?"
"20- D;k izLrqr okn focU/ku ds fl)kUr ls ckf/kr gS\ "
"20. Whether the suit is barred by principles of estoppel and acquiescence ?"
"21- D;k izLrqr okni= vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds vUrxZr vLohd`r fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ "
"21. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code? "
"22- D;k izLrqr okn fof'k"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ls ckf/kr gS\ "
"22. Whether the suit is barred by principles of Specific Relief Act ?"
"23- oknh fdl vuqrks"k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ "
"23. To which relief, plaintiff is entitled to get ?"
(English Translation by Court)
27. However, while deciding the matter, Trial Court bifurcated certain issues. Issue no. 2 was divided in two parts, as under:
"2- D;k vkfnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z }kjk fyf[kr iqLrdksa eBkEU;k; egkuq'kklu esa muds }kjk Hkkjro"kZ esa LFkkfir T;ksfrZeB cfnzdkJe lfgr pkjksa ihBksa ij 'kadjkpk;ksZa dks LFkkfir djus ,oe~ dk;ksZa ds lEcU/k esa fu;e fn;s x;s gSa\ "2. Whether rules have been propounded in the books Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan composed by Adi Guru Shankaracharya for installation of Shankaracharya on four Seats (Peethas) including badrikashram, established by him in India?
"2/1. ;fn gkWa rks D;k oknh dks T;ksfrZeB cfnzdkJe ij 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa mu fu;eksa ds vuq:i LFkkfir fd;k x;k gS\ "
"2/1. If so, whether plaintiff has been installed as Shankaracharya according to those rules?"
(English Translation by Court) Evidence
28. Plaintiff and appellant, both adduced 42 witnesses each, i.e. PW-1 to PW-42 and DW-1 to DW-42 in support of their respective case. List of plaintiff's and appellant's witnesses is appended to this judgment as Appendix-"A" and "B" respectively. Similarly plaintiff adduced total 815 documents which included copies of various documents, photographs, copies of newspapers etc., and appellant in support of his case has adduced 361 such documents which also included a large number of photographs, newspapers, magazines etc. Lists of plaintiff's and appellant's documents are also filed as Appendix-"C" and "D," respectively, to this judgment.
29. Broadly speaking, witnesses have been produced by respective parties to prove following facts:
(I) Installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.
1. PW 1 Sri Shyam Sundar Vajpai, Vaidya, Meerut, U.P.
2. PW-2 Challa Laxman Shastri Purohit, Varanasi
3. PW 4 Sri Anand Bahadur Singh, Varanasi,
4. PW 5 Sri Harihar Prasad Pandey, Retired Teacher, Varanasi
5. PW 6 (Plaintiff) Swami Sri Swaroopa Nand Saraswati, Disciple,Brahmleen Swami Brahamanand Ji Saraswati
6. PW 8 Sri Deep Narain Sharma, Varanasi
7. PW 9 Sri Kailash Nath Dwivedi, Jalaun
8. PW 11 Sri Ashwin Bhai Purohit and Samaj Sewak, Dwarika, Gujarat
9. PW 12 Sri T.N. Yagyanarayan, Simoga, Karnatak
10. PW 13 Sri Basant Anant Gadgil Sanskrit Bhasa Pracharak Wa Patrakar, Pune, Maharastha
11. PW 14 Sri Janny Pellegreeni, Italy Varanasi
12. PW 15 Sri Radhey Shyam Goswami, Jabalpur, M.P.
13. PW 16 Sri Somnath Tiwari, Allahabad
14. PW 18 Sri Dilawar Khan, Narsinghpur, M.P.
15. PW 19 Sri Gauri Shankar Tiwari, Sivani, M.P.
16. PW 20 Sri C.V. Giridhar Shastri, Teacher, Manglur, Karnatak,
17. PW 21 Sri Balram Pandey, Varanasi.
18. PW 22 Bramchari Sri Subuddhanand Sishya Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth Swami Swroopanand Saraswati, Dharmopadeshak, Narsingpur, M.P.
19. PW 23 Sri Nijanand Brahamchari Sishya Pujypad Swami Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth Sri Swami Swroopanand Saraswati, Dharmopadeshak, Jabalpur, M.P.
20. PW 24 Agni Peethadheswar Acharya Mahamandleshwar Brahmarshi Sri Ram Krishnanand Sishya Swami Swroopanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, Panch Agni Peeth Amarkantak, Anooppur, M.P.
21. PW 25 Sri Kaiwalyanand Brahmchari Dharmopadeshak, Pashchim Singhbhumi, Jharkhand
22. PW 26 Sri Aacharya Jitendra, Viranasi
23. PW 27 Brahmachari Sri Turiyanand Sishya Swami Swroopanand Saraswati, Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth Badrika Ashram, Mankameshwar, Allahabad
24. PW 32 Sri Nand Kishore Nautiyal Sampadak Nootan Savera, West Mumbai
25. PW 34 Dr. Sri Ganesh Dutt Shastri Teachar Varanasi
26. PW 35 Sri Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi Shastri, Purohit, Narsinghpur, M.P.
27. PW 39 Badri Math Peethadeshwar Swami Hari Narayananand Ji Sansthapkak Mahamantri Bharat Sadhu Samaj Sishya Bramhaleen Dwarkinand Ji Maharaj, Dharmopadeshak, Patna, Bihar
28. PW 40 Mahant Sri Prakash Puri, Guru Kapil Mahamuni Ji, Mahakal Mandir, Ujjain, M.P.
29. PW 41 Sri Shanker Dev Chaitanya Bramchari Sishya Swami Dr. Laxman Chaitnya Bramchari, Dewas, M.P. (II) To prove authenticity and mandatory character of Rules for installation, qualification, eligibility and procedure for installation as 'Shankaracharya' with reference to Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan.
1. PW 3 Sri Kameshwar Nath Mishra, Teacher, Varanasi
2. PW 4 Sri Anand Bahadur Singh, Varanasi,
3. PW 10 Swami Sri Ishwaranand Tirth, Sishya, Pujya Swami Pragyanand Tirth IswarMath Mumuchh Bhawan, Varanas
4. PW 13 Sri Basant Anant Gadgil Sanskrit Bhasa Pracharak Wa Patrakar, Pune, Maharastha
5. PW 17 Swami Sri Vishuddhanand Saraswati, Sishya Parbrahma Swroop Brahmleen Swami Prakashanand Saraswati, Varanasi.
6. PW 20 Sri C.V. Giridhar Shastri, Teacher Manglur, Karnatak (III) Experts in religious matters:
1. PW 10 Swami Sri Ishwaranand Tirth, Sishya, Pujya Swami Pragyanand Tirth IswarMath Mumuchh Bhawan, Varanasi
2. PW 17 Swami Sri Vishuddhanand Saraswati, Sishya Parbrahma Swroop Brahmleen Swami Prakashanand Saraswati, Varanasi.
3. PW 21 Sri Balram Pandey, Varanasi.
4. PW 39 Badri Math Peethadeshwar Swami Hari Narayananand Ji Sansthapkak Mahamantri Bharat Sadhu Samaj Sishya Bramhaleen Dwarkinand Ji Maharaj, Dharmopadeshak, Patna, Bihar
5. PW 40 Mahant Sri Prakash Puri, Guru Kapil Mahamuni Ji, Mahakal Mandir, Ujjain, M.P.
6. PW 41 Sri Shanker Dev Chaitanya Bramchari Sishya Swami Dr. Laxman Chaitnya Bramchari, Dewas, M.P. (IV) Expert witness (handwriting).
1. PW 42 Sri Madan Mohan Kakkar Handwriting and Fingerprint expert (V) Photographers and Videographers.
1. PW 36 Sri Kamla Pati Tiwari, Jabalpur, M.P..
2. PW 37 Sri Satya Narain, Photographer and Videographer, Simoga Karnataka
30. Besides some witnesses deposed on specific aspects:
(I) About disqualification of appellant:
1. PW 7 Sri Ganga Prasad Mishra, Retired Employee, Allahabad
2. PW 33 Sri Raj Narain Tripathi, Teachar, Allahabad (II) About qualification and other details of a Sanyasi:
1. PW 21 Sri Balram Pandey, Varanasi.
(III) About Will dated 17.04.1989:
1. PW 21 Sri Balram Pandey, Varanasi.
(IV) About Dwarika Prasad Tripathi (later known as Dwarikeshanand): 1. PW 29 Sri Girish Chandra Tiwari, Varanasi (V) About possession of property by plaintiff: 1. PW 30 Sri Ramesh Patel, Jabalpur, M.P. 2. PW 31 Sri Satya Narain Pandey, Varanasi
31. Similarly, appellant produced witnesses, particularly to prove following facts:
(I) Installation of appellant as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 14/15.12.1989.
1. DW 1 Swami Sri Vimaldevashram, Shishya, Mahant Swami Kailash Bhusanashram Ji Maharaj, Machhali Bandar Math, Kashi Adhyaksh, Akhil Bhartiya Dandi Sanyasi, Prabandhan Samiti,
2. DW 2 Sri Tej Narain Chaturvedi, Varanasi
3. DW 3 Swami Sri Vasudevanand Saraswati, Shishya Sri Swami Shantanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj (defendant-appellant)
4. DW 4 Sri Rang Nath Dubey, Allahabad
5. DW 5 Sri Sriniwas Pathak, Allahabad
6. DW 6 Sri Arun Kumar Tripathi, Dharma Pracharak, Pratapgarh
7. DW 7 Sri Pt. Gokul Chandra Goswami, Mathura
8. DW 8 Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, Pratapgarh
9. DW 9 Sri Tilakdhari Shukla, Ambedkar Nagar
10. DW 10 Sri Vimal Prakash Srivastava, Allahabad
11. DW 11 Sri Radhey Shyam Malviya, Allahabad
12. DW 12 Sri Roy Vishwanath Singh Rai Bareli
13. DW 13 Sri Ram Abhilash Pandey, Allahabad
14. DW 14 Sri Purshottam Lal, Allahabad
15. DW 15 Sri Lal Mani Tiwari, Allahabad
16. DW 16 Sri Pandit Radhey Raman Pandey, Allahabad
17. DW 17 Sri Balkrishna Pandey, Allahabad
18. DW 18 Sri Hariram Chaurasiya, Allahabad
19. DW 20 Sri Bindu Ram Singla, Sangroor, Panjab
20. DW 21 Sri Achrya Pandit Vinod Kumar Tripathi, Allahabad
21. DW 22 Sri Indu Prakash Upadhya, Dasnam Sanyas Ashram, Bhupatiwala, Haridwar, Uttarakhand
22. DW 23 Sri Vidya Bhushan Shukla, Allahabad
23. DW 24 Sri Tiloki Nath Agrawal, Katni, M.P.
24. DW 25 Sri Satya Narayan Tripathi, Allahabad
25. DW 26 Sri Triveni Mishra, Allahabad,
26. DW 27 Sri Rishi Prasad Sati Chamoli, Uttarakhand
27. DW 28 Sri Srimohan Dubey, Allahabad
28. DW 29 Sri Ramji Tripathi, Kanpur
29. DW 30 Sri Omkar Nath Tripathi, Allahabad
30. DW 31 Urdhwramnaya Sri Kashi Sumeru Peethadeeshwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Narendranand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, Sishya Sri Kashi Sumeru Peethadeshwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Bramhaleen Swami Shankaracharya Sarswati Ji Maharaj, Varanasi
31. DW 32 Sri Swami Yogeswaranand Giri Sishya Sri Mahant Siddheswar Giri Ji Maharaj Purva Mantri Sri Panchdashnaam Juna Akhara Bara Hanumanghat, Varanasi
32. DW 33 Sri Daya Shankar Pandey Dehradoon, Uttarakhand
33. DW 34 Sri Jagdish Prasad Misra, Lucknow
34. DW 35 Sri Mahendra Narayan Dwivedi, Allahabad
35. DW 36 Anant Vibhushit Sri Takshak Tirthpeeth- adishwar Ravishankar Ji Maharaj Sishya Sri Takshak Tirth Peethadishwar Sri Ram Kumar Maharaj, Allahabad
36. DW 38 Sri Mahant Manoharpuri, Shisya Sabhapati Sri Mahant Mangalpuri Ji Maharaj Sri Panchdasnaam Juna Akhara Indore, M.P.
37. DW 39 Sri Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Amethi
38. DW 41 Sri Triveni Prasad Pandey, Rewa, M.P. (II) Experts in religious matters.
1. DW 1 Swami Sri Vimaldevashram, Shishya, Mahant Swami Kailash Bhusanashram Ji Maharaj, Machhali Bandar Math, Kashi Adhyaksh, Akhil Bhartiya Dandi Sanyasi, Prabandhan Samiti.
2. DW 31 Urdhwramnaya Sri Kashi Sumeru Peethadeeshwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Narendranand Saraswati Ji Maharaj
3. DW 32 Sri Swami Yogeswaranand Giri Sishya Sri Mahant Siddheswar Giri Ji Maharaj Purva Mantri Sri Panchdashnaam Juna Akhara Bara Hanumanghat, Varanasi
4. DW 36 Anant Vibhushit Sri Takshak Tirthpeeth- adishwar Ravishankar Ji Maharaj Sishya Sri Takshak Tirth Peethadishwar Sri Ram Kumar Maharaj, Allahabad
4. DW 37 Sri Bhramchari Atmanand Sishya Jyotishpeethadhishwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, Allahabad (III) About disqualification of plaintiff:
DW 37 Sri Bhramchari Atmanand Sishya Jyotishpeethadhishwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, Allahabad (IV) Expert witness (Handwriting):
DW 42 Sri Radhakrishna Gupta, Handwriting and Fingerprint expert (V) Photographer:
DW 40 Sri Ram Niranjan Singh, Allahabad Findings of Trial Court:
32. Trial Court has returned findings on the issues noticed above in the following manner.
33. Issues 1, 2, 2/1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 are answered in favour of plaintiff' and against appellant. Issue 5 is answered against plaintiff'. Issues 17 and 18 were adjudicated as preliminary issues and vide order dated 07.09.2005, issue 17 was answered in favour of defendant-appellant and valuation of suit was determined at Rs.12,07,600/-. Plaintiff was directed to get the plaint amended in respect of valuation and pay requisite Court fee. Issue 18 was answered vide order dated 21.10.2005 against appellant.
34. In view of the findings recorded by Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.05.2015, suit has been decreed and appellant has been restrained from claiming himself Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. He is refrained from holding Dand, Chhatra, Chanwar and Singhasan of the office of Shankaracharya and also not to perform any function as Shankaracharya.
Amendment of Memo of Appeal
35. Initially, when appellant instituted this appeal, challenge to judgment and decree of Court below was founded on 50 grounds but subsequently pursuant to an amendment, allowed vide order dated 04.11.2015, 97 grounds were added, making total 147 (50+97) grounds. Misc. Proceeding during trial of Suit
36. Some of the interlocutory stages before Trial Court, resulting in passing of certain orders, relevant to be noticed here, are as under. Objection/Preliminary Issue
37. Even before framing of issues, appellant raised a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction; that suit has rendered infructuous after installation of appellant hence, barred by law and not maintainable. An application was filed for considering this aspect as preliminary issue, but it was rejected by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 27.08.1998. Defendant-appellant preferred a revision which was rejected by District Judge on 28.09.1998, holding that order was interlocutory in nature hence revision was not maintainable. It also observed that issues are yet to be framed and question of jurisdiction after framing of issues would be decided as preliminary issues before proceeding with the suit.
38. Thereafter on 12.10.1998, issues 1 to 16 were framed. Issues 17 and 18 were framed on 30.08.2005 and issues 19 and 20 were framed on 16.05.2007. On 14.04.2011, issues 2 to 8 were reframed as issues 2 to 6, issues 19 and 20 were dropped and issue 21 became issue 7. On 13.01.2015 issues were serialized. Stay under Section 10 CPC
39. On 17.10.1998 an application under Section 10 CPC (Paper no. 149-C) was filed, seeking stay of Original Suit No.513 of 1989 on the ground that Original Suit No.1-A of 1974, filed by plaintiff, in which a similar dispute was raised, is still pending. While the aforesaid application was pending, another application (Paper no. 205-C) was filed requesting for hearing of preliminary issues. This application (Paper no.205-C) was decided vide order dated 27.08.2005. Another application (Paper no.215-C) dated 29.08.2005 was filed, requesting for disposal of application (paper no.149-C. (application under Section 10 CPC) On 30.08.2005 application (Paper no. 215-C) was decided, holding that earlier also, an application for same relief was filed and decided on 24.08.2005, hence application (Paper no. 215-C) is rejected. On 18.07.2007, application (Paper no. 149C), was rejected on the ground that earlier a similar application was rejected by earlier Presiding Officer of Court. Interim order
40. During pendency of suit, Trial Court granted interim injunction in favour of plaintiff on 22.02.1999. Thereagainst, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 41 of 1999 was dismissed on 27.04.2000 by Additional District Judge. Writ Petition No.24085 of 2000 was filed by Appellant challenging orders dated 27.04.2000 and 22.02.1999. Vide judgment dated 23.01.2004, writ petition was decided and orders dated 22.02.1999 of Trial Court and 27.04.2000 of Appellate Court were quashed. Plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 4612 of 2005 which was decided by Supreme Court vide judgment dated 02.08.2005, directing parties to maintain status-quo as on 22.05.2000.
41. Plaintiff then filed a voluminous amendment application on 01.09.2006, in which specific plea of disqualification of defendant-appellant was raised giving details and a declaration was sought with regard to installation of Appellant as Jagat Guru Sankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 14/15.11.1989, as null and void. Said application was broadly rejected by Trial Court vide order dated 22.12.2006. It permitted only a few minor amendments. Previous Litigation:
42. Before proceeding to adjudicate points for determination arising in this appeal, we find it appropriate to refer a long chain of litigations followed in respect to Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth between different parties, some of which have substantially been relied by both the sides in support of one or the other submissions.
43. In order to have things straight, it would be appropriate to recapitulate earlier litigation, chronologically, as under:
(i) Misc. Case No. 44 of 1953 (under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925)- Swami Santanand Vs. Swami Swaroopanand
(ii) Original Suit No. 3 of 1954 - Swami Parmanand and three others Vs. Ramji Tripathi (later known as Swami Shantanand)
(iii) Original Suit No. 47 of 1954 - Ram Lakhan Singh and others Vs. Swami Shantanand Saraswati and others
(iii) Original Suit No. 3 of 1963 - Swami Krishna Bodhashram Vs. Swami Shantanand
(iv) Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 -Swami Shantanand Saraswati Vs. Swami Krishna Bodhashram and 2 others
(v) Criminal Misc. Case No. 2 of 2002(66-67), under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
(vi) Original Suit No. 1-A of 1974 -Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Vs. Ramji Tripathi (later know as Swami Shantanand and 2 others)
(vii) Criminal Misc. Case No. 1553 of 1969
(viii) Suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1951 (filed on 28.12.1976).
44. For the present case, a brief retrospect of earlier litigations in Misc. Case No. 44 of 1953, Original Suit No. 3 of 1954, Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 and Original Suit No. 1A of 1974 would be relevant, hence, in brief, the same are being considered hereunder. Misc. Case No. 44 of 1953
45. Swami Shantanand filed an application under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act,1925 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1925"), claiming succession certificate in respect of certain money lying with different Banks at Allahabad, details whereof was given at the foot of application. It was claimed that the said property was held by late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati as his property. The application was registered in the Court of District Judge, Allahabad as Misc. Case No. 44 of 1953. Application contained assertions that Swami Brahmanand Saraswati left for heavenly abode on 20.05.1953 at Calcutta. He executed a 'Will' on 18.12.1952, appointing Swami Shantanand as successor and by virtue of 'Will', applicant Swami Shantanand was entitled to collect money lying with different Banks in the name of deceased.
46. Application was opposed by Swami Swaroopanand (present plaintiff) by filing objection dated 04.08.1953. Objector stated that application for grant of succession certificate filed by Swami Shantanand is unauthorized, against law and not maintainable; 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 was neither a genuine document nor deceased could have executed such 'Will'; Objector is a senior devoted disciple of deceased; Genuineness and validity of 'Will' not only was denied but it was also pleaded that it must have been obtained by undue influence of applicant Swami Shantanand; Property details in the application pertains to Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, a public endowment Trust of religious and charitable nature; Deceased Swami Brahamanand being Mahant, was in the capacity of Manager of Trust, had no power to dispose of such property and alleged "Will" is inoperative in regard to movable and immovable property of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth; property mentioned in the "Will" was not personal property of deceased, hence he had no competence to execute 'Will' in regard thereto; "Will" relied by applicant is illegal, invalid and unenforceable, hence cannot create any right in favour of applicant; applicant is not a properly initiated disciple of deceased; He is a natural relation of late Brahmanand Saraswati of his Purvashram and had been living with him since about a year before his death; he is not a Sanyasi and does not possess qualification required for being "Shankaracharya" of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth: Applicant can neither be successor nor heir of deceased and application is unauthorized; objector and some other disciples are duly initiated Chelas of deceased and objector being a senior Chela and heir of deceased, is entitled to the seat of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth; considering nature of property which is that of Trust, no application for succession certificate is maintainable; application is barred by Section 370 of Act 1925 and applicant is not entitled to certificate unless he establishes his claim in a competent Court of law or gets probate of alleged 'Will'; Applicant should have mentioned about disciples of late Brahmanand Saraswati so that notices could have been issued to such disciples and persons interested in Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth; Applicant has acted illegally by intentionally omitting names of such disciples; Applicant was not an elected Mahant of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and no Abhishek or installation ceremony, as required by custom and usage of Math was ever performed in his case and claim made by him is false; Late Brahmanand Saraswati did not leave any estate since he was not owner of property in suit or other properties, hence no succession certificate can be granted.
47. District Judge formulated following three issues:-
"1. Whether the document dated 18th December, 1952 is the last 'Will' by Swami Brahmanand? Was it duly executed and attested?
2. Was the will obtained by undue influence of the applicant?
3. Was the testator competent to dispose of the property in dispute by a 'Will'?"
(emphasis added)
48. Issue-3 was subsequently struck off by District Judge, observing that in summary proceedings it was neither necessary nor expedient to decide dispute of title and this issue should be left for determination in regular suit. He also observed that only issue required to be considered is, whether 'Will' was duly executed by late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati; it is a genuine document and represents his last will, for the reason that, if it is established to be a genuine 'Will', it would mean that the Testator looked upon applicant as a proper person to collect debt due to Testator and on the basis of said 'Will', applicant should be allowed to collect debts due to deceased. Hence, applicant was required only to establish genuineness of 'Will'. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad.
49. Issues 1 and 2 relating to 'Will' were decided together vide judgment dated 12.12.1955. Court held that late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati when signed the document was in perfect senses, capable of understanding what he was doing. In this regard, Court relied on the statement of Dr. Krishan Saran Mathur, Reader in Medicine, Medical College, Agra, who deposed before Court and said that he examined late Brahmanand on 21.12.1952 at Agra, i.e. just three days after execution of "Will" and found everything normal about his memory, intelligence etc. Medical problem he had, was about breathlessness, loss of appetite and constipation etc., which had nothing to do with mental condition. Another evidence relied by Court below was statement of Dr. Raj Kishore, who claims to have examined late Swami Brahmanand on 22.11.1952 at Delhi and after 3-4 weeks at Agra also. Third statement was of Dr. Dubey, Lecturer in Medical College, Agra and a Physician in Sarojni Naidau Hospital, Agra. In absence of any otherwise evidence led by Objector, Court believed statements of medical experts. Objector examined one Swami Bhagwatanand who stated that he had no knowledge whether any "Will" was executed or not. Another witness Swami Govindanand stated that he did not hear about execution of 'Will' from Testator, but after execution, Testator told him that a 'Will' was got executed under pressure when he was ill. Both these witnesses were examined on Commission at Varanasi. Court also relied on the statements of attesting witnesses i.e. Rameshwar Prasad Tiwari and Shyam Narain Gupta and also the author Sri Krishna Gopal Chaudhary, Advocate, to establish that 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 was duly executed by Swami Brahmanand, after understanding its implications, and, he was in sound mental condition at that time, he was a capable Testator and, therefore, document was accepted as genuine. No evidence was adduced to show that 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 was not the last 'Will', hence it was taken as the last 'Will' of Testator. The objection with regard to "undue influence" could not be proved. Court also observed that after death of Swami Brahmanand, an interim committee was formed for management of property and affairs of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Bal Krishna Mishra was the Secretary of Committee, who deposed as PW-3. He also said that "Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati" was President of the said Committee and Govindanand, a witness examined by Swami Swroopanand was one of the members of Committee. Proceedings dated 22.05.1953 show that Interim Committee under Presidentship of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati passed a resolution that last "Will" of late Swami Brahmanand should be taken out and be obtained from the Court of District Judge. Proceedings dated 07.06.1953 show that a certified copy of 'Will' was obtained from Allahabad and produced before Committee. 'Will' was read over to Committee and it was resolved that it should be published in Pandit Sabha and arrangement should be made for installation of successor. This meeting was presided by Swami Swroopanand. Thus it is evident that Swami Swroopanand and other disciples of Swami Brahmanand knew well about "Will" executed by Swami Brahmanand which was kept at Allahabad and a copy whereof was brought from Allahabad and contents thereof were made known to all of them. There is nothing on record to show that any of the Objectors ever took any exception to the "Will" or raised any objection that it was not executed by late Swami Brahmanand and is not a genuine document. Subsequent objection is nothing but an afterthought. Court ultimately accepted "Will" dated 18.12.1952 having been executed by late Swami Brahmanand and duly attested. As a result thereof, Court passed an order to issue "succession certificate" to applicant, Swami Shantanand, in respect of property detailed in the application, vide judgment dated 12.12.1955.
50. We are also informed that against judgment dated 12.12.1955, Swami Swaroopanand (plaintiff in present proceedings) filed FAFO 20 of 1956 in this Court which was dismissed on 31.07.1959. Hence, judgment and order dated 12.12.1955 attained finality. Suit 3 of 1954
51. Original Suit No. 3 of 1954 was filed under Section 92, CPC by four persons, namely, Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati, Nagesh Upadhyay, Mahadev Shastri and Sudarshan Lal Bajpai, impleading Ramji Tripathi (subsequently called as Swami Shantanand Saraswati) as sole defendant. It was filed after obtaining consent of Advocate General. Following reliefs were sought:
"1. The defendant who is mere Trustee de son tort calling himself Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth, Badrikashram be removed from the office of the trustee.
2. Sri Swami Krishnabodharshram ji aforesaid duly installed Shankaracharya of the Peeth be declared and appointed Peethadhishwar of Jyotish Peeth.
3. In case the relief (2) is not granted some other fit person, keeping in view the behests of the Mathamanya and the wishes of general Hindu Public and other disciples and devotees of Jyotish Peeth be appointed as Peethadhishwar of Jyotish Peeth in place of deceased Sri Swami Brahmanand Saraswati.
4. Other necessary directions may be made for enquiry into the accounts of the Peeth properties which may have come in the hands of the defendant.
5. The newly appointed trustee of Shankaracharya may be directed to act upto the commands of the great Shankaracharya laid down in his Mathamanya and the rules and traditions which have been followed by the Shankaracharya of this Peeth and also of their Peeths.
6. The defendant be directed to account for and deliver Peeth's property, cash, currency, notes, movables and immovable that are in his possession, to the Shankaracharya who may be appointed by the Court.
7. The defendant be permanently restrained with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, from prosecuting his succession certificate application in the District Court at Allahabad and the mutation proceedings, which also he has started at Allahabad, or any other proceedings he may have started regarding the Peeth elsewhere.
8. Costs may be awarded to the plaintiffs from the defendant from the estate of the Peeth or as the Court may deem fit.
9. Any such further or other reliefs may be granted as the nature of the case requires."
52. It was pleaded that Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth remained extinct for about 150 years and then in 1941, B.D.M., VNS as the body of learned men, Pandits, Sanyasis as well as Grihasthas, Princes, Rajas, and other persons and Religious Institutions, created a "Trust" vide "Trust Deed", dated 11.05.1941, executed by Sri Balkrishna Mishra, Secretary. It installed Swami Brahmanand Saraswati as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth on 11.05.1941. He occupied office till his death i.e. 20.05.1953. During this period, immovable property was acquired by Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth at Allahabad, Jabalpur and Chhindawara. New constructions were also made on existing property of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Value of property was in Lacs. Besides, Swami Brhmanand Saraswati also acquired and possessed valuable immovable and movable property, including gold and silver utensils and articles etc. and also deposited huge sums of money in Bank in the capacity as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. He mostly lived at Brahma Niwas, Alopi Bagh at Allahabad, and toured whole of Northern India frequently. He delivered lectures, gave Darshan to general public and initiated individual persons as his Chelas. He propagated Adwait Vedant Philosophy and advanced cause of Hindu Sanatan Dharam. A weekly magazine "Shankaracharya Upadesh" was published from Lucknow in his life time, concerning his teachings, tour program and others important matters. Mahesh Brahmchari was In-charge of Publicity Department of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati and he was editor also of the magazine. Ramji Tripathi (Swami Shantanand) was originally resident of District Basti. He lived with Uria Baba, a Mahatma of high repute at Vrindavan from 1945-1949. Later on he came to live for 1½ months with Swami Brahmanand Saraswati at Allahabad in 1951. He was initiated by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati as his "Dandi Sanyasi Chela" in 1951 itself. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, while travelling, reached Delhi on 13.11.1952 and stayed there for some time in Queen's Garden near railway station. Later on, he shifted to residence of Sri Bipin Bihari Verma, Bar at Law and Member of Parliament, residing at 7, Canning Lane, New Delhi towards the end of November, 1952. Thereafter he stayed at Agra till 24.01.1953. He then went to Varanasi. When he was staying at Agra, a "Will" was allegedly executed as last "Will" on 18.12.1952. It was deposited with District Registrar, Allahabad by Sri Dwarika Prasad Shastri, as holder of power of attorney of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. Previous "Will" which were already deposited with District Registrar, Allahabad were taken back by Dwarika Prasad. Thereafter, Swami Brahmanand Saraswati went to Calcutta on 27.04.1953 and died on 20.05.1953. On 21.05.1953 remains of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati were brought at Varanasi and rituals were completed. On 22.05.1953 a meeting of disciples of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, presided by Swami Hariharanand (popularly known as Swami Karpatri Ji) was held at Varanasi. An interim Committee of disciples of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was formed to manage Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth till his last "Will" is obtained from District Judge, Allahabad and executed. The interim Committee consisted of 12 persons whereof Swami Swaroopanand was President and Pandit Bal Krishna Misra was Secretary. It also included as members, Pandit Dwarka Prasad Shastri, Ram Prasad, Mahesh, Ganga Prasad Pandey etc. On the same day, interim Committee under Presidentship of Swami Swroopanand held meeting and decided to receive "Will". It authorized Ganga Prasad Pandey to obtain "Will" from District Judge, Allahabad with the help of Rameshwar Prasad Tiwari and produce it before Committee. On 25.05.1953, "Will" dated 18.12.1952 was opened before District Registrar, Allahabad, after he got satisfied about the death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. Ganga Prasad Pandey obtained a certified copy of "Will" and produced the same before committee on 07.06.1953. Committee unanimously decided that "Will" should be published and successor should be installed at the earliest. Another meeting of Committee was held on 08.06.1953, after publication of 'Will', and according to that Sri Ram Ji Tripathi (Swami Shantanand Saraswati) was to be installed as Peethadhishwar of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Installation was to be observed on 12.06.1953 according to Muhurt at Kashi. On 11.06.1953, one Banwari Lal Dixit, moved an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C., which was disposed of by City Magistrate on 15.06.1953. In the said application Banwari Lal Dixit stated that Sri Shantanand Saraswati was to succeed having been nominated by Swami Brahmanand Sarasawati as successor, but it was opposed by Pandit Vidwat Mandal (Kashi Vidwat Parishad) and some other religious bodies and personalities. Even President of interim Committee, Swami Swaroopanand was against installation of Swami Shantanand and wanted that Sri Krishnabodhashram to be installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Sri Banwari Lal Dixit requested Magistrate to stop installation of Swami Shantanand, but Magistrate refused to grant any injunction, observing that dispute has to be adjudicated by Civil Court and also observed that installation ceremony must have already taken place since it was scheduled for 12.06.1953. One Suit No. 374 of 1953 was filed by Bal Brahmchari Mahesh Ji and Swami Vishwadevanand Saraswati against Swami Karpatri Ji, Swami Krishna Bodhashram and few others in the Court of Munsif (North), Lucknow, seeking permanent injunction. An application for temporary injunction was also filed seeking to restrain defendants in that case from holding a meeting on 24.07.1953 and giving reception as Shankaracharya and taking out procession and proclamation of Swami Krishnabodhashram. Interim injunction was initially granted but finally application was rejected on 01.10.1953.
53. In the meantime, on 11.07.1953 Swami Shantanand filed application for succession certificate, wherein Swami Swroopanand filed objection, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 44 of 1953.
54. Plaintiff Swami Parmanand Saraswati, and three others pleaded that Swami Shantanand lacked requisite qualification of Shankaracharya as per norms laid down by Jagat Guru Adi Shankaracharya in his books Mathamanaya and Mahanushasan. It is said that after death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, question arose about installation of his successor. Learned Pandits, Mahants, Brahmcharis, Sanyasis and disciples etc. initially selected a Dandi Swami Hariharan (Karpatri Ji Maharaj) but when he declined, Dandi Swami Sri Krishnabodhashram was selected and installed on 25.06.1953 at Gyanvapi, near Krishna temple, Varanasi. Installation ceremony was graced by Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Teerth Maharaj of Sharda Peeth at Dwarka and attended by all persons, sections of Hindu religious institutions and Heads giving him their recognition by offering respect and gifts etc. on the occasion. Since installation, Swami Krishnabodhashram Ji Maharaj became Shankaracharya and is recognized by all concerned. A similar installation ceremony later on was performed at Jyotishpeeth Badrikashram. Swami Krishnabodhashram is in possession of Peeth properties. Defendant Ramji Tripathi (Swami Shantanand) having learnt that Krishnabodhashram has been installed as Shankaracharya proclaimed himself to be Shankaracharya and successor of deceased Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, despite that he did not possess qualifications prescribed in Mathamnyya to become Shankaracharya. He obtained a 'Will' under undue influence, executed by late Swami Mahant Brahmanand Saraswati, and on the basis thereof, took possession of some movable and immovable properties of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and has committed breach of trust by misappropriating a large amount of property in various ways.
55. It was in this background that Suit 3 of 1954 under Section 92 CPC was filed, seeking relief noted above.
56. Suit was contested by sole defendant Ram Ji Tripathi (Swami Shantanand). He pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action and defendant having already been installed validly is successor of late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, pursuant to 'Will' executed by him and installed as Shankaracharya; allegations of misappropriation are false; and suit was liable to be rejected.
57. Court formulated following 16 issues as under:-
"1. Whether the plaintiffs have got any cause of action against the defendants?
2. Whether the succession to the Jyotish Peeth is governed by the rules described in the Mathamanya and Mahanushasan and custom of the respective Math is it governed by the deed, dated 11th may 1941 made by the Bharat Dharma mahamandal? In either case what is its effect?
3. Whether the defendant is possessed of the qualifications required of the Shankaracharya of the Jyotish Peeth and could Sri Swami Brahmanand Saraswati nominate him as his successor?
4. Whether Swami Brahmanand Saraswati could in law nominate his successor?
5. Whether Swami Brahmanand Saraswati validity executed the Will, dated 18th December 1952 and whether he could dispose the properties mentioned therein by the same?
6. Whether Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was prossessed of sound disposing power at the time of the execution of the alleged Will.
7. Whether the Will dated 18th December, 1952 was obtained under undue influence?
8. Whether the defendant was duly and validity installed as Shankaracharya of the Jyotish Peeth on 12th June 1953?
9. Whether the defendant is a mere trustee de son tort calling himself Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth and is liable to be removed therefrom?
10. Whether the defendant is in possession of the properties in dispute detailed in the plaint as a trustee de son tort?
11. Whether Krishna Bodhashram was duly installed as Jagatguru Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth after the death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati? If so, how does it effect the suit?
12. Whether the properties covered by the alleged Will of 18th December, 1952 were the personal properties of Shri Swami Brahmanand Saraswati and could he dispose them by a Will or whether the same were Trust properties belonging to the Jyotish Peeth.
13. Whether the properties in suit mentioned in para 45 of the written statement belong to Swami Krishnanand Trust? If so, what is its effect on the present suit?
14. Whether the suit under section 92 C.P.C. is maintainable and whether the sanction of the Advocate General for the same legal? Can these points be raised here?
15. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled and on what terms?
16. Whether the defendant is entitled to compensatory costs under section 35A, C.P.C."
(emphasis added)
58. Issues 2 and 4 were answered holding that as per admission of parties, Shankaracharya can appoint his successor who should possess requisite qualification as stated in the books "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan". Issues 5, 6 and 7 were taken together, and, Court held that Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was in fit mental condition and sound mind, so as to execute "Will" dated 18.12.1952. It also held that "Will" was validly executed and there was no undue influence, hence issues 5, 6 and 7 were answered against plaintiff and in favour of defendant. However, issue 3 relating to qualification of defendant for installation as Shankaracharya was answered against him holding that he did not possess some of the necessary qualifications required for the office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati could not nominate him as a successor. His appointment to the office of Shankarachaya was invalid. Issue 8 was answered holding that defendant was not validly installed as Shankaracharya, since he did not possess some of the necessary qualifications for occupying the said office, in view of the findings given in respect of issues 2 and 3. Issue 11 related to non impleadment of Swami Krishnabodhshram and was answered in affirmance, holding that suit is bad for non-joinder of Swami Krishnabodhshram inasmuch as, he was a necessary party and in his absence, issue, whether he was or could have been installed validly as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, cannot be decided. Court then proceeded to consider question 1, whether there was any cause of action to file said suit under Section 92 CPC and answered the same in favour of plaintiffs. Issue 14 related to maintainability of suit under Section 92 CPC and was answered, holding that suit, as framed, not maintainable and sanction of Advocate General was not legal for the reason that there was a legally appointed Trustee, as per averments contained in the plaint, who was not made a party and against him no relief was claimed. Issue 9 was answered against defendant holding that though he is Trustee de son tort and liable to be removed from the office of Shankaracharya and trust of Jyotishpeeth in accordance of law, but in a properly constituted suit. Issue 12 was answered holding that all suit property except those mentioned in item no. 3, 4, 6 and 7 in the list of immovable property in scheduled-A of the plaint are Trust property, belong to Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Only a validly appointed Shankaracharya is entitled to own, possess and manage them in accordance with directions laid down in the "Will" of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati and trust deed dated 11.05.1941, executed by Secretary of Bharat Dharam Mahamandal and to act in accordance with the directions laid down in "Mathamanya" and "Mahanushashan".
59. Issue 10 was answered holding as under:-
"The defendant, Swami Shantanand Saraswati appears to be in possession of the remaining properties detailed in the plaint as well as of the other moveable properties and cash, which might not have been mentioned in the plaint, but which might have accrued during the pendency of the suit as income of the Peeth properties in his possession or might have been received by him in the shape of offerings and gifts for the Jyotishpeeth during his tenure of office as Shankaracharya as trustee de son tort, Issue decided accordingly."
60. Issue 13 pertains to some properties and answered by holding as under:-
"For the purpose of this case my finding is that the four items mentioned above are not proved to belong to the Jyotir Math nor the latter two items are proved to belong to Swami Krishnanand Trust, but the first two items are proved to belong to Swami Krishnanand Trust. Issue decided accordingly."
61. With regard to issue 16, Court held that defendant is Trustee de son tort and has got no valid, title to the office of Shankaracharya nor entitled to get any compensatory costs under Section 35-A CPC for the reason that it has been held that he was liable to be removed from the office in a properly constituted suit. Issue 15 was answered in the light of the findings given on various issues holding that finding in respect of issue regarding maintainability of suit, having been returned against plaintiffs, suit has to be dismissed though parties had succeeded on different issues wholly or partly. Court ultimately observed that plaintiffs have fully succeeded on issues 1, 2, 3 and 9 and partly on issues 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 13, while defendant has fully succeeded on issues 4, 7 and 14 and partly on issues 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 13, but since suit has been held not maintainable as framed, it has to be dismissed. Consequently, vide judgment dated 20.10.1962 Additional District Judge, Varanasi dismissed Suit 3 of 1954 as not maintainable under Section 92 CPC.
62. Against judgment and decree dated 20.10.1962, Swami Parmatmanand and others filed First Appeal 385 of 1962, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.9.1973. Swami Parmatmanand and others filed appeal before Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No. 1589 of 1973. Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati filed an impleadment application, alleging that Swami Krishna Bodhashram died on 10.9.1973 and, therefore, he may be impleaded and permitted to prosecute appeal as 'Intervener'. Supreme Court allowed and permitted Swami Swaroopanand to prosecute the matter as 'Intervener'. Court ultimately dismissed Civil Appeal no. 1589 of 1973 vide order dated 21.8.1974 (Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati and another Vs. Ramji Tripathi, 1974 (2) SCC 695). Suit 47 of 1954
63. Suit No. 47 of 1954 was filed in the Court of Munsif (South), Lucknow by Ram Lakhan Singh and others against Swami Shantanand Saraswati and others, seeking a declaration and permanent injunction that Swami Krishnabodhashram is Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and not Sri Shantanand and that he (Shantanand) should be restrained for proclaiming and propagating himself as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya and to restrain from using Singhasan, Chhatra, Chanwar etc. In the aforesaid suit, an application for interim injunction was also filed on 27.01.1954. Interim injunction was issued on 31.01.1954 ex-parte, since defendant did not turn-up. Suit 3 of 1963- Filed by Swami Krishna Bodhashram stood abated.
Suit 36 of 1965
64. It was filed by Swami Shantanand Saraswati in the Court of Munsif (West), Allahabad, impleading Swami Krishna Bodhashram, Karpatri alias Swami Hariharanand Saraswati and Sant Saran Vaidanti as defendants 1,2 and 3. Reliefs sought in the aforesaid suit were as under:
(a) That the defendants be restrained by order of permanent injuction from proclaiming the defendant No. 1 as Shankaracharya and Peethadhishwar of the Jyotish Peeth and letting the defendant No. a from taking the Chhatra, Chtaaar Band and Singhasan as Shankaracharya of the Jyotish Peeth nad to take out any procession as such during the Magh Mela in Allahabad.
(b) That cost of the suit be awarded to the Plaintiff that any other and further relief that, in the opinion of the Court the Plaintiff is entitled to, be also awarded to the plaintiff.
65. Plaint case set up was that Adi Jagat Guru Shankaracharya founded four Maths: (1) Govardhan Math at Puri (2) Jyotirmath at Badrinath (3) Sharda Math and (4) Sringeri Math at Sungbhadra in south. He made these Maths centres of Vedantic teachings. Each Math was placed in the charge of one of his four principal disciples who were Padmapada, Hasthmalak, Sureshwar and Trotraka who were appointed as Mahants of these Maths. These Mahants were entitled to nominate one of his disciples to be Mahant after his death. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was Mahant of Jyotirmath at Badrinath. He nominated plaintiff, one of his principal disciples, to be Shankaracharya and Mahant of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, after his death. He disclosed his wishes in 'Will' executed by him. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati died on 20.5.1953. After his death, plaintiff was duly installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth in accordance with rites, rituals and customs prevalent among Sanyasis. Plaintiff applied for grant of succession certificate vide Misc. Case No. 44 of 1953, filed in the Court of District Judge, Allahabad, founded on 'Will' dated 18.12.1952, executed by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. Miscellaneous case was ultimately decided by Civil Judge, Allahabad after transfer and 'Will' was approved. Hence, succession certificate was granted in favour of plaintiff. Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati contested Misc. Case 44 of 1953, claiming himself as senior Chela and heir of late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. He also filed appeal in High Court against grant of succession certificate to plaintiff but the same was dismissed. In fact, Swami Karpatri Ji alias Swami Hariharanand Saraswati has set up different claimants against plaintiff and caused various suits filed in different Courts. Suit 3 of 1954 was filed under Section 92 CPC for removal of plaintiff from the office of Mahant of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth as well as for rendition of accounts but it was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Varanasi vide judgment and decree dated 20.10.1962. Appeal was filed thereagainst which is pending. Before Kumbh Mela Haridwar, Ram Lakhan Singh and others filed Suit 47 of 1954 against plaintiff in the Court of Munsif South, Lucknow, seeking injunction and restraining plaintiff from proclaiming himself as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya and using articles of decoration. An application under Order 39 Rule 2 CPC for alleged disobedience of injunction order dated 31.01.1954 was filed but the same was dismissed by Court on 10.2.1962. Plaintiff is holding office of Shankaracharya and is entitled to use decoration articles like Danda, Chhatra, Chanwar, Singhasan etc. A section of Hindus decided to observe Kumbh in February, 1965. Plaintiff was also of the opinion that Kumbh be observed in 1965 and not in 1966. Taking advantage of ensuing Kumbh, defendants started to proclaim that defendant-1 is Jyotish Peethadhishwar, i.e., Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and pamphlets were distributed at Allahabad and other places. Defendants also arranged to take out a procession on 13th as troll as on subsequent days in Magh Mela Area, proclaiming defendant-1 to be Jyotish Peethadhishwar as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya, of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Defendant-1 is neither entitled to proclaim himself as Peethadhishwar of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth nor entitled to use Chhatra, Chanwar etc. Plaintiff is entitled to get defendants restrained from proclaiming defendant-1 as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, hence the suit.
66. Suit was contested by Swami Krishnabodhashram and other defendants by filing their combined written statement dated August 1965, though written statement was signed by defendant-2 on behalf of all defendants. He denied that Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was Mahant of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth for the reason that Peeth does not have any Mahant. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was Aacharya and Head of Math. Death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati on 20.05.1955 was admitted but other averments were denied. It was pleaded that defendant-1 rightly was proclaimed by public as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and contrary averments were denied. In additional pleas, defendants pleaded that Swami Brahmanand Saraswati did not nominate or constitute plaintiff as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, no 'Will' was executed in favour of plaintiff; Plaintiff was never installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth; Swami Brahmanand Saraswati had no right to nominate his successor; even if he had a right, plaintiff was not such a person who fulfilled requirements of Shankaracharya as laid down in the verses of Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan which were prescribed by Adi Jagat Guru Shankaracharya and contains Rules and Regulations governing four Maths established by him, i.e., Jyotirmath near Badrinath in Pauri Garhwal in North; Sharda Math in Gujarat; Sringeri Math in South India and Goverdhan Math at Puri. In Suit-3 of 1954, Court recorded findings against plaintiff that he did not possess some of necessary qualifications of Shankaracharya of Jyotirpeeth and his appointment to said office was invalid. However, suit was dismissed on technical ground that defendant-1 was not made party. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was suffering from sleeplessness and other ailments from long time and did not enjoy sound disposing mind and was not in a fit state of mind or body to execute alleged 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 under which plaintiff is claiming his right to be successor in the office and Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 was never executed by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. It was not signed at all by him, who was not in a sound disposing mind nor in a fit mental and physical condition to execute it. He was too feeble and ill and was not capable to understand contents of 'Will' and the 'Will' does not represent his mind. The 'Will' was brought about by undue influence and importunity of plaintiff, who was a relation of late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati and might have exercised that influence himself as well as through one Mahesh Brahmchari, who was Private Secretary and a man of great confidence of late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. 'Will' was a forged document and has no legal effect. On the death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, a question arose about appointment of successor of Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Learned Pandits, Mahants, Mandelshwars, Sanyasis and most of disciples of late Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati selected and duly installed defendant-1, who had been a Sanyasi for the last about 40 years, as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirpeeth, on 25.06.1963 with all religious ceremonies at Gyanvapi near famous temple of Vishwanathji of Varanasi. Shankaracharya Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Tirth of Sharda Peeth at Dwarika attended the said installation of defendant-1 and since then he is functioning as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and is being recognized as such. After instlallation at Varanasi, defendant-1 went to Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth and there he was again installed to Peeth. He began to live there and got under his possession the properties of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Plaintiff was not duly installed as Shankaracharya on 12.06.1953 as claimed by him. No installation ceremony ever took place. Plaintiff even otherwise did not possess qualification for the said office. No religious ceremony was ever performed for installation of plaintiff. Original Suit 3 of 1954 was dismissed by District Judge, Varanasi whereagainst First Appeal No. 365 of 1962 was filed and during pendency of the said appeal, succession certificate granted, stood in the name of Registrar, High Court, Allahabad, under orders of Court. Plaintiff could not have withdrawn any money except with permission of Court. Plaintiff also filed a representative suit 9 of 1954 in the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad through Swami Magnanand and others by impleading Swami Krishna Bodhashram as defendant, seeking injunction restraining defendants from setting himself as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Said suit was dismissed with costs in the absence of plaintiffs. Another suit was filed by Sri Mahesh Ji at the instance of plaintiff, a close associate, being Original Suit No. 374 of 1953 in the Court of Munsif North, Lucknow for obtaining an ad interim injunction against Swami Krishna Bodhashram and also from holding any meeting on 24.7.1953 so as to give a reception to Swami Krishna Bodhashram as Shankaracharya and taking procession. Plaintiff Sri Mahesh failed to get interim injunction and ultimately Original Suit 374 of 1953 was also dismissed. Defendant-1, since his installation as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 25.6.1953, has been occupying office and has perfected his title and right by way of adverse possession. Moreover, defendant-1 is recognized by all, hence plaintiff is not entitled to challenge the just claim of defendant-1. Defendants 2 and 3 also recognized defendant-1 as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Allegation of setting up persons to file various cases is denied. In Suit-47 of 1954 filed by Ram Lakhan against plaintiff, an injunction order was passed on 30.1.1954 restraining plaintiff from proclaiming himself as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya and using articles of decoration etc. Said injunction continued till 16.8.1962. Advice and opinion for observing Kumbh in 1965 was actually tendered by defendant-1 as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth, Dwarika, Shankaracharya of Govardhan Peeth at Puri and Shankaracharya of Sringeri Peeth of Mysore as well as other learned Pandits. Plaintiff has possessed some property of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth wrongfully and making wrongful gain therefrom. Suit is barred under Section 10 CPC and even otherwise it has rendered infructuous.
67. Trial Court in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965, framed eight issues as under;
"1. Whether late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati had nominated and constituted the plaintiff as the Shankara Charya of the Jyotir Mutt at Badrinath.
2.(a) Whether late Swani Brahmanand Saraswati executed a will dated 18.12.52 is alleged by the plaintiff in his favour? If so had he a right to nominate his successor as alleged?
(b) In case the will dated 18.12.52 is proved to have been executed was it obtained by the plaintiff under the conditions as alleged in paras 31 to 33 of the written statements?
3. Whether the plaintiff was installed as Shankaracharya of the Jyotir Mutt as alleged by him or he is only a trustee de-son-tort as pleaded by the defendant?
4. Whether the plaintiff possesses the requisite qualifications for holding the office of Shankaracharya as laid down in 'Muttamanay' and Mahanusashan?
5. Whether defendant no.1 was installed as Shankaracharya of the Jyotir Mutt on 25.6.63 as alleged by him in his written statement and if so has he perfected his right as Shankaracharya by adverse possession as pledged in para 41 of the written statement?
6. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under section 10 C.P.C.?
7. Whether the defendants are entitled to special Costs?
8. To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled."
(emphasis added)
68. Court of Vth Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Allahabad presided by Sri B.P. Shukla decided Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 by a detailed judgment dated 15.1.1970.
69. Issues-1 and 2 were taken together by Court. It traced history of institution of Math as described in Sammantha Pandara v. Sellappa Chetti I.L.R, 2 Mad. 175. Adi Shankaracharya established four Maths, which are as under :
Sl.No. Name of Maths Details
1.
Poorvamanyaya :
Puri Jagannath Math Established at Puri Jagannath covering the areas of Anga, Vanga Kalinga, Magadha, Utkala and Barabara States.
2.
Paschimanyaya:
Dwarka Math Established at Dwarka covering areas of Sindhu, Sourashti, Souveera and Maharashtra.
3.
Uttaramanyaya :
Jyotir Math Established at Badrinath covering the areas of Kuru, Kashmir, Khabmoja and Panchala States.
4.
Dakshinamanya :
Sringeri Math Established at Sringeri covering the areas of Karnataka Kerala.
70. Sri Trotokacharya was the first Shankaracharya appointed by Adi Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. In all, forty Acharyas had occupied this Peeth, first being Acharya Trotak and last Sri Ram Krishna Teerth Swami, who left this universe in Vikram Samvat 1853 (1796 AD). Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth seat remained unoccupied for about 165 years. Thereafter, B.D.M., VNS with support of large section of Hindus, selected and installed Swami Brahmanand Saraswati as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. A declaration of trust dated 11.05.1941 was also written down. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati died on 20.05.1953 at Calcutta. After his death a serious dispute regarding succession cropped up, causing several litigation in Courts. Shantanand Saraswati claimed office on the strength of Will dated 18.12.1952. Defendant Krishna Bodhashram and others disputed it on the ground that Brahmanand Saraswati had no power to nominate his successor.
71. Court after examining earlier litigation and other record as well as evidence, ultimately held that Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth had a right to nominate his successor and otherwise contention advanced by defendant was not correct. In recording aforesaid findings, Court relied on statement of DW-2, Sri Abhinav Sachidanand Tirth Ji, Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Dwarka Peeth, Sharda, who said that it is always better if Shankaracharya himself installs or nominates his disciple in the office and this power of nomination, Shankaracharya possesses. It recorded finding as under :
"Thus there is no escape from the conclusion that reigning Shankaracharya as a superior of the peetha has got a right to nominate his disciple as a successor."
(emphasis added)
72. Then Court examined genuineness of 'Will' in respect whereto scribe Sri Krishna Gopal Chowdhary, Advocate of Etawah was examined as PW-17. Attesting witness PW-13 Shyam Narain Gupta and PW-6 Rameshwar Prasad Tiwari were also examined. Court ultimately recorded findings by observing:
"Looking to the overall picture of evidence presented by respectable witness, Sri Krishna Gopal Chowdhary, Sri Shyam Narain Gupta and Sri Rameshwar Prasad Tiwari, I am prepared to take a reasonable view of holding that the Will was duly executed by Sri Brahmanand Saraswati after understanding the contents thereof........ In the result, I hold that the plaintiff has proved the fact that the testator was a sound and disposing state of mind, the testator signed the will lying in deposit with the District Registrar, Allahabad, a copy of which is Paper No.71 C, Ex.-152. I further hold that Will was exeuted by the free will of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. It is further my finding that particular of undue influence etc., as alleged in paras 31 to 33 of the written statement have not been made out. Accordingly, in the light of the Will dated 18.12.1952, it has to be held that late Sri Brahmanand Saraswati had nominated and constituted the plaintiff as Jyotish Peetha as alleged by plaintiff."
(emphasis added)
73. Consequently, Court answered issues 1 and 2 both in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.
74. Then issue 3 was taken and it was also decided in favour of plaintiff. Court held:
"In view of the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence discussed above, in my opinion, it has been proved to the hilt that according to the directions in the will and the traditions of the mutt, the installation ceremony of the plaintiff took place on 12.6.53 at Brahma Nivas Varanasi. The issue is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff." (emphasis added)
75. Issue-4 pertained to requisite qualifications of Shankaracharya, whether possessed by plaintiff or not. Learned Judge observed that directions of Adi Shankaracharya represented ideal qualifications of successor of Shankaracharya. In his view, these directions are recommendatory and can not be said to be mandatory. For this purpose, he relied on observations of B.K.Mukherjee in his "Law of Endowment" at page 302 that the standards has much deteriorated in modern times, high philosophic knowledge or spirituality is seldom to be met with institutions, stress is now primarily laid on the observations of the rites and tenets of particular sect for the use of benefit of which the Mutt is established. Court held that due performance of rites is an integral part of teachings of Adi Shankaracharya and referred to certain verses on the authority of Guru. Court also held that decision of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati regarding plaintiff being successor of Peeth has to be upheld. In this regard, Trial Court also relied on the judgment of Patna High Court in Mahant Girjanand Bhagat Vs. Bhagwan Bhagat and others AIR 1967 (Patna) 101. It says that scope of review in religious matters is limited. It said:
"Therefore, the Court could only see if the plaintiff was Sanyasi, Brahmin and disciple of late Jagatguru Shankaracharya and if he has been nominated as a successor by his Guru, the Court should uphold that appointment, in other words, judgment of the Guru by nominating the disciple is positive proof of the capability of his disciple, hence merely on the strength of the nomination by the Guru the finding of capability has to be imparted in favour of the plaintiff disciple."
(emphasis added)
76. After examining evidence on record, Court said:
"It would thus appear that on the plaintiffs side there is the nomination in the will by Guru. That way his Guru found him as a proper disciple, the nomination implied that the late Jagatguru determined his qualifications and found him as Sat Shishya. Adding that circumstance as an additional weight in the scale of evidence for the plaintiff, I am inclined to believe P.W.4 Pandit Ram Khelawan Tripathi, P.W.7 Dr. Jai Ram Mishra, P.W.9 Sri Makhan Lal Kela, P.W.10 Sri Satya Nand Gaur, P.W.11 Brahmachari Shanker Lal, P.W.14 Sri ram Narain Dutt Pande, P.W.15 Sri Kapildeo Tripathi and P.W.16 Sri Anantanand Saraswati and hold that the plaintiff has the qualifications required for the office of the Shankaracharya. It is noteworthy that D.W.1, Shankaracharya of Govardhan Peeth himself has admitted in cross-examination as under:-
^^'kadjkpk;Z dks ;g vf/kdkj gS fd og viuk mRrjkf/kdkjh eBkEuk; vkSj egkuq'kklu esa fufnZ"V ;ksX;rk okys O;fDr dks gh pkgs tgkWa ls pqusA mudks ;ksX; ns[kus dk vf/kdkjh gSA** Thus, the responsibility of selection by the competent Guru will be deemed to have been performed in a correct manner and it should be held that a competent Guru in all probability has nominated a competent Chela as his successor. The principle that a Mahant will be assumed to be a proper person to judge who is best qualified to succeed him is not open to doubt."
(emphasis added)
77. Answering issue-4 in favour of plaintiff Swami Shantanand Saraswati, ultimate conclusion recorded by Court reads as under :
"In view of the above discussion my finding is that in view of the nomination as successor in the will of Swami Brhmanand Ji the late Jagadguru Shankaracharya the plaintiff does possess the qualification for holding the office of Shankaracharya as laid down in Muttamnay and Mahanushasan. More over as a secular judge I have no right to interfere with the conscience of the testator who nominated what he believed to be proper for administration of mutt in future, nor can the Court sit in judgment on nomination." (emphasis added)
78. Thereafter, Court proceeded to decide issue-5 relating to installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. It held that though ceremony was performed on 25.06.1953 for installation of Krishna Bodhashram as Shankaracharya but it did not confer any legal title upon him for the reason that the then Shankaracharya Swami Shantanand Saraswati was already installed on 12.06.1953 on the strength of 'Will' of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati and when office was already filled up, ceremony of 25.06.1953 can not be foundation for acquisition of title of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth by Krishna Bodhashram. Further, since plaintiff was already in possession of the office in the capacity of Shankaracharya, there was no room for defendant Swami Krishna Bodhashram for characterizing as 'Shankaracharya' by adverse possession as pleaded in written statement. It also observed that Pandit Sabha could not sit in appeal over the judgment of respondent Brahmanand Saraswati about nomination of his disciple Shantanand Saraswati as successor nominee no.1. It pointed out that fluctuating body of Pandit Sabha consisting of a few persons can not be considered to be a legal authority to determine the question and upset decision of late Jagatguru. Mathamnaya is silent on the point, who is to select Successor. Taking clue from the judgment in suit 3 of 1954, Court said, if the line of disciple is extinct, Mahamandal has a right to nominate. Once a Guru has found Adhikari/Uttaradhikari, if fluctuating body of Pandits of various places in India possess authority to select another person of their choice, it will create a chaos in utter disregard to the wishes of previous occupant. A person validly appointed has a right to continue till actually removed. General public has power to elect a person only when the line of disciple was extinct and only then they could appoint a highly qualified person according to books of commands. No evidence could be led that entire line of disciple of late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati had extinct. A non-disciple like Swami Krishna Bodhashram could not have been appointed as Shankaracharya in preference to a disciple. It, therefore, answered issue-5 against defendant-1 holding that claim of Swami Krishna Bodhashram to the office of Shankaracharya by way of adverse possession is unsustainable.
79. Issue-6 was already considered as preliminary issue and answered against defendant.
80. Thereafter, issues-7 and 8 were taken together and it was held that plaintiff had right to administer endowment being Head of common spiritual organization, formerly headed by his Guru Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. It also held that unless line of disciples is extinct, Swami Krishna Bodhashram could not claim the said office. It accordingly, decreed the suit and passed following order :
"The suit is decreed as prayed. The defendants are restrained from proclaiming the defendant No.1 as Shankaracharya and Peethadhishwar of the defendant No.1 from taking the Chhatra, Chamar, Dand and Singhasan as Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peetha and to take out any procession as such during the Magh Mela in Allahabad. Costs easy." (emphasis added)
81. Defendants brought the matter in appeal being Civil Appeal No.59 of 1970 in the Court of District Judge, Allahabad. During pendency of appeal, Swami Krishna Bodhashram (defendant appellant no.1) died on 10.09.1973 and there was no substitution. Plaintiff respondent, Swami Shantanand Sawaswati, moved an application that appeal has abated and referred to Order 22 Rule 1 C.P.C. This application, was contested by remaining appellants. Therefore, a detailed order dated 29.08.1982 was passed by District Judge, Allahabad, deciding that appeal abated as a whole and hence, let it be consigned to record. The order passed by District Judge, Allahabad run in 21 paragraphs. It has observed that dispute was between plaintiff and defendant-1 who was also claiming actual right of having been installed in the office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 25.06.1953 and has died. Therefore, other defendants have no right to sue and right to appeal also does not survive, hence appeal must abate as a whole. Regarding non substitution, remaining defendant-appellants 2 and 3 contended that office of Mahant is elective and as such Mahant who would succeed from Swami Krishna Bodhashram cannot be said to be a legal representative, hence there is no question of substitution. District Judge held that this argument supports the inference that on the death of Swami Krishna Bodhashram Saraswati, right to sue did not survive and subsequent Mahants or anyone else also cannot claim substitution on his behalf. Surviving appellants namely, Karpatriji alias Swami Hariharanand as also Sant Saran Vaidanti cannot continue appeal for they had no cause of action left for them to continue appeal. The only averment against them in the plaint was that they also proclaimed Swami Krishna Bodhashram to be Mahant of the Math. Therefore, after death of Swami Krishna Bodhashram question of surviving appellants declaring them to be Mahant of the said Math and supporting their claim does not arise. It held in para 18 to 21 of the judgment as under:
"18. The appellate Court has no power to proceed with the appeal and to reverse and vary the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs or defendants under Order XLI Rule 4 C.P.C. when the decree proceeds on a ground common to all the plaintiffs or defendants, if all the plaintiffs or the defendants appeal from the decree and any of them dies and the appeal abates so far as he is concerned under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C.
19. The aforesaid view has been confirmed in a later decision of the Supreme Court, reported in 'Sri Chand & others v. M/s Jagdish Parshad Kishan Chand & others' (A.I.R. 1966 Supreme Court 1427.)
20. The instant appeal where no legal representative of deceased-appellant no.1 has been brought on record has otherwise also abated as a whole.
21. The counsel for the appellants relied on 'Lal Chand (dead) by L.Rs. & others v. Radha Kishan' (A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court p. 789) 'State of U.P. v. Smt. Ram Sri & another' (A.I.R. 1976 Allahabad p. 121), and 'Shripad Balvant Kasture & others v. Nagu Kushaba Kate' (A.I.R. (30) in support of his contention that the right to sue in favour of the appellant nos. 2 and 3 survives and they can continue the appeal. These decisions are, however distinguishable and do not apply to the present case." (emphasis added) Civil Suit- 1A of 1974
82. This suit was filed by Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati vide plaint dated 28.06.1974 in the Court of District Judge, Seoni (M.P.) for declaration that plaintiff Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati is duly installed Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth; for directing defendant-1 Sri Ramji Tripathi (subsequently known as Swami Shantanand Saraswati) to deliver possession of property mentioned in Schedule 'A' of the plaint to him, and also a declaration that plaintiff possesses properties mentioned in Scheduled 'B' attached to the plaint. A permanent injunction was also prayed for restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiff's management of property of Peeth and in discharge of functions as Shankaracharya.
83. There were three persons impleaded as defendants in the aforesaid suit i.e. Ramji Tripathi (Swami Shantanand Saraswati), Dwarika Prasad Shastri and Swami Vishnu Devanand Saraswati, (Chela of late Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati).
84. Plaint case set up therein is that several centuries ago, late Jagat Guru Adi Shankaracharya propounded theory of absolute Monism based on the authority of Upanishads. His philosophy succeeded in combating Budhism and re-establishing religion of Vedas. For the purpose of strengthening doctrine of Non-dualistic philosophy, which he preached, four Mathas as monasteries, in the four extremities of India were established by him i.e. Jyotirmath near Badrinath in Paurigarhwal (now Chamoli Garhwal) in north, Shardamath in the west in Gujrat, Shringeri Math in the South in Mysore and Gowardhan Math in the East at Puri. He placed each one of them under the charge his principal ascetic disciples. He also prescribed Rules and Regulations governing aforesaid four Mathas in booklets named 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasan' written by him. The two books written by Adi Shankaracharya contain details of territorial jurisdiction of Mathas, qualifications for appointment and also for dethroning Head of the Mathas, who was to be known as Shankaracharya of the Peeth. The primary object of establishing these Mathas was encouragement and fastening of Vedic teachings by the maintenance of a competent line of teachers imparting religious instructions to the disciples and others and trying to strengthen doctrines of Vedic Teachings so as to prevent any future precipitating of Vedic Religion being affected by philosophies foreign to it. Besides the contents of two books prescribing qualification etc., for appointment as Shankaracharya of Peethas, there are long established customs and traditions in all the four Peethas to install only highly learned Sanyasis possessed of all the qualities laid down in "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan", which have been followed and observed without the least of deviations. In Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth also as per Rules and Regulations prescribed in Mathamnaya, forty one learned and competent Sanyasis having necessary qualifications laid down in the aforesaid books, were installed as Peethadhishwar of the Peeth, one after another, and they all discharged their duties and responsibilities and managed affairs of Peeth and its properties. For about 165 years Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth remained without a Head. In 1941 three Shankaracharyas of Shringeri, Sharda and Goverdhan Mathas, Rulers of various States, learned people, Sanyasis etc. with an object to restore Peeth to its pristine estate and prestige, authorized a registered institution known as B.D.M., VNS to search a Sanyasi who satisfies qualifications prescribed by "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan" for being installed a Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeths. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, a great Sanyasi, was selected as Head of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth by B.D.M., VNS and was also approved by Sanyasis including three Shankaracharyas and followers of Vedic teachings. He was duly installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and assumed office accordingly. A deed of declaration of Trust was prepared by B.D.M., VNS on Baisakh Sudi 15, Samvat 1998 (11.05.1941) and made over all the land and sites of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, which was acquired together with land and Ashram at Varanasi, to Swami Brahmanand Saraswati as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya, in Trust, under conditions given in the deed for the benefit of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Thus entire property became property of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth held by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati in Trust for fulfilment of the aims, objects and ideals of Trust. In addition to property of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, contributions and donations made by devotees were also held by Trust for the same purpose. None of these properties was personal or could be treated to be property of Shankaracharya. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, discharged duties and managed affairs of Peeth with great ability with the result that Peeth greatly expanded influence over people residing in Northern India, who made generous donations of movable and immoveable properties, so that there may not be any difficulty, financial or otherwise, to the Peeth and Sanyasis attending Peeth in discharge of obligations and fulfilling the purpose for which Adi Shankaracharya had established the Peeth. These donations were in fact made to Peeth which could be used by Peethadhishwar for fulfilment of aims and objects of Peeth only. Particulars of property acquired for the Peeth as far as known to the plaintiff is given in Schedule 'A' Parts (i), (ii) and (iii). A Sanyasi who renounces the world and devotes himself to religion is not permitted to hold property in personal capacity except his clothes, Kharauns (wooden slipper) and the like. Hence whatever was received by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati as Shankaracharya of Peeth, was property of Peeth and Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was only managing it as a Trustee. When "Mathamnaya" was written for managing affairs of the Peeth, 'Trust' as understood under English Law, was unknown to ancient Hindu religious world and Adi Shankaracharya also did not orient principles of Trust in "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan". On 20.05.1953, Swami Brahmanand Saraswati breathed his last. A dispute arose about the appointment of successor. Defendant-1 Sri Ramji Tripathi ( Swami Shantanand Saraswati) claimed right of Headship of the Peeth on the basis of a 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 alleged to have been executed by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati in his favour. He was a close relative of late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati and lived with him for a number of years. He had an eye over the seat of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. He started manipulation for the same even in the lifetime of late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. After his death, three Shankaracharyas of different Peeth, learned Pandits, Sanyasis and followers of Vedantic teachings, considered appointment of a Sanyasi having requisite qualifications prescribed in "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan". defendant-1 put forward his claim on the basis of alleged 'Will'. Said claim was rejected by three Shankaracharyas, Pandits, Sanyasis and Sadhus of Vedantic Teachings. Defendant-1 had practically received no education and until few years he was working as book binder in Gita Press, Gorakhpur (U.P.). He was also not conversant with Sanskrit language and unable to interpret and explain Vedant Philosophy and other Shastras. Alleged 'Will' was a fabricated document. Plaintiff has reason to believe that it was not executed by late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. Circumstances under which its execution was alleged, made it suspicious. It was not a genuine 'Will' of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. Moreover, he was not competent to make any 'Will' nor competent to nominate successor or Successors as Peethadhishwar. He did not and could not possess any property of his own. Property of Peeth held by him was in Trust and not a personal property, hence could not have been disposed of by making 'Will'. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati did not possess sound disposing mind when alleged 'Will' is said to have been executed on 18.12.1952. He was suffering from sleeplessness and other ailments for a long time preceding the date of alleged execution of 'Will'. For this reason also, 'Will' is invalid and does not have the effect of making defendant-1 Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth or clothe him with any right or title to hold and deal with property of Peeth. Defendant-1 did not possess requisite qualification for holding office of Shankaracharya. He was not validly chosen or installed Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and has no right or title to any part of property of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. As per rules and directions laid down in "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan" as also customs and traditions of Peeth and directions contained in declaration given in Trust deed dated 11.05.1941, succession to the office of Shankaracharya of Peeth in question has to be approved by other three Peethas. Vidwat Parishad and Shankaracharyas of other three Peethas did not recognize alleged 'Will' propounded by defendant-1. They also found that defendant-1 did not possess necessary qualifications for holding high office of Shankaracharya. Defendant-1 did not become a duly appointed and installed Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. On the contrary, Vidvat Parishad selected Swami Krishna Bodhashram, a great scholar and learned in Vedas, Vedantas and Shastras to hold office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. He was duly approved by Peethadhishwars of other three Peethas and installed as Peethadhishwar of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on or about 25.6.1953 and continued in office till his death, i.e. 10.09.1973. Defendant-1, taking undue advantage of saintliness of Swami Krishna Bodhashram, took possession of some of the properties of Trust and started managing it as Trustee de son tort. Looking to welfare of Peeth, late Swami Krishna Bodhashram instituted suit-3 of 1963 on 02.09.1963 in the Court of Civil Judge, Tehri Garhwal for declaration, possession and permanent injunction against defendants, impleaded in Suit No. 1A of 1974 also. The said suit was pending at preliminary stage when Suit 1A of 1974 was filed. Swami Krishna Bodhashram fell ill in September, 1973. He appointed plaintiff Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati to perform duties of the seat and manage affairs of Peeth during the period of his illness. On 10.09.1973 Swami Krishna Bodhashram breathed his last at Delhi. Before his death, he proposed name of plaintiff for the seat as new Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Once again the question of appointment of Shankaracharya arose and three Shankaracharyas of different Peeths, Pandits, learned men of Kashi Vidwat Parishad, Sanyasis, various religious institutions including B.D.M., VNS and followers of the Peeths, selected and appointed plaintiff as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. He possessed all the qualifications prescribed in "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan". Installation ceremony was held at Delhi on 07.12.1973. Shankaracharya of Sharda Peeth and Goverdhan Peeth personally offered Pattas to plaintiff. Shankaracharya of Shringeri Peeth had sent his representative who offered Patta on his behalf in the aforesaid ceremony. Sanyasis, Grahasthas, Pandits and learned scholars also participated in the ceremony. All necessary religious ceremonies were performed. After installation ceremony, a procession was taken out from Gandhi Maidan Delhi in which all the three Shankaracharyas including plaintiff participated. Procession terminated at Ajmal Khan Park of Karol Bagh and turned into a huge Sabha in which various religious institutions of Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal, including followers and leaders of Jain religion, Mandleshwars, Sanyasis and Grahsthas welcomed and acclaimed plaintiff as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and offered their homage. Since then, i.e. 07.12.1973 plaintiff is Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, performing duties and responsibilities as Jyotishpeethadhishwar. In para 22 of the plaint, plaintiff gave his own credentials as under:
"22. That, the plaintiff was attracted to the asceticism at a very early age of 13 years. The plaintiff studied Sanskrit at Narsingpur and Kashi, and in the year 1941 joined Sanskrit Pathshala of village Rampur district Ghasipur. Before taking Danda (Sanyas) he accompanied many great religious and spiritual Sanyasis and Yogis namely Shri Vallabhanand, Shri Oriyababa, Sri Karpatriji, Late Shri Krishna Bodhashramji, Shri Maheshwaranandji, Sri Adyatanandji and Sri Akhandanandji etc. and learnt and discussed with them Vedas, Vedangas, Upanishad, Shastras etc. His quest for knowledge brought him to late Shankaracharya in the year 1950, and he is chela senior to the defendant No. 1. He was given Danda that is he became Dandi Sanyasi and was introduced to Dasnami order. After learning the religious philosophies for some times the plaintiff left the late Shankaracharya Swami Bhahmanand to propagate the Shankar Philosophy and Sanathan Dharma Hindu religion. The plaintiff mostly propagated Vedantic Teachings in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal and has a large number of followers in these states. In May, 1964, the plaintiff established Adhyatmic Utthan Mandal a registered body at Paramhanshi Ganga in Narsinghpur district in Madhya Pradesh which is a pioneer institution in Madhya Pradesh having branches in Bengal, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat and is run by his followers to impart religious instructions according to Sanathan Hindu Dharma."
85. Defendant-1 who declared himself Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, possessed a considerable part of Property of Peeth, detailed in Scheduled 'A' Part (i) (iii) of plaintiff. He also visited Seoni in last week of September 1973 and in first week of October 1973. Also at Seoni, he declared himself as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. His acts and declarations have thrown a cloud on the title of plaintiff and tended to create an atmosphere of misunderstanding and confusion amongst the followers of Peeth. Defendant-1 is also laying claim over other properties of Peeth, details whereof are given in Schedule 'A' Part (ii). He has also been and is claiming property given in the Schedule 'A'. He filed an application before Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Lakhnadan, village Sarangpur, District Seoni in Revenue Case No. 10/A-6/73-74. In this application he claims to be Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and owner of land situated in village Sarangpur, Tehsil Lakhnadon, District Seoni. Defendant-1 had previously made an application in Revenue case No. 1/A-6 of 63-64 of village Sarangpur, S. No. 411, P.C. No. 73, Tehsil Lakhnadon District Seoni before Naib Tehsildar Lakhnadon, making a similar claim. Moreover, properties namely the deposits and Government loans and certificates detailed in Scheduled 'A' part (ii) to the plaint, are at present in custody of Registrar, High Court, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh. Defendant-1 is asserting that he is also entitled to receive this property. He is making efforts to have the same delivered to him. Since defendant-1 is denying and interested to deny right and title of plaintiff, he is entitled to get a declaration from Court that he is duly appointed and installed Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. He is also entitled to claim possession over properties of the Peeth detailed in Schedule 'A' Part (i), (ii) and (iii) and to have his possession over property of Schedule 'B' confirmed. Plaintiff is further entitled to have defendant no. 1 restrained from interfering with the possession over the property of the Peeth. Defendants-2 and 3 have also been nominated in the alleged 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 by Brahmanand Saraswati, though neither they were qualified nor he (Brahmanand Saraswati) was entitled to nominate them for the reasons mentioned in earlier part of the plaint. Hence they are also arrayed as proforma defendants. In case they do not deny plaintiff's right, no relief is claimed against them.
86. For the purpose of cause of action and territorial jurisdiction plaintiff Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, disclosed following facts in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the plaint in Original Suit No, 1-A of 1974:
"25. The cause of action for the suit arose partly at Seoni and at Lakhnadan, District Seoni and also at other places where the defedant No. 1 is giving himself out as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath. It arose on 12.9.1973 when the plaintiff was duly selected for the holy office of the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath and also on 7.12.1973 when the plaintiff was duly installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirpeeth and further in the months of September and October 1973 when the defendant No. 1 proclaimed himself as Shankaracharya in Seoni and declared that he was also entitled to all the properties of the Peeths including the properties in this district. It is further arising from day to day as the defendant No. 1 is continuing to proclaim himself as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeths and to be entitled to possession of all its properties."
"26. Since a part of the property of the Peeths namely the lands in village Sarangpur are situated in the District and since the defendant No. 1 has declared and proclaimed himself as Shankaracharya in this District and since he has been claiming and is claiming the property situated in this district, this Court has got jurisdiction to try this suit." (emphasis added)
87. The aforesaid suit was transferred to Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad.
88. Defendant-1 Ram Ji Tripathi (Swami Shantanand Saraswati) filed written statement dated 30.10.1979. He denied that "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan" were written by Adi Shankaracharya or that the same contained any Rules and Regulations regarding appointment and qualification for appointment of Head of Peethas established by Adi Shankaracharya. He also said that the contents of books are neither mandatory nor have any binding character. It was also denied that Adi Shankaracharya had any primary object of establishing Math to maintain a competent line of teacher. "Mathamnaya" of Jyotishpeeth does not prescribe any Rules, Regulations or qualifications of Peethadhishwar of Jyotishpeeth. Qualifications of earlier Peethadhishwar of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth are also not known. Peeth remained unseated for about 165 years. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was installed as Shankaracharya thereafter. To this extent, averments contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of plaint are admitted but rest averments are denied. It was also admitted that B.D.M., VNS by Trust deed dated 11.5.1941 made over property which B.D.M., VNS had acquired and detailed in the said deed, to Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, but it was very small. Remaining property were acquired by Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati himself during period of his Peethadhishwar. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati discharged all duties and managed affairs with great ability. All properties were self acquired by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. A Sanyasi can acquire property for Lok Sangrah. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati acquired property and thereafter gave a part of it to Peeth under his 'Will'. It is denied that two books contain any Rules and Regulations regarding any trust or that they are mandatory in character. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati breathed his last on 20.05.1953. Rest averments stated in para 11 are denied. The allegation that defendant-1 was keeping an eye over seat and manipulating and making efforts to acquire it, was denied. Defendant-1 is fully qualified and educated in Sanskrit and well conversant in Vedant philosophy and Shastras. He was considered fully qualified to hold office of Shankaracharya of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth being Guru of defendant-1 and he was competent person to do so. 'Will' is genuine, valid and executed by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. He was of sound disposing mind and allegations otherwise were denied. There is custom in all the Peethas of Shankaracharya that sitting Shankaracharya nominates his successor. Following the same custom, Swami Brahmanand Saraswati nominated four persons, placed defendant-1 at first place in the line of succession. Learned men of KVP had nothing to do with such appointment or installation of successor and have no say in the matter. Death of Swami Krishna Bodhashram on 10.9.1971 was admitted but rest contents of paragraph 16 were denied. Possession of property by defendant in his own right as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya was admitted and allegations otherwise were denied. Filing of suit by Swami Krishna Bodhashram for possession of Peeth and its properties was admitted and rest contents of paragraph 18 were denied. Swami Krishna Bodhashram was never Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and had no right or title to nominate anyone as Shankaracharya and, in fact, he did not do so. He himself was not duly installed Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and was restrained by Court permanently to call himself or let other call him Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth in Original Suit 36 of 1965, decided by Civil Judge, Allahabad. Plaintiff's claim as Shankaracharya or that he could be installed as Shankaracharya, was also denied. Defendant-1 was installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 12.6.1953 and has been so recognized by public at large. He rightly asserted right to possess and protect property of Peeth. In additional pleas, defendant-1 said that Adi Shankaracharya was not and could not be author of "Mathamnaya" and 'Mahanushasan" and they do not contain Rules. It is only descriptive in nature. Shlokas quoted in the plaint do not find place in "Mathamnaya" of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Meaning ascribed to Shlokas is not correct. In any case, guidance given in "Mathamnaya" is only recommendatory and not mandatory. No direction or guidance is given in "Mathamnaya" of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Adi Shankaracharya nominated and appointed persons of his choice as Peethadhishwar and that is what has been done by Successors of different Peethas by nominating and appointing disciples as their Successors in whom they had confidence and considered most suitable. Usage and longstanding custom of all four Peethas of Shankaracharyas is that disciple nominated by ruling Shankaracharya is installed as Successor after death or retirement, as the case may be. On the death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati on 20.5.1953, defendant-1 being nominated as Successor and available for installation, left no occasion for treating Math as Uchhina (vacant) and assertion that there was situation of absence of Mathadhish is not correct. Further after installation of defendant-1 as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 12.6.1953 there was no question of installation of anyone else. Qualifications allegedly mentioned in Shlokas quoted in the plaint did not relate to any academic attainments nor can be publishable in the present age. They are not capable of assessment by Court of law. Only one's Guru- reigning Shankaracharya can assess them with authority. There cannot be any objective yardstick to measure objective qualities mentioned in the Shlokas quoted in the plaint. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati left his home at an early age of 9 years, being impregnated with feelings of detachment towards worldly affairs. He did not have the advantage of modern type of school education. Being a Sadhu by nature and a devotee, lying at the feet of his Guru, he was considered suitable and installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. He discharged duties and responsibilities of the said office most efficiently till his death. He made arrangement to ensure that Math does not go into a State of desolation again for at-least four generations to come and he was able to do this by grace and blessings of his Guru. He acquired and possessed property by purchase and other modes of transfer, before and after his installation as Shankaracharya. Properties held by him are in his own rights, in addition to small property received by him under the deed dated 11.05.1941. There is no restriction provided in the deed for nomination of Successor by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati nor it would have been contained otherwise. Said deed only handed over property to head of Math who is just a custodian. Swami Brahmanand Saraswati did not accept any monetary gifts or offerings from his disciples. He did not accept anything without making proper payment and whatever acquired was from his personal resources. A Sanyasi can hold and possess personal property and deal with the same for good and welfare of mankind (Loksangrah). Adi Shankaracharya had not oriented idea of Trust as understood in English law anywhere in his writings relating to four Mathas established by him. Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth was the type of institution where succession passes from Guru to Chela thorugh nomination by Guru and is a sort of "Maursi Math". He has full right to appoint his Successor Shankaracharya and there was no disability on his part in doing so. He executed his last 'Will' on 18.12.1952 of his own accord and freewill without any pressure and influence with full knowledge and in sound disposing state of mind. 'Will' was duly attested and executed. Swami Hariharanand also known as Swami Karpatriji, a disciple of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, started taking part in politics under the name and banner of Ram Rajya Parishad which was objected by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. Since Swami Karpatriji did not obey dictates of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, "Will" dated 18.12.1953 was executed to nominate Successor other than Swami Hariharanand. After death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati on 20.05.1953, the only question came up for consideration and unanimously decided, was to find out who was named as his Successor in his "Will", which was deposited with District Registrar, Allahabad in safe custody. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated for obtaining "Will" from the office of District Registrar, Allahabad. Defendant 1 was installed with due observance of procedure and ceremony befitting the occasion. Defendant-1 was neither at Kashi nor near it. He was called telegraphically for the purpose of ceremony by Sri Bal Krishna Misra, Secretary of Interim Committee and also of B.D.M., VNS. Defendant-1 was not a member of the aforesaid Interim Committee. The said Committee was constituted in a public meeting under the Presidentship of Swami Karpatriji Maharaj. Installation ceremony of defendant-1 took place at Brahmnivas, Sidh Giri Bagh, Varanasi. Defendant-1 is a Sanyasi and disciple of late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. He possessed all the good qualities and learning of knowledge desirable for the office of Jagat Guru Shankaracharya. In fact, plaintiff as well as Swami Karpatriji were expecting something else than what "Will" disclosed and therefore, Karpatriji set up a parallel claim through Swami Krishna Bodhashram for his own benefit. Plaintiff had all along an eye to usurp the office of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. He has all along been abusing the process of law by undesirable actions not suited to a Sanyasi. First such action was an application filed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. to obstruct function under the "Will" i.e. installation ceremony of defendant-1 but the same failed and ceremony actually took place. Thereafter, plaintiff set up a claim to contest defendant-1 in the Succession Certificate proceedings in Misc. Case No.44 of 1953 before District Judge, Allahabad but lost vide order dated 13.12.1955 passed by Civil Judge, Allahabad. His appeal also failed in High Court, vide judgment dated 31.07.1959 in F.A.F.O. No.20 of 1956. Thereafter, succession certificate was granted in favour of defendant-1. Next proceedings were initiated under Section 92 C.P.C. which resulted in filing of suit 3 of 1954 and another suit filed by Swami Krishna Bodhashram being suit 3 of 1963. In view of suit 3 of 1963 instituted by plaintiff himself, it was pleaded that suit 1A of 1974 was not maintainable, being barred by res judicata. Plaintiff is claiming to be a representative of Swami Krishna Bodhashram , hence present suit is also barred by Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. KVP has no right to install Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth nor B.D.M., VNS or any particular Sadhu or group of Sadhus have any right to appoint Shankaracharya. Plaintiff is a puppet of Swami Karpatriji and has been set up to harass defendant-1. Swami Krishna Bodhashram never had possession of property of a Math. In order to set up the said controversy at rest, defendant-1 filed a Suit 36 of 1965 against Swami Krishna Bodhashram which was decreed. Suit in question, therefore, is also barred for that reason by the principles of res-judicata. Plaintiff is not possessed of the qualifications, has no right to see any declaration. His conduct and act also justify denial of any relief by Court. Defendant-1 is a Sanyasi disciple of late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, duly qualified and nominated by last Shankaracharya, to be installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, and, even otherwise, he has full right to hold the said office and otherwise claim set up by plaintiff is not correct. Plaintiff is not in possession of property in suit i.e. property of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Defendant-1 is managing the property succeeded from Swami Brahmanand Saraswati and that of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.
89. We are informed that Suit 1-A of 1974 is still pending. An objection raised for stay of suit in question by filing application section 10 CPC but it has not been accepted by Trial Court and it has decided otherwise. We also find that all the three defendants have already died long back and therefore for all practical purposes above Suit must have abated. Arguments before this Court
90. Learned counsel for parties addressed this Court, orally, at length and matter has been heard on various dates; for about more than 2 months. Besides, parties, as requested, were also permitted to file their written submissions and both have filed voluminous written submissions in support of their respective contentions taking more than two months' time after the judgment was reserved. A large numbers of Reference books as well as precedents were cited at the Bar and also referred in written submissions, which we propose to deal with at appropriate stage in this judgment.
91. In brief, objections taken by Sri Goel to the correctness of judgment in appeal is based on the plea of Section 10 CPC contending that Original Suit No. 1-A of 1974 involving same matter is already sub-judice, therefore, suit in question, being subsequent, could not have proceeded and Trial Court erred in law in rejecting application of defendant-appellant to stay the suit. He further contended that suit in question rendered infructuous after installation of appellant as Shankaracharya on 14/15.11.1989, hence, was liable to be rejected but Trial Court erred in law in taking an otherwise view. He thirdly contended that issues in question relating to the office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth were already adjudicated between the parties under whom plaintiff-respondent claimed his right in the instant suit inasmuch Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 was already decided finally in which 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 was held valid, installation of Swami Shantanand Saraswati was also upheld and claim of Swami Krishnabodhashram was negated, hence in that view of the matter suit in question and issues raised therein are barred by principle of res-judicata and here also, Court below has erred in law.
92. He next contended that 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 was not challenged by plaintiff and no declaration was sought within the period of limitation, hence, challenge to same was barred by limitation. It, thus, was not open to plaintiff to challenge installation of appellant as Shankaracharya. He has indirectly assailed 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 though even directly it was not permissible having become barred by limitation. He also submitted that with regard to installation of plaintiff, there was no valid evidence, and, even otherwise, there was no pleading of material facts in the plaint with regard to alleged disqualification of appellant to hold the office of Shankaracharya and for that reason itself plaint deserves to be rejected and suit ought to have been dismissed.
93. Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocates, and Sri P.N. Mishra, Advocate, assisted by Sri Anoop Trivedi, who have argued the matter on behalf of plaintiff, not only replied the aforesaid arguments but pointed out that there are some other aspects also and advanced their arguments accordingly.
94. In brief, learned counsel for plaintiff argued that judgment in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 cannot be held res-judicata since appeal against judgment of Trial Court stood abated due to death of appellant, Swami Krishnabodhashram, and, hence, said judgment did not attain finality and could not have been treated as res judicata against plaintiff. With regard to disqualification and other deficiencies on the part of appellant in holding office of Shankaracharya it was urged that requisite pleadings were already available in the plaint and only sought to be detailed by amendment, hence, rejection of amendment of plaint would make no difference for the reason that such details could have been made available by adducing evidence to which there was no objection on the part of appellant and both the parties have led evidence in detail with regard to qualification, disqualification, if any, of both. The argument of appellant is without any substance. It is further pleaded that relief sought in the plaint is in two parts, on the first part an injunction is sought against the very act of installation since on the date when plaint was filed before Court below and registered, installation of appellant as Shankaracharya had not taken place but simultaneously relief sought in the plaint is wide enough to cover a situation where appellant is installed, then there is a request also to restrain him from working as Shankaracharya and to hold decorations meant for Shankaracharya, i.e., Danda, Chhatra Chanwar and Singhasan etc. It was pleaded that requisite pleadings were already available before Court below and argument with regard to absence of material facts is thoroughly misconceived.
95. Lastly on the question of installation, it was argued that enough evidence is available on record to show valid installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth and Court below has also recorded a finding in his favour which is based on evidence and nothing has been shown to be perverse or contrary to record. With regard to incompetence of appellant to hold the office of Shankaracharya, it is pointed out that qualifications are laid down in Mathamanya and Mahanusasanam, the two works of distinction, containing Rules and Regulations laid by Adi Guru Shankaracharya and fulfillment thereof is mandatory. A person who lacks such qualifications or requirements to become Shankaracharya, as provided in the said books, cannot hold Office or status of Shankaracharya, hence, appellant has rightly been injuncted by Court below vide judgment under appeal.
96. We have heard learned counsels, perused written submissions and considered various citations and reference books relied by them. We propose to consider the same in detail with respect to respective points for determination in the light of relevant evidence, reference books and citations relied by both parties. Marking of Documents as exhibit
97. Before proceeding further, one of the objections raised on behalf of appellant is with respect to documentary evidence. It is said that most of the documents have not been marked 'Exhibit'. Court below has not proceeded to admit document in evidence in accordance with procedure prescribed in the Rules. Therefore, here is a judgment which has been rendered on the basis of documents, not admissible in evidence, having not been marked Exhibits, hence, it is patently illegal, based on no legal evidence and, for this reason alone, judgment and decree in question deserve to be set aside.
98. We propose to deal with this aspect of the matter since 815 documents were filed before Trial Court in evidence by plaintiff -respondent and 361 documents were filed by appellant. It is really strange that documents have not been marked 'Exhibit'. Documents, when filed were given Paper Numbers. The same paper numbers have been referred in the judgment under appeal.
99. We do not find even any process of admission or denial of documents by other side as also process of marking of Exhibit by Court below in regard to such documents. Interestingly, we also do not find any objection on the part of either side, before Court below, with regard to admissibility of even a single document. Parties have addressed Court, it appears, on the basis of documents referring to Paper Numbers without any whisper towards objection that unless a document is exhibited and admitted in evidence, there is no question of treating it a valid evidence in the eyes of law for the purpose of deciding suit. By conduct both the parties have accepted procedure followed by Court below by treating documents filed and given paper numbers, constituting valid evidence for the purpose of deciding suit.
100. Whether at appellate stage, such objection should be entertained or allowed to be raised by either of parties and judgment of Trial Court can be held vitiated in law for considering documents which were not exhibited by Court below, is an issue which has to be seen by this Court. If decided in favour of appellant, as per objection raised by Sri Manish Goel, it will go to the root of the matter since this Court, then would have no option but to set aside judgment and remand the matter to Court below, otherwise we can proceed to decide appeal on merits.
101. In this regard, we find relevant provisions in C.P.C. as well as General Rules (Civil), 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "GR(C), 1957") applicable to subordinate Courts in State of U.P., with respect of the procedure to be followed in Civil Matters.
102. Procedure of filing suits and manner in which the same are to be tried and further provisions of appeal, revision etc. are broadly governed by CPC, a statute enacted by Central Legislation. Since District Courts are subordinate to High Court and procedural aspects can also be monitored by High Court under Section 122 C.P.C., hence power has also been given to High Court to frame Rules regulating procedure of Civil Courts subject to superintendence and by such rules annul, alter or add to all or any of the rules in the first schedule which contains various provisions, divided in 52 orders.
103. In exercise of supervisory powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 122 CPC, GR (C), 1957 have been notified in supersession of all existing Rules on the subject. These Rules have 28 Chapters dealing with different aspects of procedure to be followed not only in trial of civil suits etc. but also tell subordinate Courts, manner of maintenance of record of various proceedings and other administrative aspects.
104. Chapter III is one of the most important Chapter which deals with procedure of institution of suit, as to how it shall proceed. It also deals with appeals in general. Chapter III is sub-divided in nine parts, i.e., from (A) to (I).
105. Part (A) deals with parties to the proceedings; (B) with applications and pleadings; (C) with Documents; (D) Commissions; (E) Affidavits; (F) Adjournments; (G) Hearing of suit; (H) Transfer or withdrawal of cases; and, (I) Judgment and decree.
106. For the purpose of present matter, we are confining our discussion with respect to documents which were filed in Trial Court, as to how they would have dealt with, proceeded and exhibited for the purpose of deciding suit. Relevant rules in this regard are Rules 40 to 64 in Part C, Chapter III and the same have to be read with Order XIII CPC.
107. Order XIII deals with production, impounding and return of documents. Rule 1 thereof as it stands today, substituted by CPC Amendment Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Amendment Act, 1999") w.e.f. 01.07.2002. Earlier Rule 1 reads as under:-
"1. Documentary evidence to be produced at or before the settlement of issues.--(1) The parties or their pleaders shall produce, at or before the settlement of issues all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely, and which has not already been filed in Court, and all documents which the Court has ordered to be produced.
(2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced: Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs."
108. The substituted Rule 1 which is effective from 01.07.2002, reads as under:
"1. Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues.-
(1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed along with the plaint or written statement.
(2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced:
Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs.
(3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents--
(a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party; or
(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."
(emphasis added)
109. This is consistent with Order VII Rule 14 in respect of documents of plaintiff and Order VIII Rule 1A in respect of documents of defendants. Both these rules have also undergone amendment by substitution and Order VII Rule 14 and Order VIII Rule 1A, as inserted by Amendment Act, 1999, read as under:-
Order VII, Rule 14 before Amendment "Rule 14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues--(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint.
List of other documents.--(2) Where he relies on any other documents (whether in his possession or power or not) as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint."
Order VII, Rule 14 after Amendment "14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.-(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such documents not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document--
(a) produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or,
(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."
Order VIII Rule 1A (inserted by Amendment Act, 1999) "1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.- (1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set off or counter claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents--
(a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or
(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."
(emphasis added)
110. Order XIII Rule 1 now creates an obligation upon parties or their pleader to produce original documents on or before settlement of Issues. Order XIII Rule 2 earlier provided effect of non-production of documents but now by Amendment Act, 1999 it has been omitted. If primary evidence i.e. original document is not available and party intends to lead secondary evidence, then all conditions provided in Evidence Act have to be satisfied. Rule 3 permits a Court to reject a document at any stage of the suit which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible after recording grounds of such rejection. Rule 4 contemplates endorsement on the documents admitted in evidence and it has to be done by Court since such endorsement has to be signed or initialed by Presiding Officer of the Court. It reads as under:-
"4. Endorsements on documents admitted in evidence.- (1) Subject to the provisions of the next following sub-rule, there shall be endorsed on every document which has been admitted in evidence in the Suit the following particulars, namely:--
(a) the number and title of the suit,
(b) the name of the person producing the document,
(c) the date on which it was produced, and
(d) a statement of its having been so admitted;
and the endorsement shall be signed or Initialed by the judge.
(2) Where a document so admitted is an entry in a book, account or record, and a copy thereof has been substituted for the original under the next following rule, the particulars aforesaid shall be endorsed on the copy and the endorsement thereon shall be signed or initialed by the Judge." (emphasis added)
111. Order XIII Rule 5 provides for endorsement on copies of admitted entries in books, accounts and records. Rule 6 talks of endorsement of documents rejected as inadmissible. The Rules read as under:-
"5. Endorsements on copies of admitted entries in books, accounts and records.- (1) Save in so far as otherwise provided by the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (XVIII of 1891), where a document admitted in evidence in the suit is an entry in a letter book or a shop book or other account in current use, the party on whose behalf the book or account is produced may furnish a copy of the entry.
(2) Where such a document is an entry in a public record produced from a public office or by a public officer, or an entry in a book or account belonging to a person other than a party on whose behalf the book or account is produced, the Court may require a copy of the entry to be furnished--
(a) where the record, book or account is produced on behalf of a party, then by that party, or
(b) Where the record, book or account is produced in obedience to an Order of the Court acting of its own motion, then by either or any party.
(3) Where a copy of an entry is furnished under the foregoing provisions of this rule, the Court shall, after causing the copy to be examined, compared and certified in manner mentioned in rule 17 of Order VII, mark the entry and cause the book, account or record in which its occurs to be returned to the person producing it."
"6. Endorsements on documents rejected as inadmissible in evidence.- Where a document relied on as evidence by either party is considered by the Court to be inadmissible in evidence, there shall be endorsed there or the particulars mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 4, sub-rule (1), together with a statement of its having been rejected, and the endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the Judge." (emphasis added)
112. Order XIII Rule 7 CPC provides that documents which are admitted in evidence shall form part of record of suit. The documents not admitted in evidence shall not form part of record and shall be returned to the persons respectively producing them.
113. Order XIII Rule 8 CPC empowers Court to impound a document and keep in the custody of officer of Court, if it sees sufficient cause, for such period and subject to such conditions, as Court thinks fit.
114. Order XIII Rule 9 provides for return of admitted documents after suit is disposed of and, either time for filing appeal has expired or appeal has been disposed of. Proviso covers a situation where a document may be returned at any time earlier than the period provided hereinabove in certain conditions. Rule 10 states that Court may, of its own motion, and discretion, upon application of any of the parties to suit, send for, either from its own records or from any other Court, record of any other suit or proceeding, and inspect the same. Conditions applicable when such order is passed on the application, are contained in sub-rule 2 of Rule 10. Sub-rule 3 declares that Rule 10 shall not enable Court to use in evidence, any document which under the law of evidence would be inadmissible in suit. Rule 11 extends provisions relating to documents to all other material objects producible as evidence.
115. In the context of Order XIII CPC, further detailed provisions have been given under GR (C), 1957.
116. Rule 40 of GR (C), 1957 specifies the persons who may produce documents in the Court and says that it may be by parties, by persons, other than parties and on requisition issued by Court. Rule 41 imposes an obligation where the documents produced by party or his witness is in a language other than Hindi, Urdu or English and says that it shall be accompanied by a correct translation of the document in Hindi, written in Devnagri script. Such translation shall bear a certificate of party's lawyer to the effect that the translation is correct. If parties are not represented by a lawyer, Court shall have the translation certificate of any person appointed by it in this behalf at the cost of the party concerned.
117. Rule 42 of GR (C), 1957 contemplates that parties desiring to produce any document in Court, shall, before producing it in any Court, obtain admission or denial, recorded on back of the document by the opposite party's lawyer. If opposite party is not represented by lawyer, Court shall get admission or denial by the party in its presence and may, for the purpose, examine the party.
118. Rule 43 lays procedure of list of documents contemplated in Order VII Rule 14 and Order XIII Rule 1 CPC and says that such list of documents shall be in form (part IV-71). It further says that no document whensoever produced, shall be received unless accompanied by the said form duly filled up. In case a document is produced by a witness or person summoned to produce documents, form shall be supplied by the parties at whose instance the document is produced. It also requires that list as well as the documents shall be immediately entered in the general index.
119. If there is any erasures or additions in the documents, other than a registered documents or certified copy, Rule 44 of GR (C), 1957 states that such document shall be accompanied by a statement clearly describing such erasure, addition or inter- alienation and signed by such party. Reference to such statement shall be made in the list form (part IV-71) with which paper is filed.
120. Rule 45 is basically a provision for safety and convenience of perusal of documents when it is a small piece of paper or of historic value or written on both sides. It reads as under:-
"45. Small documents and documents of historic value.--Small documents when filed in Court shall be filed pasted on a paper equal to the size of the record, and the margin of the paper should be stitched to the file so that no part of the document is concealed by the stitching. If a document contains writing both on the front and the back, it should be kept in a separate cover, which should be stitched to the file at the proper place leaving the main document untouched."
121. When a party requires production of a public record, Rule 46 says that application shall be submitted by such party accompanied by an affidavit showing how such party requiring record has satisfied itself that it is material to the suit and why a certified copy of document cannot be produced or will not serve the purpose.
122. When a public record is ordered to be produced but its production require sanction of Head of Department, Rule 47 deals with such a situation and says as under:-
"47. Documents for production of which sanction of head of department is necessary.--When a Court decides that in the interests of justice it is necessary that it should have before it a document which cannot be produced without the sanction of the head of the department concerned, it shall in its order asking for such document set out as clearly as possible (a) the facts, for the proof of which the production of the document is sought; (b) the exact portion or portions of the document required as evidence of the facts sought to be proved. The Court summoning the document shall fix a date for its production, which should not be less than three weeks from the date of issue of summons."
123. Rule 48 deals with public record of different offices like Sub Registrar, Police, Municipal and District Board and Post Office and says as under:-
"48. Registers from Sub-Registrar's office.--(1) A summons for the production of any register or book belonging to the office of a Sub-Registrar shall be addressed to the District Registrar and not direct to the Sub-Registrar.
(2) Production of documents in police custody.-A summons for the production of documents in the custody of the police should be addressed to the Superintendent of Police concerned, and not to the Inspector General.
(3) Production of Municipal and District Board Records.-When duly authenticated and certified copies of documents in the possession of Municipal and District Boards15 are admissible in evidence, the Court shall not send for original records unless, after perusal of copies filed, the Court is satisfied that the production of the original is absolutely necessary.
(4) Post Office records not to be unnecessarily disclosed.-When any journal or other record of a post office is produced in Court, the Court shall not permit any portion of such journal or record to be disclosed, other than the portion or portions which seem to the Court necessary for the determination of the case then before it."
124. For summoning of settlement record, procedure is prescribed in Rule 49 and reads as under:-
"49. Settlement Records.--When a Court requires the production of any Settlement Record in which the Settlement Officer acted in a judicial capacity, it shall be summoned in the manner provided by Order XIII, Rule10. In other cases the procedure prescribed in Order XVI, Rule 6 shall be followed. The summons to produce such documents shall be issued to the Collector/Deputy Commissioner, who may send the document by messenger or registered post."
125. Rule 50 deals with payment of postage fee, travelling charges and other expenses for transmission or requisition of record etc. Rule 51 says that documents received by registered post, then the registered cover shall not be destroyed but shall be attached to the file of proceedings in the case to which the document is referred.
126. Then comes Rule 52 which says that all documents, must be received by the Court and must be dealt with in one or the other of three means i.e. (a) returned; (b) placed on record; and (c) impounded.
127. Thereafter Rule 53 imposes a duty upon Court to inspect documents as soon as they are produced before Court. It says that documents which are proved or admitted by party against whom they are produced in evidence, shall be marked as 'exhibit' in the manner prescribed in Rule 57 and this fact shall be noted in the record. The document which are not proved or not admitted by parties against whom they are produced in Court, shall be kept in record pending proof and shall be rejected at the close of evidence, if not proved or admitted. Documents that are found to be irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible in evidence shall be rejected forthwith. There is also a note under Rule 53 stating that no document unless admitted in evidence shall be marked as an exhibit.
128. Rule 54 of GR (C), 1957 clarifies that admission of genuineness is not to be confused with admission of truth of contents and reads as under:
"54. Admission of genuineness not to be confused with admission of truth of contents.-(1)When a certified copy of any private document is produced in Court, inquiry shall be made from the opposite party whether he admits that it is a true and correct copy of the document which he also admits, or whether it is a true and correct copy of the document which he denies, or whether it is a true and correct copy of the document the genuineness of which he admits without admitting the truth of its contents, or whether he denies the correctness of the copy as well as of the document itself.
Admission of the genuineness of a document is not to be confused with the admission of the truth of its contents or with the admission that such document is relevant or sufficient to prove any alleged fact. (emphasis added)
129. The expression which are to be used by parties while admitting or not admitting documents, is provided in Rule 55 and reads as under:
"55. Proper expression about admissions of documents.-Admission of a document by a party shall be indicated by the endorsement "Admitted by the plaintiff" or "Admitted by the defendant". Admission of a document in evidence by the Court shall be indicated by the endorsement "Admitted in evidence". If any question is raised as to the correctness of a copy and the correctness of its is admitted, the endorsement shall be "correctness of copy admitted". The use of the expression "Admitted as a copy" in endorsement on document is prohibited."
(emphasis added)
130. Rule 56 talks of documents filed in suits which are compromised or dismissed in default and says:
"56. Endorsement on documents in suits compromised or dismissed for default.-Documents filed in suits, which are dismissed for default or compromised, shall, before being dealt with in the manner provided in Rules 59 and 60 be endorsed with the particulars mentioned in Order XIII, Rule 4(i) and the result of the suit."
131. Rule 57 provides the manner in which marking is to be made in documents and reads as under :
"57. Marking of documents.-(1) Documents produced by a plaintiff and duly admitted in evidence shall be marked with a number, and documents produced by a defendant shall be marked with a number and the letter A, or, where there are more than one set of defendants by the letter A for the first set of defendants, by the letter B for the second, and so on. Where a document is produced by order of the Court and is not produced by any party, the serial number shall be prefaced by the words "Court Exhibit" or an abbreviation of the same.
(2) Where a document is produced by a witness at the instance of a party, the number of the witness shall be endorsed thereon, e.g., Ex.P.W.1 if it is produced by the plaintiff's first witness, and Ex.-A/D.W.1 if it is produced by the defendant's first witness.
(3) The party at whose instance a document is produced by a witness shall deposit the cost of the preparation of a certified copy of that document before it is placed on the record. The office shall then prepare a certified copy and keep it with the original document. If the witness wants to take back his document it shall be returned to him unless there are special reasons for keeping the original on the record.
Provided that a certified copy shall not be necessary where the document is written in a language other than Hindi or English, and a translation has been filed as prescribed by Rule 41. (4) Every exhibit-mark shall be initialed and dated by the Judge."
(emphasis added)
132. If a number of documents of same nature are admitted than the manner in which such documents are marked, is provided in Rule 58 as under:
"58. Marking of documents.- Where a number of documents of the same nature are admitted, as for example, a series of receipt for rent, the whole series should bear one figure or capital letter or letters, a small figure or letter in brackets being added to distinguish each paper of the series."
(emphasis added)
133. Rule 59 states that documents which are rejected as irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC or not proved, unless impounded under Order 13 Rule 8 or rendered wholly void or useless by force of decree, be returned to the person producing it or to the pleader and such person or pleader shall give a receipt for same in column 4 of list (Form Part IV-71).
134. Rules 60 and 61 of GR (C), 1957 deal with retention of impounded and certain other documents and care of impounded documents. Rule 63 talks with the manner in which documents are to be returned. Rule 64 specifically concerned with books of business and read as under:
"64. Books of business.-If a document be an entry in a letter book, a shop book, or other account in current use or an entry in a public record, produced from a public office or by a public officer, a copy of the entry, certified in the manner required by law, shall be substituted on the record before the book, account or record is returned, and the necessary endorsement should be made thereon, as required by Order XIII, Rule 5."
135. These are the provisions relating to procedure and have been designed to facilitate procedure for imparting justice. The procedural law is not to be dealt as a penal enactment and too technical construction thereof is not needed. This is what has been said by Hon'ble Vivian Bose, J in Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah and another, 1955(2) SCR 1 and we quote relevant observations as under:
"Now a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is procedure, something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends : not a Penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to both sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it."
136. Having said so, it also cannot be forgotten that the procedure laid down is not meant for defiance but has to be observed. Evidence is the foundation of every case since in our system of justice, disputes are decided, whether Civil or Criminal, on the basis of evidence which may be oral or documentary. Therefore, rules dealing with procedure as to how a document will become an evidence is of great importance and such procedure must be adhered. Normal requirement under Rules is that provisions relating to endorsement of document admitted in evidence should be strictly followed. The procedure of admission of a document as an evidence is not to be termed as a mere technical aspect inasmuch as evidence is basic foundation for deciding a civil or criminal case, as the case may be, and, therefore, an evidence must be exhibited strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Rules, since that is the procedure consistent with principles of natural justice so that no party to the proceedings is taken by surprise or suffers on account of consideration of a material which was inadmissible in evidence or not proved or not admitted in evidence but still relied for deciding the matter as the same would render the judgment erroneous having relying on a material which is not admissible in evidence. There may be cases where though procedural aspects have been observed in substance and there may be some error which may not go to the root of the matter and that may not be taken by the superior Court, in the facts and circumstances of a given case, to hold judgment of lower Court as vitiated in law but normal rule is adherence to the procedure prescribed in rules so that no such occasion may arise.
137. In the past, on different occasions and in particular in the light of facts of those cases, deviation in process of marking of evidence or admitting of documents has been allowed to stay and has not vitiated proceedings but a close scrutiny of such matters will reveal that such occasions existed due to peculiar facts of those matters. In order to avoid injustice to one or other party Courts have not held a document inadmissible at a later stage but general law is that in order to make a document, exhibit, procedure prescribed under rules should be adhered to.
138. Even Legislature has intervened by amending Order 13 Rule 1 and now parties have to file documentary evidence in original. This is clearly with the intention to avoid any scope of filing fictitious, manufactured or otherwise vitiating documents, particularly when scientific development has made things much easier to create any kind of manipulation in a document very conveniently. Courts are under a duty that before it treat a document, evidence, it should follow the procedure strictly. Unless a document is admitted or proved as evidence and marked 'exhibit', same obviously should not be relied to decide a dispute. Marking of mere paper number and decision of a case on that basis is not correct as it leaves to guess whether case is decided on legally admissible and proved evidence or not. It may amount to render a decision on the basis of documents inadmissible in evidence.
139. In Sadik Husain Khan vs Hashim Ali Khan and others, 1916 ILR (38) All 627, Judicial Committee said:
"Their Lordships, with a view of insisting on the observance of the wholesome provisions of these Statutes, will, in order to prevent injustice, be obliged in future on the hearing of Indian appeals to refuse to read or permit to be used any document not endorsed in the manner required."
(emphasis aded)
140. In Secretary of State vs. (Shrimati) Sarla Devi Chaudhrani, AIR 1924 Lahore 548 followed in Hari Singh vs. Firm Karam Chand-Kanshi Ram, AIR 1927 Lahore 115 and Imam-ud-Din and Anr. vs. Sri Ram Perbhu Dial, AIR 1928 Lahore 142, it was said that documents admitted on record without making endorsement prescribed by Rules cannot be regarded as having been brought on record, legally, before Court.
141. In Feroze Din and Ors. vs. Nawab Khan and others, AIR 1928 Lahore 432, Court said that documents should not be endorsed until they are proved. Sometimes Court may mark a document as an exhibit without having it proved.
142. In Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others vs Yelamarti Satyam alias Satteyya and others, AIR 1971 SC 1865, Court said that merely marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of documents. It was followed in Sitaram vs. Ram Charan and Ors. AIR 1995 MP 134.
143. There are some exceptions. Where document was duly proved before a Commissioner appointed to take evidence and endorsed by him and it became part of record though Trial Court did not endorse it as required by it under Order 13 Rule 4, but for such document in Ma Fatima and others vs. Momin Bibi and others, AIR 1929 Rangoon 211, it was held that such a document would be admissible in evidence and cannot be rejected for mere failure of Trial Court to endorse as exhibit.
144. This Court also in Bal Mukandji Maharaj vs. Gokaran Singh and another, AIR 1956 All 124 observed that a document tendered in evidence which was also admitted by other side without objection should not be excluded merely because no exhibit mark was given to it.
145. In one matter, photocopies were filed and their admission in evidence was not objected by other side. Court said that any subsequent objection to admissibility of such document cannot be allowed in appeal. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and another, 2003(8) SCC 752, Court said:
"The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The later proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the made of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons; firstly, it enables the Court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the Court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the Court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove in the later case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in superior Court." (emphasis added)
146. The above view has been followed and reiterated in Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries) and others, 2010(8) SCC 423.
147. Construing Order 13 Rule 4 CPC in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder (supra), Court also observed:
"Order 13 Rule 4 of the CPC provides for every document admitted in evidence in the suit being endorsed by or on behalf of the Court, which endorsement signed or initialed by the Judge amounts to admission of the document in evidence. An objection to the admissibility of the document should be raised before such endorsement is made and the Court is obliged to form its opinion on the question of admissibility and express the same on which opinion would depend the document being endorsed as admitted or not admitted in evidence. In the latter case, the document may be returned by the Court to the person from whose custody it was produced." (emphasis added)
148. It also expressed its agreement with the decision in Roman Catholic Mission v. The State of Madras and another 1966(3) SCR 283, taking a view that a document, not admissible in evidence though brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. The above decision has been referred to recently in Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta vs. New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2015 SCC (9) 755.
149. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder (supra) and Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. (supra) photocopies/xerox copies were relied and admitted in evidence. Since not objected by other side before Trial Court, Court did not allow an objection regarding admissibility of such documents as evidence in subsequent proceedings in appeal before Superior Court.
150. These rules of procedure, as already said, should be followed strictly though not in a manner so as to cause any injustice to either of party and sometimes variation therein may not affect ultimate result in rendering the judgment illegal or bad in law, provided facts in that case show that no prejudice has caused to other side as appropriate opportunity for objection was not taken. Such instances should not be a rule but an exception. In general practice, an honest and serious observance of requirement of rules is expected to be followed and Trial Court should proceed in the matter, accordingly.
151. Having a retrospect of relevant statutory provisions, judicial precedents, practice and procedure of marking the documents as Exhibits, we are constrained to observe that Court below in the case in hand, has proceeded in a wholly irregular manner by not following various provisions relating to admission of evidence and marking of such documents as are proved and admitted in evidence, "exhibits". The documents have not been processed as provided in various statutory provisions as discussed above. Had it been a case of one or two documents, indeliberate mistake on the part of Court below could have presumed, but a wholesale defiance to the said procedure leads us to infer that Court below was ignorant of such procedure.
152. We find it strange that Presiding Officer(s) of Trial Court is/are not well conversant with the manner and procedure in which a document must be admitted and accepted in evidence. It is difficult to conceive that a judicial officer can proceed in such a reckless and careless manner. Either such an officer can be termed as wholly ignorant of relevant statutory procedural provisions, dealing with the manner in which a suit has to be decided or one is extremely careless not to pay attention to these statutory and mandatory provisions. We are constrained to make above observation for the reason that recently in a large number of appeals, we have come across, similar flaw has been noticed. It gives an impression that either officers in Subordinate Courts are not being given proper training or there is something otherwise wrong on their part in not adhering to the Rules and procedure with respect to admission and marking of documents as exhibits, so as to render the same valid piece of evidence. Let our observations be communicated to all subordinate Courts.
153. At this stage, we may also refer to some of the authorities heavily relied by Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel for appellant, in support of his submission that the judgment and decree is vitiated in law as the evidence relied was not validly admitted in accordance with procedure prescribed in the Rules.
154. Sri Manish Goel argued that photographs without negative and paper cuttings were inadmissible evidence and Court below relying thereon has erred in law and these findings are based on documents, inadmissible in evidence and to that extent findings are based on no evidence at all. He placed reliance on Samant N. Balkrishna and another vs. George Fernandez and others, 1969(3) SCC 238; Laxmi Raj Shetty and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1988(3) SCC 319; and, Quamarul Islam vs. S.K. Kanta and others, 1994 Supp.(3) SCC 5.
155. Dispute in Samant N. Balkrishna and another vs. George Fernandez and others (supra) has arisen from an election petition wherein Sri George Fernandez was declared elected from Bombay South Parliamentary Constituency of Lok Sabha in the elections held in February, 1967 which was challenged by Samant N. Balkrishna, an elector in the Constituency on various grounds including allegations of corrupt practice. Election petition was dismissed by High Court and that is how the matter reached Supreme Court. Therein certain allegations of false publication of a news item in 'Maratha' was pleaded in election petition so as to constitute corrupt practice on the part of returned candidate through its agent but a direct allegation of corrupt practice against returned candidate was sought to be added which was not approved by Supreme Court. In para 47 of the judgment, in the context of news item published in newspaper 'Maratha', Court observed as under:
"A news item without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a secondhand secondary evidence. It is well-known that reporters collect information and pass if on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible." (emphasis added)
156. Court also observed that trial of an election petition is made in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure but a corrupt practice must be proved in the same way as a criminal charge is proved. An election petitioner must exclude every hypothesis except that of guilt on the part of returned candidate or his election agent. When a corrupt practice is alleged against a returned candidate through his agent, consent of returned candidate has to be proved or election petitioner must go further and prove that the result of election in so far as returned candidate is concerned, was materially affected. In para 48 of judgment, Court said that a newspaper reporting a meeting, does so as part of its own activity, and there can be no inference of consent. What was necessary, had to be pleaded and proved, that Mr. Fernandez said this and this. Newspaper reports could be taken in support but not independently. Here the plea was not taken at all and evidence was not direct but indirect. We do not find the aforesaid judgment to be of any assistance to learned counsel for appellant particularly when it has been rendered in the context of specific requirement of election laws as is pointed out by Court in para 33 of judgment, which reads as under:
"33. To begin with it must be realised that as is stated in Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh and others, 1954 SCR 892-895 the statutory requirements of the law of Election in India must be strictly observed. It is pointed out in that case that an election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but a purely statutory proceeding unknown to common law and that the Court possesses no common law power. Although the power of amendment given in the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked because Section 87 makes the procedure applicable, as nearly as may be to the trial of election petitions, the Representation of the People Act itself enacts some rules, which override the Civil Procedure Code. General power of amendment or the power derived from the Code of Civil Procedure must be taken to be overborne in so far as the election law provides. In a large number of cases it has been laid down by the High Courts in India that the material facts, must make out a charge and it is only then that an amendment to amplify the charge can be allowed or new instances of commission of corrupt practice charged can be given. If no charge is made out in the, petition at all the addition of particulars cannot be allowed to include indirectly a new charge." (emphasis added)
157. Court also referred to specific requirement of pleadings in statute pertaining to election, available in India, so as not to go by the otherwise law applicable in other matters.
158. Laxmi Raj Shetty and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) was a decision rendered, arising from a trial and conviction under Section 302 IPC and award of sentence of life imprisonment to convict. Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel for appellant relied on paras 20, 25 and 26 of the judgment. In an incident of robbery and murder of Manager of a Bank appellant, Laxmi Raj Shetty was convicted under Section 302 IPC with death sentence by Trial Court and under Sections 392 and 449 IPC imprisonment for seven years each. High Court confirmed death sentence and other sentence under Section 302, 392, 449 IPC and matter went in appeal to Supreme Court. There was no direct evidence in the matter and conviction and sentence founded on circumstantial evidence. Reliance on newspaper reports was placed by convict which was objected by State contending that unauthenticated news items in press cannot be treated to be a credible evidence for either convicting or acquitting a person in a Court of Law. Accepting argument of State, Court said that in cases where evidence is purely of circumstantial nature, facts and circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and circumstances so established should not only be consistent with the guilt of accused but they must in their effect be such as to be entirely incompatible with innocence of accused and must exclude a reasonable hypothesis with his innocence. In para 20 of the judgment, Court said:
"It is therefore well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first intance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
159. Rejecting argument advanced on behalf of convict relying on newspaper reports, in para 25 of judgment, Court said:
"We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspapers is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspapers report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein."
(emphasis added)
160. Further in para 26 of judgment, Court said:
"26. It is now well-settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspapers is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. The accused should have therefore produced the persons in whose presence the seizure of the stolen money from appellant no. 2's house at Mangalore was effected or examined the press correspondents in proof of the truth of the contents of the news item. The question as to the admissibility of newspaper reports has been dealt with by this Court in Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez & Ors., [1969] 3 SCR 603. There the question arose whether Shri George Fernandez, the successful candidate returned to Parliament from the Bombay South Parliamentary Constituency had delivered a speech at Shivaji Park attributed to him as reported in the Maratha, a widely circulated Marathi newspaper in Bombay, and it was said:
"A newspaper report without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second-hand secondary evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible."
We need not burden the judgment with many citations. There is nothing on record to substantiate the facts as reported in the newspapers showing recovery of the stolen amount from the residence of appellant no. 2 at Mangalore. We have therefore no reason to discard the testimony of PW 50 and the seizure witnesses which go to establish that the amount in question was actually recovered at Madras on the 29th and the 30th as alleged." (emphasis added)
161. The third decision relied by Sri Geol is Quamarul Islam vs. S.K. Kanta (supra). It is again a dispute arising from an election petition under R.P. Act, 1951. Election of Quamarul Islam from 10 Gulbarga Assembly Constituency held in September, 1992 was challenged on the ground of corrupt practices. Reliance was placed on speeches allegedly made by returned candidate published in certain news papers. In para 48 of judgment Court said:
"48. Newspaper reports by themselves are not evidence of the contents thereof. Those reports are only hearsay evidence. These have to be proved and the manner of proving a newspaper report is well settled. Since, in this case, neither the reporter who heard the speech and sent the report was examined nor even his reports produced, the production of the newspaper by the Editor and publisher, PW4 by itself cannot amount to proving the contents of the newspaper reports. Newspaper, is at the best secondary evidence of its contents and is not admissible in evidence without proper proof of the contents under the Indian Evidence Act. The learned trial judge could not treat the newspaper reports as duly 'proved' only by the production of the copies of the newspaper. The election petitioner also examined Abrar Razi, PW5, who was the polling agent of the election petitioner and resident of the locality in support of the correctness of the reports including advertisements and messages as published in the said newspaper. We have carefully perused his testimony and find that his evidence also falls short of proving the contents of the reports of the alleged speeches or the messages and the advertisements, which appeared in different issues of the newspaper. Since, the maker of the report which formed basis of the publications, did not appear in the Court to depose about the facts as perceived by him, the facts contained in the published reports were clearly inadmissible. No evidence was led by the election petitioner to prove the contents of the messages and the advertisements as the original manuscript of the advertisements or the messages was not produced at the trial. No witness came forward to prove the receipt of the manuscript of any of the advertisements or the messages or the publication of the came in accordance with the manuscript. There is no satisfactory and reliable evidence on the record to even establish that the same were actually issued by IUML or MYL, ignoring for the time being, whether or not the appellant had any connection with IUML or MYL or that the same were published by him or with his consent by any other person or published by his election agent or by any other person with the consent of his election agent. The evidence of the election petitioner himself or of PW4 and PW5 to prove the contents of the messages and advertisements in the newspaper in our opinion was wrongly admitted and relied upon as evidence of the contents of the statement contained therein."
(emphasis added)
162. Aforesaid decisions, as we have already discussed, were rendered in the facts and circumstances of each case and also on provisions of Evidence Act and in the light of discussions made above we find that these authorities do not help the appellant. Moreover, findings of Court below on the issues of installation of parties in the office of Sankaracharya, as claimed, are not solely founded on newspapers and photographs and moreso parties have not even denied those documents before Court below. Now for the first time this objection is being raised before this Court in appeal, hence in view of discussion made above, we do not find it justified to reject documents, relied by Court below, by holding the same inadmissible in evidence since not marked 'exhibit', when no such objection was taken before Court below and evidence in the form of paper number has been relied by both sides.
163. Any otherwise view would have required us not to proceed in the matter further and send the matter back to Court below for re-trial after admitting documents in accordance with procedure prescribed in law, but since, in the present case, neither parties have taken any objection in Court below during trial and on the contrary have relied on the all the documents in one or the other way, following dictum in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder (supra) and Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. (supra), we do not find it appropriate to allow appellant to raise this objection for the first time at appellate stage. When both the parties prosecuted the matter in Court below on the basis of these documents treating same as admissible evidence, taking into account paper numbers, in the absence of any objection on their part in Court below, we find it justified to treat it admission on the part of respective parties and, therefore, all documents are held admissible in evidence and deserve to be marked 'exhibits', if not already marked.
164. Even otherwise, we find this objection, hyper technical, and an attempt to take an advantage at appellate stage when defendant has lost the matter before Trial Court, pleading a failure on the part of Trial Court in marking documents, Exhibits, though both parties, through their witnesses, have proved various documents filed by them in various ways. Strictly speaking, it may be said that some or all the documents have not been properly proved but still, fact remains, that witnesses of both sides have proved documents in their depositions. They have also been cross examined on such statements proving documents. Regarding admissibility of documents as evidence, no objection, whatsoever, has been taken at all. The endeavor on the part of both parties to prove their documents through their witnesses, we may elaborate, not in entirety, but to some extent so as to fortify our findings in this regard.
165. In order to prove various photographs, on behalf of plaintiff, PW-36, Kamla Pati Tiwari, a photographer; and, PW-37, Satya Narain, a photographer and videographer, have been examined. Similarly on behalf of appellant, DW-40, Ram Niranjan Singh, a photographer, has been examined. Most witnesses were produced by both parties in support of fact that installation of respective parties actually took place as Shankaracharya on dates, they claimed, and to prove it, various Abhinandan Patras, Registers and other documents were produced. To prove those documents, most witnesses have been adduced by both sides.
166. Some of the documents proved by plaintiff's witnesses are referred as under:
(i) PW 2 proved papers no. A-2, A-3, A-4, and photos no.7, 36, 117 and 196.
(ii) PW 4 proved papers no. C-4, C-5, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-24, C-30, C-34, C-40, C-42, C-52, C-58 and Paper B-2, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-8 and B-24.
(iii) PW 5 proved papers no. A-19, A-20, A-21, A-23, A-39, A-40, A-41, A-42, A-63, A-73.
(iv) PW 8 proved papers no. A-16, D-1 and Photo no. 248.
(v) PW 11 proved papers no. A-8 to A-11
(vi) PW 12 proved papers no. A-8 to A-11, 43, D-9, A-1, A-12, A-7, D-12, D-13, D-16.
(vii) PW 13 proved papers no. A-1, A-4 and D-16
(viii) PW 15 proved paper no. B-25
(ix) PW 16 proved paper no. B-56
(x) PW 18 proved papers no. B-12 and C-54
(xi) PW 19 proved papers no. B-34 , C-60, C-61, D-76, D-77
(xii) PW 20 proved papers no. A-1, A-2, A-3, A-43, D-16, D-17, D-21
(xiii) PW 21 proved papers no. 62-A
(xiv) PW 22 proved papers no. A-1 to A-5, A-7 to A-12, A-16, A-17, A-19 to A-25, A-1 32 to A-35, A-37, A-38, A-44, A-45, A-51, A-54, A-57, A-64, A-66, A-67, A-75, A-76, A-77, A-78 A-30, A-31, A-58 to A-59, A-65 to A-70, B-1, D-80, D-60, D-52, D-44, Photo D-71, D-34, D-33, D-11, D-28, A-50.
(xv) PW 23 proved papers no.B-18, B-62 to B-65, A-29 and photographs appended to his affidavit.
(xvi) PW 24 proved papers no. D-7, D-8, D-20, D-25, D-31, D-75 to D-77, D-80.
(xvii) PW 25 proved papes no. A-39 to A-42, D1 to D-6, D-8, D-9, D-12, D-13, D-14, D-18 to D-20, D-22 to D-27, D-29 to D-32, D-34, D-36 to D-43, D-45-D-47, D-51, D-53 to D-55, D-57, D-61, D-65 to D-68, D-70, D-74, D-78, D-79, B-5, B-9, BG-16, B-28, B-29, B-32, B-35, B-40, B-41, B-43, B-47 to B-49, B-68 to B-73, B-76 to B-79, A-44 to A-48, C-10 to C-13, C-18, C-19, C-38 C-39, C-44, C-45, C-49.
(xviii) PW 27 proved papers no. B-80, D-7, D-42, D-74.
(xix) PW 29 proved paper no. A-14.
(xx) PW 31 proved papers no. A18, A-24 to A-27, A-74, F-20, F-21, F-1 to F-10.
(xxi) PW 32 proved papers no. A-15.
(xxii) PW 33 proved papers no. 538-C/125 to 538C/134, 538C/141 to 538C/149.
(xxiii) PW 34 proved papers no. A-19 to A-23, A-39 to A-42, A-44 to A-48, A-52 to A-54, A-63, A-72, A-73, A-61, B-2, B-3, B-7, List 3, File-4 paper no. 117 , 120, 121 132, 134, 140.
(xxiv) PW 35 proved papers no. List 3 File-3- paper no. 40 to 59, 61 to 81, 86 to 90, 92 to 111; List 3 File 4- paper no. 112 to 389, List 3 File 5- paper no. 390 to 709; List 3 File-6 paper 710 to 789; List 3 File-2 papers no. 40 to 59, 61 to 81, 86 to 90, 92 to 97, 76, 77, 77/1, 77/2; List 3 File-3 paper no. 98 to 111; List 3 File-4- paper 112 to 132, 134 to 142, 144 and so on.
(xxv) PW 37 proved various photographs.
(xxvi) PW 42 proved handwriting reports paper no. 839K/1 to 839Ka/10.
167. Similarly, witnesses of appellant also proved documents filed on his behalf, some of which are as under:
(i) DW 1 has proved Photo no.151/02 of File No.2/3 of List-2, photo no.225 of File No.2/4 of List , photos of Swami Swaroopananad Saraswati and Swami Nischayanand, wherever it is in register no.2/4, photo no.D/6 of Register D.
(ii) DW 2 has proved 298-C, 298-C/1 to 298C-/7
(iii) DW 3 has proved 19C/1 to 19C/10, 40C, 41C and 42 C.
(iv) DW 4 has proved first photo of Register A-28, Register A, Paper no.26, Register AA-16, photo no.2.
(v) DW 8 has proved Register no. A/16 to A/46.
(vi) DW 9 proved paper no. 19C/3
(vii) DW 10 has proved Papers no. B-37, B-38, B-42, B-43, B-45, B-46, B-50, B-51, B-52, B-53, B-58, B-59, B-60, B-64, B-65, B-66, B-40, B-42, B-40, B-42, B-40, B-42,B-40, B-42.
(viii) DW 14 has proved Paper no. B-71 of Register-B, Book paper no.340A.
(ix) DW 15 has proved Paper no. B-61, B-62 and B-66 of Register-B.
(x) DW 16 has proved Register Paper No. A/2C.
(xi) DW 19 has proved has proved photo paper no. Register A-1- Photo no. 49 (2nd), 50 (1st), 51 (1st), 52-A, 53 (2nd), A-51, 53.
(xii) DW 21 has proved photos paper no. A-16 (1st), A-16 (2nd), A-17(2nd), A-17(3rd), A-18(1st), A-18(2nd), A-19 (1st), A-19(2nd), A-20 (1st), A-20(2nd), A-21(1st), A-21(2nd), A-22 (1st), A-22(2nd), A-23(1st), A-23(2nd), A-24(1st), A-24(2nd), A-25 (1st), A-25(2nd), A-26(1st), A-27(1st), A-27(2nd), A-28 (1st), A-28(2nd), A-29(1st), A-29(2nd), A-30(1st), A-30(2nd), A-31(1st), A-31(2nd), A-32 (1st), A-32(2nd), A-33(1st), A-33(2nd), A-34(1st), A-34(2nd), A-35 (1st), A-35(2nd), A-36(1st), A-36(2nd), A-37(1st), A-37(2nd), A-38 (1st), A-38(2nd), A-39(1st), A-39(2nd), A-40(2nd), A-41(1st), A-41(2nd)A-42(1st), A-42(2nd), A-43 (1st), A-43(2nd), A-44(1st), A-44(2nd), A-45 (1st), A-46(1st), A-46 (2nd), A-46(3rd), A-47(1st), A-47(2nd), A-48 (1st), A-48(2nd), A-49(1st), Register C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6.
(xiii) DW 23 has proved paper no. 159-C.
(xiv) DW 28 has proved paper no. 159-C
(xv) DW 33 has proved paper no. 708-A, photos A/21-1, A/43-1, A/52-1, 48A/1 and 48A/1,48A/2 and 41C.
(xvi) DW 37 proved photos no. A-63(1st) and (2nd) to A-71(1st), D-1 to D-65, B-28 to B-30, B-35, C-48, D-1 to D-22, D-24 to D-26, D-28, D-47, D-29 to D-31, D-36 to D-40, D-42, D-44, D-47, D-49, D-56, D-58, D-59, D-65, B-1 to B-73.
(xvii) DW 38 proved Register paper no. A-24.
(xviii) DW 39 proved A-57 to A-59, A-64, A-67, A-70.
(xix) DW 40 proved Register A-16 to A-49, A-52, A-54.
168. In this backdrop, we find no such substantial irregularity in the case in hand which may render the judgment vitiated in law for non marking of documents as "exhibits", and, hence, we reject objection of Sri Manish Goel in this regard. We have already passed orders in this regard directing Registry to mark documents as 'exhibits' in the presence of counsel for parties during hearing of the case subject to final result. We are giving our reasons hereat and thus have dealt with this aspect of the matter. The documents have been marked as 'exhibits'. We would refer documents, both, by paper number as well as exhibit number. Points for Determination and Adjudication:
169. Now we proceed to consider points for determination as have arisen on rival submissions and proceed to adjudicate the same.
170. The first point for determination is, position of "Shankaracharya, his antiquity, his philosophy, work carried out by him for propagating Sanatan Dharma, his influence over followers of Sanatan Dharma and position and status of Shankaracharya and his Peethas vis a vis the persons occupying those Peethas in the eyes of Hindu followers of Adi Shankaracharya's philosophy".
171. Second point for determination which we propose to discuss simultaneously is, "whether for installation of any person to head the Peethas established by Adi Guru Shankaracharya, are there any set of discipline, Rules and Regulations"?
172. Incidental to the aforesaid question, Third Point for determination would be, "whether Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan are written work containing and prescribing Regulations laying down mode, manner, eligibility and other instructions for selection and installation of an appropriate person to Head the said Peethas". About Adi Shankaracharya
(a) Origin
173. In regard to origin of Adi Shankaracharya and his antiquity there are two views and difference goes to the extent of about 1200 years. One view takes us back to 476 B.C. to 507 B.C and other view relates his origin to 680 A.D. to 788 A.D. With regard to his place of birth and parents there is no noticeable difference. Interestingly, so far as this Court is concerned, both the parties agree to the history, accepting origin of Adi Shankaracharya, in and around, 500 B.C.
174. Historical work of one "Pt. Harikrishna Raturi" Former Minister of Tehri (Princely State), titled as "Garhwal ka Itihas" published in 1928 by Garhwali Press, Dehradun, second edition published in 1980 by Bhagirathi Prakashan Grih, Suman Chauk, Tehri, relied by appellant and not disputed by plaintiff, may be referred hereat. In Chapter 15 pages (128-131) learned author has given description of corresponding social deformities when Adi Shankaracharya was born and has illuminated great work done by him. Some relevant extracts thereof read as under:
"^blh izdkj tc ifo= cq) /keZ esa Hkh le; le; ds vkpk;ksZa ds cqf) okn vFkok foykflrk cqf) ls vusd er Hksn gksrs pys x;s] lc ls izFke pkj er i`Fkd~ i`Fkd~ ckS)ksa ds chp gq;s ftlls mudh pkj 'kk[kk fofHkUu erokn fy;s cu xbZA buds pkj fl)kUr okfn pkj 'kk[kk ,d dk uke oSHkkfod] nwljh dk uke ek/;fed] rhljh dk uke ;ksxkpj vkSj pkSFkh dk uke lkS=kfU=d FkkA budh pkj 'kk[kkvksa ds pkj ny Hkh i`Fkd~ i`Fkd cu pqds FksA"
"Likewise, when differences resulted in pious Budhism, on account of intellectualism/rationalism and lustful approach of Acharyas of various period, first of all, four different philosophies of Budhism emerged among Budhists, as a result whereof, four streams came into existence with different intellectualism. Names of four branches reflecting the four principles, were first-Vaibhavik, Second- Madhyamik, third-Yogachar and fourth Sautrantrik. Four different Sects of these four branches had also come into being."
"bleas dksbZ lUnsg ugha fd ml dky Hkkjro"kZ esa Hkh blh izdkj cq) /keZ Hkh Xykfudkjd fl)kUrksa dk izpkj gks pqdk gksxk rHkh fdlh nwljh nSoh 'kfDr ds vkfoHkkZo gksus dh ckjh vkbZA "
"There is no doubt in it, that in that era, when miserable principles of Buddhism had been publicized, it led to emergence of any other divine power."
";|fi ;g dgk tk pqdk gS fd Hkkjro"kZ ls lukru /keZ lewy u"V ugha gks x;k Fkk ftldk izek.k gS phuh ifFkd QkbZ;ku tks lu~ 400 bZ0 esa vkSj fgoUlax tks 629 bZ0 esa Hkkjr Hkze.k ds fy;s vk;s Fks o izR;sd uxjksa esa] tgka tgka os x;s vkSj jgs ckS)ksa vkSj muds Lrwiksa&eBksa dk vkSj lukru /kehZ vkSj muds nsoefUnjksa dk o.kZu vius lQj ukeksa esa fy[kk gSA rFkkfi ckS)ksa dk tksj vf/kd Fkk blfy;s fd jktk yksx izk;% cq) /kekZoyEch cu pqds FksA ely gS] ^^;Fkk jktk rFkk iztk*] lc 'kkld bl /keZ dks jkT; /keZ eku cSBs FksA"
"Though it has been said that Sanatana Dharma had not been uprooted from India, which is evident from (travel accounts of) Chinese Traveller Fa-Hien who had visited in 400 AD and Hiuen Tsang who visited India in 629 AD and have described in their travel-accounts about Buddhists and their Stupas, Mathas, followers of Sanatan Dharma and their God's temples, existing in each of cities, where they went and lived. Still, influence of Buddhists was greater, therefore, most of kings had adopted Buddhism. Idiom goes, "as the King, so are the subjects". All rulers had recognized it as national religion."
"cq) nso dh ifo=kRek ds LoxZ pys tkus ds i'pkr~ tc cq) /keZ esa ije O;fHkpkj yxHkx lglz o"kZ ds i'pkr vk x;k rc bl Hkkjro"kZ ds m)kj ds fy;s ,d nSoh 'kfDr ds vorh.kZ gksus dh vko';drk gqbZA og nSoh 'kfDr ,d fHk{kqd ekuoh thou esa vkfoHkwZr gqbZ tks lalkj ds bfrgkl esa Lokeh 'kadjkpk;Z ds uke ls izfl) gSA ftuds fy;s fgUnqvksa dk fo'okl ^^'kadj% 'kadj% lk{kkr~ O;klksa ukjk;.kks gfj%**A blh 'kfDr us bl izd`fr ls gh ifo= Hkkjr dks.......lukru /keZ dk >.Mk Hkkjro"kZ esa Qgjk;kA osnksa dh bTtr gksus yxhA "
"100 years after heavenly abode of Lord Buddha, fornication/immorality crept in Buddhism, then need of emergence of a divine power arose for emancipation of India. That divine power manifested through a human, leading beggar's life, who is famous by the name of Shankaracharya in the history of world, for whom belief of Hindus "Shankarh Shankarah, Sakshat Vyaso Narayano Harih" (in fact Shankaracharya is real Lord Shankar, Vyas's Narayan/Hari). This very power, through this nature, after liberating the people of this pious India........has hoisted flag of Sanatan Dharma in India. Vedas were being honoured."
"'kadjkpk;Z nf{k.k eykokj ns'k esa ,d czkg~e.k ds ?kj mRiUu gq;s Fks vkSj buds xq: dqekfjy fcgkj ns'k ds ,d czkg~e.k Fks ftudk uke xksfoUnkpk;Z FkkA "
"Shankaracharya was born in a Brahimn family in South Malabar Region and his Guru (Teacher) was a Brahmin of Bihar, whose name was Govindacharya."
",d xzUFk esa ;ksa fy[kk gS fd 'kadjkpk;Z 11 o"kZ dh voLFkk eas cnfjdkJe esa pys vk;s FksA 5 o"kZ cnjh ou esa fuokl fd;kA ;gka 16 Hkk"; osnksa ij fy[ks vkSj T;ksfrZeB dh LFkkiuk dhA vkSj fd os 8 o"kZ dh voLFkkesa prqosZnh] 12 o"kZ dh voLFkk esa loZ 'kkL= lEiUu gks pqds FksA 16 o"kZ dh voLFkk esa Hkk";ksa dh jpuk dh Fkh] 32 o"kZ dh voLFkk esa mudk nsgkolku gqvk FkkA"
"It is so written in a book that shankaracharya had gone to badrikashram at the age of 11 years and lived there for five years. There he authored 16 commentaries on Vedas and established Jyotirmath. At the age of 8, he had become 'Chaturvedi' (knower of Four Vedas) at the age of 12, he had become well versed in all Shastras (religious authorities. At the age of 16, he authored commentaries and at the age of 32 years he left for heavenly abode." (English Translation by Court)
175. With regard to period of origin of Adi Shankaracharya, same author, "Hari Krishna Raturi" in "Garhwal ka Itihas" (supra) has written as under:
Lokeh 'kadjkpk;Z dk le; vHkh dqN Hkh fuf'pr ugha gqvk gSA ^f'ko jgL;* xzUFk esa fy[kk gS fd dfy;qx ds 3 gtkj o"kZ O;rhr gks tkus ij cq) /keZ ds fo/oal djus okys 'kadj ;rh dk mn; gqvk FkkA Period of Swami Shankaracharya has not been determined so far. In the book "Shiv Rahasya" it is written that after passing of 3000 years of Kaliyug, Saint Shanker, destroyer of Buddhism, was born.
bl fglkc ls 2019 o"kZ 'kadj ds le; dks gksrs gSa vFkkZr~ fodzeh lEor~ ls 44 o"kZ iwoZ vkSj bZlk ds 101 o"kZ iwoZ 'kadj dk gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA In this view of the matter, period of Shankar dates back 2019 years since today, i.e., 44 years prior to commencement of Vikrami Samvat and 101 years prior to beginning of A.D. gaVj lkgc ds bfrgkl esa 'kadj dk le; bZlk dh ukSoh 'krkfCn esa fy[kk gSA ftl fglkc ls 1109 o"kZ gksrs gSaA ijUrq ;g ys[k fcYdqy lansg tud gS] vkSj laHko gS fd gaVj lkgc dks fdlh eBkf/ki txn~xq: 'kadjkpk;Z dk irk yxk gks] tks 'kadjpk;Z ds f'k"; lEiznk; esa 'kkjnk] J`axsjh] izHk`fr eBksa ds eBkf/kifr gksrs gSaA mudh Hkh 'kadjkpk;Z laKk gksrh gSA In the history of Hunter Saheb, period of Shanker is written as 9th century AD, according to which, his period dates back to 1109 years. But this article is wholly doubtful and it may be possible that Hunter Saheb might have come to know about some Mathadhip Jagat Guru Shankaracharya (Shankaracharya installed on a Math, who hailed from the sect of followers of Shankarcharya and being appointed as Mathadhipati of Sharda, Sringeri, Prabhriti Mathas.
jktk f'koizlkn vius ^^bfrgkl frfej uk'kd** uked iqLrd esa 'kadj dk Hkkjr esa ml dky gksuk fy[krs gSa tc fd vjc esa eqgEen lkfgc /keZ izpkj dj jgs FksA bldks yxHkx 1335 o"kZ gksrs gSaA King Shiv Prasad in his book "Itihas Timir Nashak' writes the period of Shanker at the time, when Mohammad Saheb was propagating Muslim Religion in Arab which dates back to 1335 years.
dkfynkl dk tUe 24 fodzeh lEor~ crykrs gSa] ftlus 'kadj fnfXot; fy[kk gS ijUrq vk/kqfud bfrgkl osRrk fo}ku dkfynkl dk le; 500 ls 550 bZ0 esa cryk;s gSa vkSj 'kadj dk le; 800 ls 900 bZ0 ds chp crykrs gSaA dkfynkl Hkh nks gq, gSa ifgyk og tks egkjkt fodze dh lHkk ds uojRuksa esa FkkA nwljk og tks i'pkr~ Hkkst jkt ds le; esa mudh lHkk dk Hkw"k.k FkkA rc u ekywe 'kadj dk fnfXot; fiNys dkfynkl us fy[kk] ;k ifgys dkfynkl usA ijUrq tgka rd fofnr gksrk gS fd fiNys dkfynkl us gh fy[kk gksxk tks /kkj ds jktk Hkksst ds ikl] tks eqat ds HkkbZ dk iq= Fkk] jgk gS D;ksafd /kkj ds Hkkst jktk dk le; 1010 bZ0 ls 1053 bZ0 esa ik;k tkrk gSA Birth of Kalidas is said to be in 24 Vikrami Samvat according to writer of "Shanker Digvijay" but modern historians and scholars states the period of Kalidas in 500-550 AD and period of Shanker between 800-900 A.D. There had been two Kalidasas, who was one of nine jewels in the Court of Maharaj Vikram and thereafter, the other who was the jewel in the Court of Maharaj Bhoj. Thus, it is not known by whom "Shankar Ka Digvijay" was written, whether by subsequent Kalidas or earlier Kalidas. But so far as, it appears, it should have been written by later Kalidas who was a jewel in the Court of King Bhoj of Dhar, who was the son of Munj's brother, because period of King Bhoj of Dhar is considered to be between 1010-1053 AD.
cMkSnk jkT; ds nQ~rj esa tks dkxt i= feys gSa muls fofnr gksrk gS fd 'kadjkpk;Z ;qf/kf"Bj 'kd 2631 ¼bZlk ls 476 o"kZ iwoZ½ esa gq;sA 2636 ;qf/kf"Bj 'kd dh pS= d`".k f}rh;k dks mudk miu;u gqvk FkkA dkfrZdonh ,dkn'kh dks ;qf/kf"Bj 'kd 2639 dks vkB o"kZ dh vk;q esa os lU;klh gq;s Fks] nwljs lky egkjkt xksfoUnkpk;Z ls HksaV gqbZ FkhA 33 o"kZ dh vk;q esa ;qf/kf"Bj 'kd 2663 dkfrZd dh vekoL;k dks mudk nsgkUr gqvkA iwoksZDr fl)kUr dh iqf"V }kfjdk eB ls feys ys[kksa ls Hkh gksrh gS ijUrq iqjkrRo osRrkvksa dk fo'okl bu dkxt i=ksa ij Hkh ughaA ,sfrgkfld izek.kksa ls os 'kadjkpk;Z dk gksuk vkBoha 'krkCnh esa fl) djrs gSa] ijUrq iw.kZ :i ls os fl) ugha dj ldrsA From the documents discovered from the Office of Baroda Estate, it appears that Shankaracharya emerged in Yudhisthir Shaka 2631 (476 B.C.). His Upnayan ceremony was performed in Chaitra Krishna Dwitiya, Yudhisthir Shaka 2636. At the age of 8 years, Ekadashi, Kartik Vadi, Yudhisthir Shaka 2639, he became Sanyasi, next year came in touch with Govindacharya. At the age of 33 years on Kartik Amavasya, Yudhisthir Shaka 2663 he left for heavenly abode. The aforesaid finding is supported by articles found from Dwarika Math but the archaeologists do not believe these documents as well. By historical evidences, they try to prove the period of Shankaracharya in 8th century but but cannot prove wholly. (English Translation by Court)
176. The said author has also discussed about period of death of Adi Shankaracharya and difference among historians on this aspect, as under:
,sls gh 'kadjkpk;Z dh e`R;q ds fo"k; esa Hksn ik;k tkrk gS] gaVj dh rkjh[k esa 32 o"kZ dh voLFkk esa ¼tSlk fd ,d xzUFk esa fy[kk gS½ mRrj fgeky; dsnkjukFk esa 'kadjkpk;Z dk nsgkUr gksuk fy[kk gSA vke yksxksa dk dFku gS fd 33 o"kZ dh voLFkk esa ¼tSlk fd cMkSnk ds nQ~rj ds dkxtksa esa fy[kk gS½ d'ehj ns'k esa 'kadjkpk;Z dk nsgkolku gqvk FkkA ;g ekywe ugha fd dkSu lh ckr lR; gSA Similarly, there are differences in opinion about the death of Shankaracharya. According to Hunter, death of Shanker is written at the age of 32 years (as written in a book) in Kedarnath, North Himalaya. People say that at the age of 33 years (as noted in documents recovered from the office of Baroda Estate), Shankarcharya died in Kashmir." (English Translation by Court)
177. Similarly in "Amit Kal Rekha", a research work of Sri Parmeshwar Nath Mishra, Advocate published by Shankaracharya Parampara Evam Sanskrit Rakshak Parishad, Vrindavan Complex, Aruna Apartment, 4, Station Road, Liliua, Howrah, First Edition, June 2001, antiquity of Adi Shankaracharya has been traced to 507 B.C. According to the aforesaid research work, Adi Shankaracharya was born on Baishakh Shukla Panchami, Shak Samvat 2631 corresponding to 507 B.C. in Village Kaladi, District Ernukuram (now in State of Kerala) and left this world in Yudhisthir Shak Samvat 2663 corresponding to 475 B.C.
178. In Brahma Sutra Bhashya, said to have been authored by Adi Shankaracharya, there is a reference of two big cities namely, Strughn and Patliputra. The relevant "Bhrahma Sutra Bhashya" reads as under:-
^^ufg nsonRr% lzq?us lafu/kh; ekuLrngjso ikVfyiq=s·fi lafu/kh;rs ;qxinusd= o`RrkousdRo izlax% L;kr~ nsonRr ;KnRr;ksfjo lzq?u ikVfyiq= fuokfluks%A**"
vFkkZr~& lzq?u esa orZeku nsonRr mlh fnu ikVfyiq= esa orZeku ugha jgrk gS vkSj ,d dky esa vusd rUrq esa iV ds jgus ij vusd iV dh izlfDr gS] tSls fd lzq?u vkSj ikVfyiq= ds fuoklh nsonRr o ;KnRr esa vusdrk jgrh gSA "Present Devdutt cannot reside in Srughna and Patliputra the same day and like a cloth containing different threads reflects diversity in unity, in the same way, there is diversity between Devdutt and Yagyadutt, the residents of Srughna and Patliputra".
^^;ks∙fi lzq?ukUeFkqjka xRok eFkqjk;k% ikVfyiq=a oztfr lks∙fi lzq?ukRikVfyiq=a ;krhfr 'kD;rs ofnrqe~A rLekr~ ^izk.kLrstlh*fr izk.klai`DrL;k/;{kL;SoSrRrst% lgpfjrs"kq Hkwrs"ooLFkkue~A** vFkkZr~& tks Hkh lzq?u ls eFkqjk tkdj eFkqjk ls ikVfyiq= tkrk gS og Hkh lzq?u ls ikVfyiq= tkrk gS ,slk dgk tk ldrk gSA blfy;s ^izk.kLrstfl* blls izk.k lEc) tho dk Hkh rst lgpfjr Hkwrksa esa ;g voLFkku gSA "Whosoever having visited Mathura from Srughna and goes to Patliputra, it may be called so that he goes from Srughna to Patliputra. Therefore, 'Pranastejasi', i.e, the status of living creature, also is the same as of other similar creatures having radiance." (English translation by Court)
179. Patliputra was a very well developed city as referred by Chinese Traveler "Fahien" in his travels account, who is said to have visited India in 400-411 A.D. It is said that Pushppur was the capital of Ashoka and city has his palace and conference house. It was the biggest city of Madhya Desh. The residents were rich. Another Chinese foreign traveler "Hwen Ts'ang" came to India in 630-644 A.D. and mentioned that during his visit, Kusumpur or Patlipurta cities were virtually non-existent and only some walls were found. The reminiscence of city of Ashoka were spread in an perimeter of 14 miles, meaning thereby that Patliputra was already extinct before 630 AD. If that is so, period of Adi Shankaracharya could not be the period of 788-820 A.D., making a reference of Patliputra city in the manner as aforesaid, since that city was virtually non existent at that time. It takes the period of Adi Shankaracharya, in any case, much before 630 A.D. With regard to Strughan also, Chinese traveler "Hwen Ts'ang" has written that it was on the western bank of Yamuna River in the area of 20 Lie, but had destroyed long back.
180. In order to point out origin of Adi Shankaracharya in 400-500 BC, a reference is made to the commentary of Adi Shankaracharya on "Mandukya Upanishad" 1.2 English Translation by "Swami Gambhiranand" Published by Advait Ashram, Kolkata. Therein "Karshapana" has been mentioned as currency in use of his time, relevant portion of which reads as follows:
"Self is possessed of four quarters, like a Karshapana, but not like a cow."
181. According to "Cunningham", "Karshapana" coin was in use from 1000 BC while according to Dr. A.S. Altekar, Dr. S.K. Chakroberty and Prof. Vasudev Upadhyay, at least from 800 BC. During archaeological excavations, 'Karshapana' coins have been obtained in black polished earthen pots; and on the basis of Carbon 14 dating, those pots have been ascertained of about 600 BC. As such, it is needless to say that "Karshapana" coins kept in those pots are much older. In 'Ashtadhyayi' Panini, in 'Maha Bhashya' Patanjali, and in 'Kamasutra' Vatsyayan have mentioned "Karshapana" coins as currency in use in their respective period.
182. In Naneghat inscription of queen Nayanika, wife of King Satakarni, in Nasik inscription of son-in-law of Shak Chhatrap Nahpan, and, in another Nasik inscription of Ishwarsen Abhir, 'Karshapana' has been mentioned as currency in use. According to Dr. Bhandarkar, date of said inscription of Ishwarsen Abhir is Shak Era 119 corresponding to 197 AD. This is the last South Indian inscription in which 'Karshapana' has been mentioned as currency in use and after that not in a single inscription of South Indian kings Karshapana currency has been mentioned.
183. So far as North India is concerned, in the inscriptions from the period of Emperor Ashoka i.e. 3rd BC to inscriptions of King Vishnugupta of 6th AD, not in a single inscription, "Karshapana" has been mentioned. Instead, "Karshapana", in those inscriptions- 'Hiranya', 'Puran', 'Suvarn' and 'Dinar' coins have been mentioned as currency in use. In Damodarpur [III] Copper plate inscription of Gupta Era 163 equivalent to 482 AD, 'Hiranya' and 'Dinar' have been mentioned as synonyms of each other. According to Archaeologist Dr. Ramsharan Sharma, there is not a single inscription of 6th AD to 12th AD, wherein 'Karshapana' has been mentioned.
184. Professor Vasudev Upadhyaya and Dr. Parmeshwarilal Gupta are unanimous in concluding that in Northern India, till 2nd BC, and in Southern India, till 2nd AD, "Karshapana" were seldom in use whereafter use of "Karshapana" was totally stopped.
185. Dr. Vashudev Upadhyay concludes that "Karshapna" was in use in all over India prior to Mauryas' reign i.e. 4th BC. As such, Adi Shankaracharya who used 'Karshapana' in his Commentary to make the true purport of Sacred Text easily understandable for the people of entire India, was certainly present in the 5th BC. Advent of Adi Shankaracharya cannot be imagined in 788 AD as during that period 'Karshpana' coins were not in use.
186. The antiquity of Shankaracharya has also been related by Pt. Harikrishna Raturi with reference to Temple of Sri Badrinath. In his Book 'Garhwal ka Itihas' (supra), he has written that according to an inscription of Badarinath Temple, said Temple was built by Shankaracharya 2380 years back, (452 B.C.), though mentioned in the book as (Vikrami Samvat 76). We find here that in calculation, writer has committed an error of a few years which transpired from his own statement contained in the said book to the effect that according to the documents preserved in the records of Baroda State it is known that Adi Shankaracharya was born in Yudhisthir Shak 2631 corresponding to 476 BC. In fact Yudhisthir Shak 2631 is equvalent to 507 BC as such there is 31 years shortage in its conversion by Sri Raturi. We get 492 BC as the real date of construction of aforesaid Temple which matches with old records or traditions of 'Peeth' established by Adi Shankaracharya. Four Copper plate Inscriptions procured from Pandukeshwar Temple, management whereof was under Badarinath Temple, substantiate antiquity of said temple as those inscriptions are certificate of land granted by Kings of the Kushali Dynasty in Vardhaman Vijairaj Samvatsar 4, 21, 22 and 25 respectively in favour of Badarinath Temple. Those inscriptions are in antique Pali, which was prevalent from 4thBC to 5thAD. In the inscription of "Subhiksharaj Kushali" bearing Vardhaman Vijairaj Samvatsar 4, his father has been projected more benevolent than 'Shesh' 'Bali', 'Vaikartan' [Karna], 'Dadhichi' and 'Chandragupta'. In the said history it has been stated that Rajpal, King of that region was descendent of 'Parikshit' and contemporary of king 'Vikramaditya' of Ujjain, the founder of Vikaram Samvat and after his dynasty, region was ruled over by kings of 'Panwar Dynasty'. It shows that Kushali dynasty ruled that area some times between 3rd BC and 1st BC.
187. However, in "The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust", written by AC Sen, 5th Edition, learned author dates back antiquity of Adi Shankarcharya to 700 or 600 AD. Most recent Researchers and Authors have also accepted period of Adi Shankaracharya in 600-700 AD and some have referred to his period of birth from 688 AD or 788 AD. With regard to his death, all are agreeable that he lived for 32 years and died at an early age.
188. The relevancy to find out origin of Adi Shankaracharya is to understand content and meaning of various aspects propagated and defined by him, in the light of scriptures prevalent at that time, but we find ourselves short of expert in this regard to give a final opinion in the presence of different versions. Be that as it may, we are not proposing to record any final opinion with regard to antiquity of Adi Shankaracharya since for our purposes, factum of his work i.e. establishment of Peethas and directions issued by him with regard to continuous management thereof would be relevant and therefore, we are confining ourselves to this aspect only.
(b) Works and stature/position among Sanatan Dharma followers/devotees.
189. It is a common case that Adi Shankaracharya established four Peethas to protect, preserve and propagate knowledge of Supreme Self (Bahm) i.e. Vidya and facilitate people to move from 'Avidya' (worldly knowledge) to 'Vidya' and thereby attain salvation. As such to interpret the purport of the said greatest Preceptor, it is necessary to know about the tradition of Vedas.
190. Elaborating on the stature of Adi Shankaracharya for Hindu Santan Dharma followers and devotees, both the parties are ad idem that Adi Shankaracharya was a 'Vibhuti' or 'Mahima', i.e. "Divine Majesty (glory). In ordinary sense, it may also be termed as 'Daiviya Padavi', i.e. 'Divine status', 'position'.
191. Sri Padmacharya, one of four principal disciples of Adi Shankaracharya, and first Acharya and Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Goverdhanmath Puri, in "Panch Padiaka" has said that rLeknxz.kh% f'k"Vkpkjifjikyus Hkxoku~ Hkk";dkj%A (amongst men of righteous conduct of Lord Shankaracharya Interpreter is foremost). In the tradition of non-dualistic denomination, Adi Shankaracharya is often referred and called as "Bhagvatpad" and "Bhagwan Bhashyakar". One who possesses six attributes namely lordliness, prowess, fame, beauty, knowledge, non-attachment is Bhagwan or one who knows the origin, dissolution, the bondage and salvation of creatures, knowledge, ignorance is "Bhagwan". As all these attributes and knowledge were possessed by Adi Shankaracharya, he is called "Bhagwan".
192. Whom people call 'Bhagwan'? In "Srimadbhagwatgita" Arjun first asked Lord Krishna to tell him, his, Divya Vibhutinam i.e., Divine Glories:
oDrqegZL;'ks"kss.k fnO;k g~;kRefoHkwr;% A ;kfHkfoZHkwfrfHkyksZdkfuekaLRoa O;kI; fr"Bfl AA16AA "So you alone are capable of enlightening me well on your glories by which you pervade and dwell in all the worlds." (Interpretation by Paramhans Swami Adgadanand) ^^viuh fnO; foHkwfr;ksa dk iw.kZr;k o.kZu djus esa ¼vki gh½ leFkZ gSa&vkidh tks foHkwfr;kW gS]a ftu foHkwfr;ksa ls vFkkZr~ vius egkRE; ds foLrkj ls vki bu lkjs yksdks dks O;kIr djds fLFkr gks jgs gS] mUgsa dgus esa vki gh leFkZ gSaA** "You only are capable to explain your divine glories completely/extensively- i.e. by virtues of your divine glories the entire universe is pervaded by yourself." (Hindi and English translation by Court)
193. So Lord Krishna while starting the description, told, that he would tell him His Divine Glories in brief and said:
^^gUr rs dFkf;";kfe fnO;k g~;kRefoHkwr;% A izk/kkU;r% dq:Js"B ukLR;Urk foLrjL; esAA 19AA "The Lord (then) said, I shall now tell you of the power of my glories, for there is no end to my diverse manifestations." (Interpretation by Paramhans Swami Adgadanand) ^gs dq:oaf'k;ksa esa Js"B ! vc eSa rq>s viuh fnO;&nsoyksd esa gksus okyh foHkwfr;kWa iz/kkurk ls crykrk gwWa vFkkZr~ esjh tgkWa&tgkWa ij tks&tks iz/kku&iz/kku foHkwfr;kWa gSa] mu&mu iz/kku foHkwfr;ksa dk gh eSa iz/kkurk ls o.kZu djrk gwWaA lEiw.kZrk ls rks os lSdM+ksa o"kksZa esa Hkh ugha dgh tk ldrh] D;ksafd esjs foLrkj dk vFkkZr~ esjh foHkwfr;ksa dk vUr ugha gSA** "O, great amongst Kuruvansis, I now explain my divine glories of divine worlds, i.e. the important glories perceptible at various places. I shall mainly describe those divine glories. Though they cannot be explained in entirety even in hundreds of years because there is no end to my pervasion or my divine glories." (Hindi and English translation by Court)
194. And then Lord said that 'among the Gods, I am Indra, among the Rudras, I am Shankar, among the men, I am King, among the wielders of weapons, I am Rama, among rishis, I am Vasudeo, and among Muni, I am Vyasa I am 'Adnhyatmvidya' i.e. knowledge of the Self.
195. A reference is made to Chapter 10 verses 31 and 42 of Srimadbhagwatgita, which read as under:
^^iou% iorkefLe jke% 'kL=Hk`rkege~A >"kk.kka edj'pkfLe lzksrlkefLe tkg~uohAA31AA** "Of the purifiers, I am air; among the wielders of weapons I am Ramas. Among fishes too, I am the Shark, I am Ganga among flowing rivers. (31)"
^^vFkok cgquSrsu fda Kkrsu roktqZuA fo"VH;kgfena d`RLuesdka'ksu fLFkrks txr~AA42AA** "Or, on the other hand, what is the need of your knowing this extensively, O Arjuna? I remain sustaining (pervading) this whole creation in a special way with a part (of myself).(42)" (English translation by Court)
196. At last, Lord said:
;|f}HkwfreRlRroa JhenwftZreso ok A41A rRrnsokoxPN Roa ee rstks·'klEHkoe! AA41 "Know whatever is possessed of glory, beauty and strength has arisen from my own splendour.(42)" (Interpretation by Paramhans Swami Adgadanand) ^^lalkj esa tks&tks Hkh inkFkZ foHkwfreku~&foHkwfr;qDr gSa rFkk Jheku~ vkSj ÅftZr ¼'kfDreku~½ vFkok Jh&y{eh] mlls ;qDr vkSj mRlkg;qDr gSa mu&mudks rw eq> bZ'oj ds rstkse; va'k ls mRiUu gq, gh tkuA vFkkZr~ esjs rst dk ,d va'k&Hkkx gh ftudh mRifRr dk dkj.k gS] bu lc oLrqvksa dks ,slh tkuA** "The substances which are blessed with divine glories and is attached with and powered by Him (Almighty) or Shree-Laxmi and embodied with courage, you know the same as having been produced by a part of My Tej (radiance of Almighty). That means the cause of their birth is a component of my radiance, thus you should know." (Hindi and English translation by Court)
197. Renowned ascetic and non-ascetic scholars in their respective translation of above mentioned couplets of Srimadbhagwatgita have translated Sanskrit word 'Divya Vibhuti' as 'Divine Glory' 'Divine Majesty'.
198. Similarly, in "Mahabharata", Divine Glories of Lord Shiva have been enumerated as follows: "you assume the form of Indra, amongst Yogis you are Nishkal Shiv, amongst Rishis you are Vashishtha, you are Bhagwan, Sarvajna (Omniscient), Nigrah (he who restrains and subjugates), Brahma, Shankar, Shankar-adhan (Shankar who has no wealth), Vishnu Mundi (shaven head) or Dandi (who has the well known badge of renunciation viz the stick) Guru (great Lord or preceptor), Brahmadanda Vinirmata (maker of Brahman's rod), Brahmavid Brahman (who knows meanings of Vedas and devoted to Brahm i.e. Brahmajnani), Vyas.
199. All the above scriptural glories of Lord Shiva are source of religious belief of ascetics and devotees who follow religious path shown by Adi Shankaracharya, They treat Adi Shankaracharya as one of the 'Vibhutinam' (glories or majesties or manifestations) of 'Lord Shankar'.
200. Traditional religious belief since last thousand and more years is also recorded in "Shankar Digvijaya". It records that 'Sage Vyasa' declared 'Adi Shankaracharya' unique incarnation of Lord Shiva.
201. In brief, both the parties are in agreement on the stature/authority of "Adi Shankaracharya" that Adi Shankaracharya is a Divine Majesty i.e., "Daiviya Padvi" of an incarnation of Lord Shankar and it is not an office or post, as we understand these terms, in common parlance. In other words, "Adi Shankaracharya" is not like an ordinary Mahant or Mathadhipati but a living diety of a Religious Kshetra and his monastery is religious capital thereof, as centre of traditional knowledge, from which areas, he is authorized only to ask for alms and not wealth.
202. Now coming to installation on seats of learning for propagating Vedic tradition and teachings of Upnishads, we find that 'Adi Shankaracharya" propagated philosophy of Advait. He had a very short span of life of 32 years. He became 'Renouncer' at the age of 8 years and, became proficient in Vedas, its subsidiaries and all scriptures at the age of 12 years. He wrote commentaries on 'Prasthana Trayee-Upanisads, Brahma-Sutra and Gita', authored so many original works, explained meaning of the "Vishnu Sahasranama" etc. at the age of 16 years.
203. Acharya Shankar i.e. "Adi Shankaracharya", defeated several giant disputants in debate/discourse upon scriptures, foremost of whom was scholar Mimamsak (interpreter) of ritualistic school of Vedas, Sri "Mandan Mishra" and his learned wife 'Bharati'. After being defeated, "Mandan Mishra", who is considered to be an incarnation of Lord Brahma, became his disciple and renamed by Adi Shankaracharya, as "Sureshwaracharya" alias 'Vishwaroop'. (Source of Sri Shankar Digvijaya/Sarga 7 to 10 pages 219-370). With regard to status of Shankaracharya, even appellant's witness DW-3, Sri Omkar Nath Tripathi, has deposed as under:
^^Hkxoku vkfn 'kadjkpk;Z th ds bu ihBksa dh LFkkiuk djrs gq;s Hkkofu"Bkfor :i ls vkns'k fd;k Fkk fd bu pkjksa ihBksa ds vkpk;ksZa dks esjs gh :i esa ekuk vkSj le>k tk;sA yxHkx 250 o"kksZa iwoZ lukru oSfnd /keZ esa Hkxoku ds :i esa lgt Lohdk;Z ,oa ekU; iwT; 'kadjkpk;Z th egkjkt dk n'kZu gks eSa vkfn dh ............. ml le; ugha dj ik;k ysfdu muds }kjk LFkkfir pkj ihBksa ds vkpk;ksZa dks viuh gh rjg ekuus dh mudh vkns'kkRed ekufHkR;fDr esjs eu ,oa vkRek dh ;g fo'okl fnykrh jgs fd vkfn 'kadjkpk;Z th egkjkt }kjk LFkkfir mu pkj ihBksa ij tks Hkh vkpk;Z ihBklhu gks rks mUgha ds :i gksaxsA^^ ¼isij ua0&905 d] ist&588&589½ "It had been ordered in good faith while establishing these peeths by Bhagwan Aadi Shankaracharya Ji that Acharyas of these four peeths be considered and recognized as my epitome. About 250 years ago, I could not have darshan of the readily accepted and recognized form of Almighty at that time ...... but his imperative command with respect to refrainment from self-ego and to recognize the Acharyas of four Peeths established by himself, may assure my mind and soul that the Acharya whoever is seated on those four Peeths established by Adi Shankarcharya Ji Maharaj, must be like him (Paper no.-905 Ka, page 589).
(English Trnslation by Court)
204. Similarly, plaintiff's witnesses PW-3, Sri Kameshwar Nath Mishra and PW-41, Sri Shanker Dev Chaitanya Bramchari, have deposed as under:
PW-3 Sri Kameshwar Nath Mishra (X):
^^;g fd vk| xq: 'kadjkpk;Z fu%lansg fo'o ds vf}rh; nk'kZfud FksA vr% mUgksaus LokHkkfod :i ls ;g ifjdYiuk dh fd muds }kjk LFkkfir fd, x, pkjksa eBksa dk vkpk;Z muds ¼vk| xq: 'kadjkpk;Z ds½ izfrfuf/k ugha vfirq lk{kkr~ mudk Lo:i ¼vkfn 'kadjkpk;Z½ gh gksaxsA tks vkfnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z ds ^eBkEuk;&egkuq'kklue~* esa nh xbZ fuEufyf[kr O;oLFkk ls Li"V gS%& ^^vLeRihBlek:<% ifjozkMqDry{k.k%A vgesosfr foKs;ks ^;L; nso* bfr Jqrs%AA** ¼fufnZ"V vgZrkvksa ls lEfUor lU;klh esjs ¼LFkkfir½ ihB ij vfHkf"kDr gksus ij og ^^eSa gh gwWa**½ vFkkZr eSa 'kadjkpk;Z gh mlds :i eas gwW ;gh dkj.k gS fd pkjksa ihBksa ds vkpk;ksZa ds vius uke gksrs gq, Hkh os 'kadjkpk;Z gh gSaA blh dkj.k ls pkjksa ihBksa ds 'kadjkpk;Z vius dks fo'oxq: vFkkZr txn~xq: dgus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA^^ ¼isij ua0&428 d] ist&2798½ "That, Aadya Guru Shankaracharya was undoubtedly unparalleled philosopher of the world therefore he had envisaged naturally that Aacharyas of the all four Maths were not his(Aadya Guru Shankaracharya) representative but they will be his personified form(Aadi Shankaracharya) only which is clear from the following provision given in Shankaracharya's 'Mathamnay-Mahanushasanam':-
"Asmatpeethsamaarudh parivraduktlkshnam.
Ahmeveti Vigyeyo 'yasya dev' iti shruteyh.
(If a Sanyasi integrated with set eligibility is crowned at the Peeth, that is me only") It means, that is me, Shankaracharya, only in his form and that's why the Aachryas of all four Peeths are Shankaracharyas only in spite of having their own names. By that reason only, Sahnkaracharyas of all four Maths are entitled to call themselves Vishwaguru ie; Jagadguru." (English Translation by Court) PW-41 Sri Shanker Dev Chaitanya Bramchari (XX):
**ns'k esa pkj ihB gSa vkSj pkj 'kadjkpk;Z gSaA** ¼isij ua0&626d] ist&516½ "There are four Peethas and four Shankaracharyas in the country." (English Translation by Court)
205. Even the appellant himself as DW-3 has deposed about the authority and status of Shankaracharya and establishment of four "Amanya Peethas" by him, which is corroborated by DW-31 and DW-37 as under:
DW 3 Swami Sri Vasudevanand Saraswati (Appellant) ^^ Some two and a half thousand year ago, while suppressing the real principles of Sanatan Dharma; those who were preaching against the Vedas were in dominating state. Everywhere in the coutnry, the authenticity of the Vedas was doubted by non-believers (Atheists) Charvak, Jains, Kapaliks, Buddhists etc.; yagyadik karm (sacrificial) practices were discarded; and the principle of Ekatmawad (non-dualism) was almost extinct.(Paper No. 661 Ka, Page 49) ^^Hkxoku 'kadjkpk;Z dk izknqHkkZo ;qf/kf"Bj laor 2631 oS'kk[k 'kqDy iapeh dks gqvkA ek= 11 o"kZ dh voLFkk esa leLr fo/kkvksa dks gLrxr dj lU;kl xzg.k dj dk'kh vkfn LFkkuksa esa /kkfeZd tkx`fr djrs gq;s ;qf/kf"Bj laor~ 2642 esa cfnzdkje igqWapdj Hkxoku Jh cnzhukFk ds Jh foxzg] ftls vuh'oj okfn;ksa us vyduUnk esa Mky fn;k Fkk] ftls ukjn f'kyk ds uhps vyduUnk ds czg~edq.M esa ls fudkydj iqu% izfr"Bk dh vkSj iwtk vkfn dh O;oLFkk djk;hA --- dkfrZd 'kqDy iapeh ;qf/kf"Bj laor 2645 dks T;ksfr"ihB ¼T;ksfreZB½ dh LFkkiuk dh vkSj ogkWa ij vius d`ikik= f'k"; rksVdkpk;Z dks viuk gh uke nsrs gq, 'kadjkpk;Z 'kCn ls foHkwf"kr dj Hkxoku cnzh fo'kky dh lsok iwtk ds nkf;Ro ds lkFk&lkFk T;ksfreZB dks dsUnz fcUnq ekudj leLr mRrj Hkkjr esa /kkfeZd tkx`fr dk nkf;Ro iznku fd;kA^^ ¼isij ua0&661 d] ist&50½ "Bhagwan Sharkarcharya came into existence (pradurbhav) on Baishakh shukla Panchami (5th day of the first fortnight of Baishakh month) of Yudhishtra Samwat 2631 (Yudhishtra calender). Having gained knowledge in all disciplines and taken sanyas (renunciation) at the age of only 11 years, he, while bringing religious awakening at Kashi and other places, reached Badrikashram; and again installed Lord Badrinath after taking out His idol from Brahmkund of Alakhnanda below Naarad Shila, which was thrown in Alakhnanda by Atheists and made arrangements for performance of worship etc. .... On the 5th day of first fortnight of the month Baishakh Shukla in 2645 Yudhishtra Samwat, he established the Jyotishpeeth (Jyotirmath), and honouring his disciple Trotakacharya with the title of his own name 'Shanakrachya' assigned responsibility to perform Pooja and services to Lord Badri, and also assigned responsibility to bring religious enlightenment throughout northern India treating Jyotirmath as centre.
(Paper No. 661 Ka, Page 50) ^^Hkkjr ds if'peh fdukjs }kfjdk iqjh esa dkfrZd 'kqDy iapeh ;qf/kf"Bj laor 2648 dks 'kkjnkeB] QkYxqu 'kqDy uoeh ;qf/kf"Bj laor 2646 dks nf{k.k izkUr esa J`axsjh eB rFkk cS'kk[k 'kqDy uoeh ;qf/kf"Bj laor 2655 dks txUukFkiqjh esa xkso/kZu eB dh LFkkiuk dhA --- pkjksa fn'kkvksa esa T;ksfreZB esa rksVdkpk;Z] 'kkjnkeB esa gLreydkpk;Z] J`axsjheB esa lqjs'ojkpk;Z] xkso/kZu eB esa in~eiknkpk;Z vius gh f'k";ksa dks viuk uke in iznku djrs gq;s eBksa dks dsUnz fcUnq ekurs gq;s pkjksa fn'kkvksa esa /keZ tkx`r cuk;s j[kus dk nkf;Ro iznku fd;kA lHkh eBksa ds vkpk;Z Hkxoku 'kadjkpk;Z ds izrhd ,oa 'kadj Lo:i ekus tkrs gSaA --- T;ksfreZB ds f'k"; ijEijk vuqlkj muds f'k"; T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj :i esa yxkrkj ,d ds ckn ,d LFkkfir gq, ,oa eB dk lapkyu djus yxs rFkk ;g eB ,d /kkfeZd ifjokj ds :i esa dk;Z djus yxk rFkk xq: ¼vkpk;Z½ }kjk ukfer f'k"; T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj :i esa blds eqf[k;k curs jgsA --- T;ksfreZB esa rksVdkpk;Z lfgr Hkkoh 21 vkpk;Z nh?kZthoh jgs ftudk izkr% Lej.k vkt Hkh ioZrh; {ks= esa fd;k tkrk gSA bu vkpk;ksZa ds i'pkr 22osa vkpk;Z ckyd`".k Lokeh fodze laor 1500 esa izfrf"Br gq, muds i'pkr muds lfgr jked`".k Lokeh Ik;ZUr xq: vuqdze 41 'kadjkpk;Z gq,A ftudk dk;Zdky fodze laor 1833 rd lEiUu gqvkA --- jke d`".k Lokeh ds i'pkr izkd`frd vkifRr ds dkj.k eB dk fo/oal gks x;kA jke d`".k Lokeh /keZ izpkj esa ckgj FksA os Hkh czg~eyhu gks x;s vkSj vius ;ksX; fdlh f'k"; dks viuk mRrjkf/kdkjh fu;qDr ugha dj ldsA --- ifj.kkeLo:i fodze laor 1833 ls 1998 rd 165 o"kZ rd fdlh vkpk;Z ds u gksus ds dkj.k T;ksfreZB vkpk;Z foghu jgkA fodze laor 1998 pS= 'kqDyi{k prqFkhZ frfFk dks Hkkjr /keZ egke.My dk'kh] leLr jkts egjkts] fo}roxZ] n'kukeh v[kkM+s vkfn us feydj Jh Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh th egkjkt dks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj txn~xq: 'kadjkpk;Z ds in ij vfHkf"kDr dj] vk|'kadjkpk;Z }kjk LFkkfir t;ksfr"ihB dh ijEijk dks iqu% izpfyr djus dk nkf;Ro ogu djus dh izkFkZuk dh] vkSj Hkkjr /keZ egke.My us mlh le; ,d vfHkys[k Hkh fy[kdj lefiZr fd;k ftlds }kjk ihB dh laxzghr Hkwfe lefiZr djrs gq, Hkxoku 'kadjkpk;Z ds le; ls pyh vk jgh ijEijk dks iquthfoZar djus dk lEiw.kZ nkf;Ro leiZ.k fd;kA^^ ¼isij ua0&661 d] ist&51&53½ "On western side of India at Dwarkapuri on 5th day of the first fortnight of the Kartik month in 2648 Yudhisthir Samwat, the Sharada Math; on southern side of India on 9th day of first fortnight of Falgun month of 2646 Yudhishtra Samwat, Sringeri Matha; and at Jagannath Puri on 9th day of first fortnight of Baishak month of 2655 Yudhishtra Samwat, Govardhan Matha were established. ... Honouring his disciples with his name title Shankaracharya and conferring them the seats in four directions, i.e. Trotakacharya at Jyotirmath, Hastmalkacharya at Shardamath, Sureshwarachrya at Sringeri Matha, Padampadacharya at Govardhan Matha, assigned responsibilities to disseminate the light of religion in all four directions taking the mathas to be their centres. Aacharyas of all the mathas are believed to be the symbol of reverend Adya Shankaracharya and worldly form of Lord Shiva. ... According to the customs of Shisya Parampara of Jyotishmath, his disciples were established as Jyotishpeethadhishwar one after the other, and they started managing affairs of the Math. The Matha started functioning as a religious family, and disciples nominated by Guru (Acharya) would become its chief as Peethadhishwar. At the Jyothismath, 21 Shankarcharyas including Trotakacharya lived a long life, whose auspicious names are still remembered in this mountainous region in morning. After these Acharyas, Acharya Balkrishna Swami was appointed as 22nd Acharya in 1500 Vikram Samwat, and thereafter 41 Shankaracharyas were installed upto Shri Ramkrishna Swami whose period came to end in 1833 Vikram Samwat. ... After Ramkirhna Swami, the matha was destroyed in a natural disaster. Ramkrishna Swami was out of the Math for propounding Dharma. He also left for the heavenly abode (Brahmleen) and he could not appoint anyone as his successor... as a result of which, Jyotrimatha remained extirpated from 1833 to 1998 vikram Samwat, for 165 years for there being no Acharya. On 4th day of the first fortnight of Chaitra month in 1998 Virkram Samwat, Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Kashi, all princes and nobles, Dashnam Akharas etc. together while enthroning (abhishikt) Swami Brahmanand Sarswati Ji Maharaj as Jyotishpeethadhishwar on the seat of Shankaracharya, prayed for the restoration of tradition initiated by Adya Guru Shankaracharya at the Jyotishpeetha once again. Bharat Dharma Mahamandal at that time while offering the acquired land through documents to the Peeth, also entrusted entire responsibilities for restoration of traditions continued from the days of Bhagwan Shankaracharya.(Paper No. 661 Ka, Page 51-53) 'kadjkpk;Z ihBksa dh ijEijk gS fd ijEijk ds vuqlkj vfHkf"kDr 'kadjkpk;Z }kjk fu;qDr lq;ksX; n.Mh Lokeh gh ihB dk mRrjkf/kdkjh gksrk gSA ;g gh fu;e gSA ¼isij ua0&661 d] ist&56&61½ It is the tradition of the Shankaracharya peethas that a qualified Dandi Swami appointed by enthroned Shankaracharya is the successor of the Peeth. It is the rule. (Paper No. 661Ka, Page 56-61) DW-31 Swami Narendranand Saraswati ^^'kadjkpk;Z dh ijEijk dk ihBklhu gksus ds dkj.k ifjKku j[krk gwWaA Hkxoku vk| 'kadjkpk;Z th ds nl f'k"; Fks] fxjh] iqjh] Hkkjrh;] ljLorh] vkJe] rhFkZ] ou] vj.; ioZr vkSj lkxj ftlesa T;ksfr"ihB ij =ksVdkpk;Z] xkso/kZu ihB ij i|eiknkpk;Z] J`axsjh ihB ij lqj'ojkpk;Z] 'kkjnkihB ij gLreYdkpk;Z dks vkpk;Z ds :i esa izfrf"Br fd;k Fkk tks ijEijk vkt Hkh pyh vk jgh gSA^^ ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&593&596½ Being Peethaseen of the tradition of Shankaracharya I do have the thorough knowledge (Parigyan). Bhagwaan Adi Shankaracharya Ji had ten disciples - Giri, Puri, Bharteeya, Saraswati, Aashram, Teerth, Van, Aranya Parvat and Sagar, out of which Trotkacharya was seated at the Jyotishpeeth, Padmapadacharya at the Govardhan Peeth, Surashwaracharya at the Shringeri Peeth and Hastmalkacharya at Shardapeeth as Acharya and this tradition is still in practice." (English Translation by Court) XXXX ^^vkfnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z ds lU;kl ds igys dk uke vkpk;Z 'kadj gh eSa tkurk gWwA vkfnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z us tc lU;kl fy;k Fkk rc muds xq: us mudk uke vkpk;Z 'akdj gh uke fn;k FkkA^^ ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&636½ "Acharya Shankar was the name of Adi Guru Shankaracharya prior to the attainment of Sanyas about which I am aware. The Guru of Adi Guru Shankaracharya named him Acharya Shankar when he attained Sanyas." (English Translation by Court) ^^xkSrecq) ds tUe ds ckn 506 bZ'kk iwoZ cS'kk[k 'kqDy iapeh dsjy ds dykVh xkao esa tUe gqvk Fkk ftudh ekrk dk uke vk;kZEck ,oa firk dk uke f'koxq# rFkk ckyd dk uke ewy'kadj FkkA tks vkxs pydj vkfn 'kadjkpk;Z dgyk;sA^^ ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&646½ "After the birth of Gautam Buddha, in 506 BC on Baishakh Shukla Panchami at Kalati village of Kerala, he was born whose mother's name was Aaryamba while father was Shiv Guru. Name of child was Mool Shanker. This boy was later on known as Shankaracharya." (English Translation by Court) DW-37 Sri Bhramchari Atmanand XXX ^^vkfn 'kadjkpk;Z ds izkjEHk esa pkj ihBksa dh LFkkiuk fd;k] mUgksaus viuk uke vkSj viuh iknqdk esa vius ;ksX; f'k";ksa dks iznku fd;k tks Hkh egkiq:"k ml ihB dk Lokeh gksrk gS mls Hkxoku 'kadjkpk;Z dk gh Lo:i ekuk tkrk gSA T;ksfrjeB ds izFke 'kadjkpk;Z Jhen~ T;ksfr"kihBk/kh'oj 'kadjkpk;Z =ksVdkpk;Z egkjkt Fks mUgha dh ijEijk vkt rd pyh vk jgh gSA ¼isij ua0&981d] ist&750½ "Adi Shankaracharya initally founded four peeths, he provided his name and paduka to his eligible disciples. The great man who is the holder of the peeth is regarded as form of Bhagwan Shankaracharya. The first Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath was Shrimad Jyotishpeethadhiswar Shankaracharya Trotakacharya Maharaj whose tradition has continued till today." (English Translation by Court)
206. Thus, to refer Shankaracharya as an "office" or "post" in our view is a misnomer and undermines position of Shankaracharya in the eyes of the customary laws being observed and followed by followers for more than a thousand years. The definition of ''office' is different and cannot be equated with the situation of installation of a Shankaracharya and authority he enjoys.
207. The term ''Office' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, on page 1082-1083 as under:
Office:
A right, and correspondent duty, to exercise a public trust. A public charge or employment. An employment on behalf of the government in any station or public trust, not merely transient, occasional, or incidental. The most frequent occasions to use the word arise with reference to a duty and power conferred on an individual by the Government and, when this is the connection, "public office" is a usual and more discriminating expression. But a power and duty may exist without immediate grant from government, and may be properly called an "office," as the office of executor. Here the individual acts towards legatees in performance of a duty, and exercise of a power not derived from their consent, but devolved on him by an authority which quoad hoc is superior.
An "assigned duty" or "function." Synonyms are "post", "appointment", "situation", "place", "position", and "office" commonly suggests a position of (especially public) trust or authority. Also right to exercise a public function or employment, and to take the fees and emoluments belonging to it. A public charge of employment and he who perform the duties of the office is an officer. Although an office is an employment, it does not follow that every employment is an office. A man may be employed under a contract, expressed or implied, to do an act, or to perform a service, without becoming an officer. But, if the duty be a continuing one, which is defined by rules prescribed by the government, which an individual is appointed by the government to perform, who enters upon the duties appertain to his status, without any contract defining them, it seems very difficult to distinguish such a charge or employment from an office, or the person who performs the duty from an officer. In the constitutional sense, the term implies an authority to exercise some portion of the sovereign power either in making, executing, or administrating the laws.
208. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, Seventh Edition, Volume 2, defines 'Office' on page 1846 as under:
Office:
An office is "a right to exercise a public or private employment and to take the fees and emoluments thereunto belonging" (2 BL. Com. 36; see further 3 Cru. Dig. Title, 25).
".. an office necessarily implies that there is some duty to be performed" (per Cockburn C.J., Heartly v Banks, 5 C.B.N.S. 55).
"Office" was held to be an apt word to describe the position of a trustee, or any position in which services are due by the holder and in which the holder has no employer (Dale v I.R.C. [1954]A.C. 11).
209. P. Ramanatha Aiyar's 'The Law Lexicon' 3rd Edition 2012 defines 'Office' on page 1245-1246 as under:
Office:
That function by virtue thereof a man hath some employment in the affairs of another, as of the King, or of another person. (Cowell; Tomlin) An office is 'the right to exercise a public or private employment, and take the fees and emoluments there unto belonging, whether public, as those of magistrates, or private, as of bailiffs, receivers, etc. (Bl. Com.) The term "office" denotes a duty in the holder to be discharged by him as such. It consists in a right and correspondent duty, to execute a public of private duty and to take the emoluments belonging to it. (9 MLT 355.) Webster defines an office to be the place where a particular kind of business or service for others is transacted; a house or apartment in which public officers and others transact business; as a registrar's office, a lawyer's office. "Office" includes place and employment; Govt. of India Act (9 & 10 Geo. V Ch. 101), S. 134, Cl. 5.] The word 'office' has two meanings: the one popular, the other legal and technical. Thus we speak of the office of an executor, guardian &c. The legal meaning of the term always implies a charge, or trust, conferred by public authority, and for a public purpose. (Ame. Cyc.) An office is in this sense, a trust created for the public. It imports a duty or trust.
A common division of offices is into judicial and ministerial. It is laid down that the former cannot be exercised by deputy unless there be express authority. Nor could they be assigned or granted for a term of years (Reynel's Case, 9 Rep. 95:77 ER 871) or in reversion. The same officer may be called to perform both judicial and ministerial acts, an will be civilly liable for neglect or failure to perform the ministerial but not the judicial acts. (Ferguson v Kinnoull, 1842, 9 Cl & Fin. 251:4 St. Tri. N.S. 785: 8 ER 412; Ency, of the Laws of England.) An office may be classed into civil and military, and civil may be classed into political, judicial and ministerial. Political are such as are not connected immediately with the administration of justice, or the execution of the mandates of a superior officer. Judicial are those which relates to the administration of justice. Ministerial are those which give the officer no power to judge of the matter to be done, and require him to obey the mandates of a superior. (2 Bouvier L. Dict. 259; 4 Jacob L. Dict. 433; 2 Tomlin 665.) A place for the transaction of business, often including the staff or denominating their department; the room, a department in which the business is done [S. 64(a), Mines Act (35 of 1952)]; official position to which duties and functions are attached; a position of authority [S. 123(4), CPC(5 of 1908) and Art. 18(4), Const.] Appointment as a special government pleader to assist the Government Pleader is not appointment to an office. Kanta Kathuria v Manak Chand, AIR 1970 SC 694 at 702. [Constitution of India, Art. 191(1)(a)] A position or place to which certain duties are attached more or less of a public character. A sort of permanent position held by successive incumbents. May be with or without remuneration. It is a right to exercise a public or private employment or to hold position which has certain duties attached to it. Pakanti Sudharshar Reddy v. District Collector Warangal, AIR 1964 AP 421, 423. [Hyderabad District Municipalities Act (18 of 1956), S. 27(1)(c)] The word "office" does not necessarily imply that it must have an existence apart from the person, who may hold it. Cases are known, in which, in order to make use of the special knowledge, talent, skill or experience of certain persons, posts are created, which exist only for so long as they hold them. It will be difficult to hold that such persons are not holders of offices. Deorao Laxman Anande (Dr.) v. Keshav Laxman Borkar, AIR 1958 Bom 314, 316. [Constitution of India, Art. 191(1)(a)] "Office" means a position which requires the person holding it to perform certain duties and discharge certain obligations. An office may not depend on any law, or any contract or any mandate from the State or any authority. Maharaj Shri Govindlalji Ranchhodlalji v. C. I. T. (1958) 34 ITR 92 (Bom.) [Income-tax Act (43 of 1961), S. 28] The word "office" refers to the place where business is transacted. Champalal v. State of M.P., AIR 1971 MP 88, 91 [M.P. Panchayats Act (7 of 1962), Ss. 20, 21, 22] Persons appointed to act as inspectors to hold public local inquiries in respect of matter for which the secretary of state for environment was responsible, hold office and if his remuneration is paid out of public funds, he is holding a public office. Edwards v. Clinch, (1979) 1 All ER 648, 654 (Ch D) [Income and Corporation Taxes Act (1970), S. 181(1) ]
210. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) Volume-II, defines 'Office' on page 1567 as under:
Office:
Kindness, activity, duty, office, alter. of (assumed) opifacium, fr. Opus work. 1a: A special duty, charge, or position conferred by an exercise of governmental authority and for a public purpose: a position of authority to exercise to public function and to receive whatever emoluments may belong to it (qualified to hold public). b: A position of responsibility or some degree of executive authority, c: the fact or state of holding a public position of authority, 2: a set form of prayer or religious service drawn up by Church authority and sanctioned as the approved usu. obligatory form to be used by particular individuals (as clerics) or on particular occasions as a: often cap : the service of breviary : DIVINE OFFICE b: the rites or the one of the rites of the missal < ~ of the mass > c : a prayer service (as evensong) used in churches of the Anglican communion 3 a : a religious or social ceremonial observance : RITE b :1-532 offices pl : rites for the dead 4 a : something that one ought to do or must do : an assigned or assumed duty, task, or role b : something that is done or performed by a particular thing : the proper or customary action of something c : something that a person does for another d : INQUEST OF OFFICE 5 : a place where a particular kind of business is transacted or a service is supplied as a : a place in which the functions (as consulting, record-keeping, clerical work) of a public officer are performed b : the directing headquarters of an enterprise or organization c : the place in which a professional man (as a physician or lawyer) conducts his professional business 6 : offices pl, chiefly Brit: the apartments, attached buildings or outhouse (as kitchens, pantries, laundries, stables) in which the activities attached to the service of a house are carried on 7 : the company whose place of business is in an office ; specif. Brit : an insurance company 8 a : Brit: a principal branch or division of governmental administration : DEPARTMENT < War Office > b : a branch or subdivision of governmental administration that ranks (in the national government) below the department 9 slang : PRIVY 10 slang : a private usu. Convert signal warning or cue
211. The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 8th Edn. defines the words 'Office' on page 1055 as under:
Office:
Room/Building 1. a room, set of rooms or building where people work, usually sitting at desks 2. a room in which a particular person works, usually at a desk, 3. a place where a doctor, dentist or VET sees patients, 4. (often in compounds) a room or building uses for a particular purpose specially to provide information or a service Government Department 5. office used in the name of some British government departments Important Position 6. an important position of authority, specially in government: the work and duties connected with this.
212. We may also examine the definition of ''position' and ''status' in various language and legal dictionaries, as under. Position:
(A) Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume LXXII, page 231:
An indefinite term, defined as meaning place, site, station; situation; the spot where a person or thing is placed or takes a place; the state of being placed; the place where anything is or is placed; the manner in which anything is placed with reference to the other things.
The word is also defined as meaning posture; rank; and in this latter sense an approved definition of "position" is relative place, situation or standing; specifically official rank or status. It is said that the term may include that of an officer or may be limited to that of an employee.
It has been distinguished from "employment" - 30 C.J.S. p 234 note 77.
The distinction between "position" and an "office," with respect to public office generally is discussed in officers - 2 a. The distinction between "position" and "employment," "office," and "place" with respect to Municipal Employment or office holding is treated in Municipal Corporations - 701.
(B) Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) Volume-II, page 1769:
1: an act of placing or arranging: as a: an act of laying down or stating a proposition or thesis: affirmation b: an arranging in order (as of military forces of chess pieces) 2a: a proposition of thesis laid down: assertion, statement b: the ground or point of view adopted with reference to particular subject: mental attitude: way of thinking about or viewing something c: a market commitment (as in securities or commodities) also: the inventory of a market, trader (as a security dealer) 3: the point or area in space actually occupied by a physical object or into which it is placed: a: proper or natural location in relation to other items b: an area or locality occupied by combat units esp. in a defensive operation: a location (as of a battery) from which weapons are fired c: geographical location 4: arrangement or ordering of parts or aspects in relation to one another or to an external source of orientation: as a: (1) bodily posture (2) any of the postures of the feet and arms on which all steps and movements of classical ballet are based (3) an arrangement of the parts of the body considered particularly desirable for some medical or surgical procedures b: any of the arrangements of the surfaces with the vertical in which the movements of a time piece is adjusted to run c: (1) the disposition of the notes or tones of a chord with reference to the lowest voice part, the upper most voice part, or their nearness to each other in pitch (2) one of the points of the finger board of a stringed instrument where the strings are stopped by the fingers to produce various pitches (3) one of the seven definite degrees of extension of the trombone slides 5: relative place, situation, situation or standing as a: social or official rank or status b: (1) OFFICE, EMPLOYMENT, VOCATION- often used to distinguish a superior or intellectual occupation from a job of a labour (2) the group of tasks and responsibilities making up the duties of an employee c: a spot, situation, or condition that conveys some advantage as against another 6: the condition in Greek or Latin prosody of having short vowel followed by two consonants or a double consonant (as x or z) making its syllable long (C) Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 8th Edn., page 1179:
PLACE 1. the place where sb/sth is located,
2. the place where sb/sth is meant to be: the correct place WAY SB/STH is PLACED 3. the way in which sb is sitting or standing, or the way in which sth is arranged SITUATION 4. the situation that sb is in, specially when it affects what they can and cannot do: to be in a position of power/strength/authority OPINION 5. an opinion on or an attitude towards a particular subject: to declare/ reconsider/ shift/ change your position LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE 6. a person or organization's level of importance when compared with others JOB 7. a job syn. Post IN RACE/COMPETITION 8. a place in a race, competition, or test, when compared to others IN SPORT 9. the place where sb plays and the responsibilities they have in some team games IN WAR 10. a place where a group of people involved in fighting have put men and guns VERB- to put sb/sth in a particular position syn. place Status:
(A) Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume LXXXI, page 235-236:
The word "Status," defined generally, means standing, state, or condition.
As applied to a person, "status" has reference to, and means, the person's legal social relation and condition; the legal position of the individual in or with the regard to the rest of the community; a person's condition arising out of legal station. Thus, as applied to a person, "status" means condition, such as being an infant, a slave, a married man or woman, a ward, or a prisoner, and it can be determined only by the state and not by agreement of the parties.
It has been said that while the word "status" undoubtedly implies relations, and that derivatively the term relates to relationship, status is not a mere relation.
Reference is also made to In re Ziegler, 143 N.Y.S. 562 wherein with regard to 'status' it is said:
"Whenever a condition in life is determined by law, and not by act of the parties, it is correctly denominated a status in jurisprudence, and even in the terminology of the common law itself."
(B) Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1410:
Standing; state or condition; social position. The legal relation of individual to rest of the community. The rights, duties, capacities and incapacities which determine a person to a given class. A legal personal relationship, not temporary in its nature nor terminable at the mere will of the parties with which the third persons and the state are concerned.
(C) Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, Seventh Edition, Volume 3, page 2618:
Status is one indivisible whole. If a man alters his status, he alters the whole of it; though his rights under his new status may, in many respects, be similar to those possessed under his old" (per Farwell J., Re Selot[1902] I Ch. 492).
(D) P. Ramanatha Aiyar's 'The Law Lexicon' 3rd Edition 2012, page 1717:
The status of an individual means the legal position of the individual in or with regard to the rest of the community. (LR 4 PD 11.) The rights, duties capacities and incapacities which determine a person to a given class, constitute his status. (Camph. Austin 137) Legal standing or position of a person; position or standing in society; profession or the like [S. 5, Indian Partnership Act (9 of 1932)] [Art. 38(2), Const.].
STATUS is a much discussed term which, according to the best modern expositions, includes the sum total of a man's personal rights and duties (Salmond, Jurisprudence 253, 257), or, to be verbally accurate, of his capacity for rights and duties. (Holland. Jurisprudence 88.) The fact of a person being legally nominated as junior, having a peculiar relationship with the senior is status, and the capacity to succeed to the head is the incident of that status. The status, when created by a nomination, cannot be with drawn or canceled at the mere will of the parties. Mahalinga Thambiram Swamigal v. Arulnandi Thambiran Swamigal, AIR 1974 SC 199, 206.
(E) Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) Volume-III, page 2230:
1 a: the condition (as arising out of age, sex, mental incapacity, crime, alienage. or public station) of a person that determines the nature of his legal personality his legal capacities, and the nature of the legal relations to the state or to other persons into which he may enter b: the condition of a political entity (as a state) determining its legal character in relationships with others political entities 2 a: position or rank in relations to others (as in a social order, community, class, or profession) b. relative rank in a hierarchy of prestige c : superior rank: high prestige: recognition 3: state of affairs: situation 4: an abnormal condition of a person or anima (F) The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 8th Edn. , page 1511:
1. the legal position of a person, group or country 2. the social or professional position of sb/sth in relation to others 3. high rank or social position 4. the level of importance that is given to sth 5. the situation at a particular time during a process.
213. It has also been considered in Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal Vs. His Holiness Sri La Sri Kasivasi Arulnandi Thambiran Swamiga (1974) 1 SCC 150. It is a judgment delivered by three-Judges Bench of Apex Court through Hon'ble K.K. Mathew, J. A suit for declaration that plaintiff Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal was entitled to continue as Elavarasu or Junior Head of the Kasi Mutt was filed and a perpetual injunction was also prayed for restraining defendant from interfering in plaintiff's functioning as Junior Head of the Mutt. Defendant pleaded that plaintiff was not validly nominated as Junior Head of the Mutt, and even if nominated, had acquired no right to continue as such. His conduct was such that he was unworthy to become Future Head of the Mutt, hence his nomination was cancelled and he has no right to seek declaration as prayed for. Trial Court mainly considered the questions, (a) whether plaintiff was nominated by defendant as Elavarasu of Kasi Mutt; (b) whether, by virtue of the nomination, plaintiff was holding an office or had acquired any right or status; (c) whether plaintiff was guilty of misconduct which disentitled him to continue as Elavarasu; and, (d) whether plaintiff's nomination as the Elavarasu was validly cancelled by the defendant. Trial Court held that though defendant nominated him Elavarasu of Kasi Mutt, but plaintiff neither acquired status nor became holder of an Office by virtue of mere nomination. It also held that defendant was competent to cancel nomination even though plaintiff was not guilty of any misconduct and that it was actually cancelled by executing a ''Will'. Suit was accordingly dismissed by Trial Court. In First Appeal, District Judge confirmed findings and decree of Trial Court and dismissed appeal. In Second Appeal, a single Judge of Madras High Court found that by virtue of nomination as Elavarasu, plaintiff became holder of an office or that, at any rate, acquired a 'status'. It also held that defendant could terminate the 'office' or 'status' only for a good cause and thereafter confirmed findings of Trial Court and appellate Court that plaintiff was not guilty of any misconduct and then held that cancellation of nomination of plaintiff by ''will' was ineffective. As a result, learned single Judge granted a decree to plaintiff declaring that he was duly appointed Junior Head of Kasi Mutt and entitled to continue as such subject to the right of Head of Mutt to remove him for good cause. Learned single Judge, however, did not make a declaration that plaintiff had a right to succeed to Headship of Mutt after the lifetime of defendant, nor the injunction, as prayed for, was granted. Both the parties then preferred intra-Court appeals before Division Bench. The decree passed by learned single Judge was reversed by Division Bench holding that plaintiff did not become holder of an office by virtue of nomination, hence, it was open to defendant to cancel nomination without notice to plaintiff and without assigning any reason. This decree passed by Division Bench was challenged in appeal by plaintiff before Supreme Court. The question considered was whether, by virtue of the nomination, plaintiff obtained a 'status' or a right in law or became holder of an office, and, whether defendant was competent to cancel nomination without good cause. Tracing history of Kasi Mutt, Court referred to an earlier judgment of Madras High Court in Giyana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi Vs. Kandasami Thambira I.L.R. 10 Mad 375 and found that Kasi Mutt and another Dharmapuram Adhinam were monastic institutions. They were presided over by ascetics who have renounced the world. Mutt at Tiruppanandal i.e. Kasi Mutt was affiliated to Dharmapuram Adhinam as a disciple Adhinam. An Adhinam is a central institution from which the chief ascetic exercises control and supervise over a group of endowed institutions and religious trusts. A Thambiran is an ascetic attached to an Adhinam and when he becomes Head of Adhinam, he is referred to as "Pandara Sannadhi". A Mutt was originally established at Benares by one Kumaragurupara Thambiran of Dharmapuram Adhinam. Dharmapuram Adhinam had come into existence several centuries before the institution of Mutt at Benares. Mutt at Tiruppanandal was established later in aid of Mutt at Benares by Tillanayaka Thambiran, a successor of Kumaragurupara Thambiran who functioned between 1720 to 1756. In the course of time, the Mutt at Tiruppanandal became the principal Mutt and Mutt at Benares a subsidiary one. It advanced in fame, endowments and trusts began to come in. So, subsidiary institutions came to be established and Tiruppanandal Mutt ceased to be an isolated institution. It became an important center exercising supervision and control over several subordinate Mutts in Southern India, over the Mutt in Benares, and over Mutts at Merangi in Nepal and at Achiram in Travancore so much so that in some of the later correspondence one finds that Tiruppanandal is referred to as an Adhinam. Dharmapuram Adhinam was regarded by the Thambiran at Tiruppanandal as his Gurupitham, the seat of his religious preceptor. Thambirans at Tiruppanandal, were, in a spiritual sense, subordinate to Pandara Sannadhi at Dharmapuram. In course of time, a Junior Thambiran came to be associated with Senior Thambiran in management of Tiruppanandal Mutt. The practice in Dharampuram Adhinam was that there being a Senior and a Junior "Pandara Sannadhi" at one and the same time and that was the probable origin of double agency at Tihuppanandal. But, as only a "Pandara Sannadhi" could initiate a Thambiran, it came about that Thambirans for the Mutt at Tiruppanandal and Benares came from Dhamapuram Adhinam. During the first part of 19th century (1833 to 1841) there were two managing Thambirans both at Benares and at Tiruppanandal, a Senior and a Junior; and the peculiar feature of this period consisted in this double agency at each center of control, which was probably due to the considerable increase in the number and value of endowments to be superintended. Court observed that succession to the office of Mahant or Head of a Mutt is to be regulated by customs of particular Mutt and one who claims the office by right of succession is bound to allege and prove what the custom of the particular institution is, for, the only law regulating succession to such institutions is to be found in the custom and practice of that institution. For this purpose, Court relied on the decisions of Privy Council in Greedharee Doss Vs. Nandokissore Doss, Mohunt (1867) M.I.A. 405 and Ramalingam Pillai Vs. Vythialingam Pillai (1893) 20 I.A. 150, Ramalingam Pillai Vs. Vythialingam Pillai I.L.R. 16 Mad 490.
214. It was argued before Court in Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal (Supra) that Mahant or Head of Mutt is a kind of property and, therefore, nomination by Mahant of his successor amounts to disposal of property after death of Mahant in that particular matter and it will confer a right upon the nominee or successor in regard to property. This argument was repelled and Court said that where a successor can be nominated or declared by a deed or word of mouth, this is a positive proof to show that nomination is not merely a disposal of office or of properties appertaining to it, but it is creation of a present relationship generating capacity to succeed to the office and to the properties appertaining to the office. By word of mouth or deed one cannot dispose of an office, if it is property, to take effect after the death of the person uttering the word or executing the deed. Therefore, nomination is not a disposal simpliciter of the office of the Headship of the Mutt or its properties, to take effect after the death of the incumbent. Court said:
"It is the creation of a relationship generating a capacity in the nominee to succeed to the headship of the Mutt on the death of the incumbent."
215. Court then proceeded to consider what is the nature of that relationship? It said that nomination is a concept pertaining to Hindu Religious Endowments and it is sui generis. One cannot put it in the straight jacket of any jurisprudential concept. John Austin in his jurisprudence has observed that status is "the most difficult problem in the whole science of jurisprudence." Court observed, whether a nominee would acquire a status has to be decided with reference to customs followed in Mutt. It is well known custom in several Mutts where heads nominate their successors. Whether or not a particular condition or relationship is one of status depends primarily on the existence and extent of the social interest in the creation and supervision of such a condition or relationship. The test is not a simple one of the existence or non-existence of the concern of the society; it is also one of the degree of such concern. The degree and even the existence of this concern in a particular condition will vary from time to time in the same society. Court said, it is not possible to draw a clear line of distinction in a dogmatic and a priori manner between conditions of status and special conditions not of status. In other words, the picture of status cannot be painted in elemental colours of black and white on any a priori considerations. It is rather a matter for a Court to decide at the time of action whether a particular condition does or does not involve a sufficient degree of social interest to be characterised as status, assuming that all other features of status are present.
216. 'Bentham's' idea of 'status' was that it was "a quality or condition which generates certain rights and duties". 'Beale' defines 'status' as a personal quality or relationship not temporary in nature nor terminable at the mere will of parties with which third parties and even the State are concerned. "C.K. Allen" said that 'status' is a condition of belonging to a particular class of persons to whom law assigns certain capacities and incapacities. 'Graveson' defines 'status' as a special condition of a continuous and institutional nature, differing from the legal position of the normal person which is conferred by law and not purely by the act of the parties, whenever a person occupies a position of which the creation, continuance or relinquishment and the incidents are a matter of sufficient social or public concern. The distinguishing mark of a class for the purpose of status is that legal consequences result to its members from the mere fact of belonging to it.
217. In Salvesan Vs. Administrator of Austrian Property (1927) A.C. 641, Lord Haldane while imposing a question: "For what does status mean in this connection?", answered the same by observing that in the case of marriage, it is something more than a mere contractual relation between the parties to the contract of marriage. He also said that status may result from such a contractual relationship, but only when the contract has passed into something which Private International Law recognizes as having been superadded to it by the authority of the State, something "which the jurisprudence of the State under its law imposes when within its boundaries the ceremony has taken place."
218. In Nibovet Vs. Nibovet (1878) P.D. (CA) 1, Brett, L.J. said :
"The status of an individual, used as a legal term, means the legal position of the individual in or with regard to the rest of the community."
219. In Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal (supra), Court said that the fundamental difference between 'status' and 'capacity' is that the former is a legal state of being while the latter is a legal power of doing. 'Status' determines a person's legal condition in community by reference to some legal class or group and cannot normally be voluntarily changed. The imposition of 'status' carries with it attribution of a fixed quota of capacities and incapacities, but it does not directly compel the holder to do or refrain from doing any particular act. Capacity, on the other hand, is a legally conferred power to affect the rights of oneself and other persons to whom the exercise of the capacity is directed, subject to certain generally and legally defined limits-limits which vary in relation to each particular form of capacity. Court said that capacity in this form is an incident of status, and, a distinction therefore must be made between the legal principles applicable to the major conception of status and those affecting the minor conception of its incidents.
220. In Tarak Chandra Das and another Vs. Anukul Chandra Mukherjee A.I.R. 1946 Cal 118, B.K. Mukherjea, J. said :
"Now, legal character is the same thing as status."
221. It is in this context, Court in Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal (supra) said that the fact of a person being legally nominated as Junior, having a peculiar relationship with the Senior is 'status'. Capacity to succeed to the head is the incident of that status. Court also held:
" The status, when created by a nomination, cannot be withdrawn or cancelled at the mere will of the parties. The law must determine the condition and circumstances under which it can be terminated. Merely because the status originated from the act of a senior head in making the nomination, it would not follow that the senior head can put an end to it by another act. ... A contingent interest or ownership is a present right."
222. The position of Shankaracharya, therefore, is of a special significance. Though an individual is installed as 'Shankaracharya' but by its very nature it is a status or position in trust, faith and belief of millions of Hindu Sanatan Dharma Followers and not in connection with a private right. It has developed into a different significance in the light of its historical backdrop and cannot be equated with a common public or private right to a religious endowment in respect of any property or mere ordinary status. Plaintiff himself has admitted in his oral deposition that Mahant of a Math hold property of a Math as 'Trustee' while position of Shankaracharya is a 'Mission' and property attached with the office is for accomplishment of such Mission.
223. It also shows that succession of Shankaracharya will be governed by customs and traditions which are within the definition of law under Article 13 of Constitution of India and cannot be varied by certain individuals or group of individuals on their own.
(c) About Four Peethas: The Concept of Mutt:
224. Adi Shankaracharya was knower of Brahm. To felicitate ascetics to know 'Brahma', he founded "Four Peethas" called "Amnay Peetham".
225. Though Sri Goel initially sought to place position of "Amnay Peetham" as commonly known Mutts/Monastries described by certain authors of three kinds and said that it is a "Mourusi Mutt" but from the evidence on record and in particular even from deposition of appellant himself it is evident that both parties do not dispute that position of Peeths established by Adi Shankaracharya are not like an ordinary Math or Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment but has a peculiar significance and importance for all worshipers and followers of Hindu Sanatan Dharma, who hold Adi Shankaracharya, an incarnation of Lord Shiva.
226. Object of founding of four Traditional Vedic Monasteries by "Adi Shankaracharya" lies in "Rigved" 1.164.39; which object has been explained by Adi Sayanacharya in his Bhashya (commentary) thereon. There are two types of Vidyas i.e. Aparavidya and Paravidya. Vedas i.e. Sam-Veda, Rig-Veda, Atharv-Veda and, Yajur-Veda with their subsdiaries i.e. Shiksha (Euphony), Kalp (Rites), Nirukt (Etymology), Vyakaran (Grammar), Chhand (Metre), Jyotish (Astrology); are Aparavidya. They lead to 'Aparbrahma'. Upanishadas are Paravidya. They lead to Parbrahm. There is no use of studying Vedas and indulged in Yajnas (Sacrifices) if one does not acquire knowledge of Brahma. Commentary says, Almighty tells us that:
^^_pks v{kjs ijes O;kseU;fLeUnsok vf/k fo'os fu"ksnq%A ;LrUu osn fdepk dfj";fr ; vRrksnLr bes leklrsAA - - -""
ea= esa ^_d~* 'kCn ls _pkvksa dh iz/kkurk okys] ¼ f'k{kk] dYi] fu:Dr] O;kdj.k] NUn ,oa T;ksfr"k½ bu N% vaxksa&lfgr rFkk vijfo|kRed pkj osn dgs x;s gS A _Xosn vkfn dk vij fo|k gksuk eq.Md Jqfr esa of.kZr gS & ^nks fo/kk,Wa tkuus ;ksX; gSa*] ;g izfrKk djds ^mues _+Xosn] ;tqosZn] lkeosn* bR;kfn opu ls vijk ,oa ijk fo|kvksa dk izfriknu gqvk gSA og _d~ izHk`fr vij fo|Lo:i pkjksa osn vius N% vaxksa ds lkFk v{kj] vn`';] {kj.kjfgrxq.k okys] vfouk'kh] fuR; rFkk loZ= O;kid czg~e dks gh okLrfod:i esa crkrs gSaA ^gs xkfxZ! bl v{kj ds iz'kklu esa lw;Z vkSj pUnzek fLFkr gS]* ftlls ml v{kj dk Kku gksrk gS] og ijk ¼fo|k½ gS*] ^ftlls ml v{kj ,oa lR; iq:"k dk Kku gksrk gSA* bR;kfn Jqfr;ksa esa v{kj&'kCn dk czg~e&okpd gksuk izfl) gSA _d~ vkSj v{kj dk izfrik|&izfriknd&Hkko lEcU/k gSA ^ml vkSifu"kn~ iq:"k dks eSa iwNrk gwWa* bR;kfn Jqfr ds vuqlkj leLr osnksa ls czg~e dk Kku gksrk gSA tc czg~eKku mifu"kn~ Hkkx dk fo"k; gS rks lafgrk vkfn vU; Hkkxksa dks czg~e fo"k;d D;ksa crk;k x;k gS\ ,slh 'kadk gksus ij dgk x;k gS&;|fi lafgrk vkfn mifu"kn~ ls vfrfjDr vU; Hkkxksa dh ;K vkfn fo"k;rk gS] rFkkfi ^ml vkRek dks czkg~e.k osnksa ds Lok/;k;] ;K] nku vkSj ri ds }kjk tkuus dh bPNk djrs gSaA* bR;kfn Jqfr ds vuqlkj ¼oSfnd dekZuq"Bku djus ls½ cqf)&'kqf) ds }kjk Kku dk lk/ku gksus ls osn dh czg~e&fo"k;rk gks tk;sxhA og czg~e vf}rh; rFkk vkdk'k ds leku gSA fuysZi] v:i vkSj O;kid vkfn gksus ds lkn`'; ls czg~e dks vkdk'k dgk gSA vFkok og fo'ks"k :i ls lcdk j{kd gS] blfy;s og vkdk'k dgykrk gSA vius esa v/;Lr ¼dfYir½ lc ¼txr~½ dk vf/k"Bku ,oa j{kd gksus ls ml czg~e ls ¼fHkUu½ fdlh dh fLFkfr ugha gSA vFkkZr~ lc ml rRo esa v/;Lr gSaA ,sls ftl ijekRek esa lc nsork vkJ; ysdj jgrs gSa vFkok mi;qZDr y{k.kokys rRo esa v/;Lr gSaA ,sls ftl ijekRek esa lc nsork vkJ; ysdj jgrs gSa vFkok mi;qZDr y{k.kokys rRo esa _d~ vkfn ls miyf{kr leLr osn vaxks lfgr i;Zoflr gSa] ml czg~e dks tks euq"; ugha tku ikrk fd nsorkvksa vkfn ds Lo:i ykHk dk LFkku vkSj lEiw.kZ osnksa dk rkRi;Z ,oa izfrik| ;gh czg~e gS] og iwoksZDr _Xosn vkfn ds 'kCn tky dks i<+dj D;k djsxk\ vFkkZr~ Kku ds lk/ku osn ds }kjk tkuus ;ksX; ¼czg~e½ dks u tkudj og D;k fl) djsxk\ Hkko ;g gS fd czg~eizkfIr :i iz;kstu ds fl) u gksus ds dkj.k leLr osn ¼izfrikfnr dekZuq"Bku vkfn½ dh fu"Qyrk ls mls dqN ykHk ugha gksxkA vFkok tks v{kj ¼czg~e½ dks tkudj dekZuq"Bku djus okyk gksrk gS vkSj ;K vkfn dk vuq"Bku djrk gS] vFkkZr mlds }kjk fd;k gqvk dksbZ deZ ¼deZ½ ugha gksrkA tks Hkh euq"; bl rRo ¼ijczg~e½ dks tku ysrs gSa] os gh czg~eKkuh gksdj vius Lo:i esa HkyhHkkWafr fLFkr gksrs gSaA** Four Vedas are stated to be there having the prominence of richas (stanzas) as discernible from the word (rik) in the hymn, accompanied by its six parts i.e. Skiksha (phonetics, phonology and pronunciation of hymns), Kalp (ritualistic instructions), Nirukt (etymology), Vykaran (grammar), Chhanda (prosody) and Jyothish (astrology) and having an element of non-transcendental knowledge. The non-transcendental nature of Rigveda etc. is described in Mundak Shruti. With a vow that 'Two branches are knowable', para vidya (transcendental knowledge) and apara vidya (non-transcendental knowledge) have been laid down by way of the expressions Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samveda etc. therein. The four Vedas having the element of non-transcendental knowledge and being expressive of riks (extolling hymns) etc., with their six parts (angas), describe the imperishable, invisible, non-decaying, indestructible, eternal and universal Supreme Being (Brahm) in actual form. O Gargi! In the system helmed by this Akshar, the Sun and the Moon are positioned which facilitates us to know that indestructible (Supreme Being); that is Para-vidya (transcendental knowledge), by which we attain the knowledge of Akshar and Satya Purush (Real Being). In these Shrutis (revealed texts), the word 'Akshar' is famous to be Brahm Vachak (denoter of the Supreme Being). The word Rik (extolling hymns) and Akshar (supreme being) are related to each other as Pratipadya (what is propounded) and Patipadak (one who propounds). 'I seek that Upnishadic Purush'. As per such Shrutis, all the Vedas impart the knowledge of Brahm (the Supreme Being). When knowledge of the Brahm is the subject of Upnishads, why Samhitas and other parts are called Brahm Vishyak (concerned about the Supreme Being). On arising of such doubts, it is said that although Samhitas and other parts, besides Upanishads, mostly speak of Yagya (sacrifice), Brahmins seek to know that Atma (the being) through self-study of Vedas, Yagya (sacrifice), Daan (charity) and Tap (practice of austerity). As per such Shrutis, by means of purification of mind through performance of the Vedic rituals, it will result in knowledge relating to Brahm. That Supreme being is incomparable and is like the Sky. On the basis of similarities such as being Nirlep (detached), Arup (formless) and Vyapak (expanded), the Brahm (the Supreme Being) is called Akash (infinite). That is to say, He is mainly a protector of all; hence, he is called Akash. The entire world having been installed within himself and being protector, none has existence apart from that Brahm. That is to say, all is imbibed in that Reality. This is the Supreme Soul under whose shelter all the demigods reside. That is to say, they are situated in the Reality possessed of the aforesaid features and in whom all the Vedas along with their Angas (limbs) reside characterised by Riks (verses). If a person who does not know the reality of Brahm who is the place of stay of all demi Gods in various forms and is interpretation of all Vedas, then what purpose will be served if such a person go through the web of words of aforesaid Rigveda etc. That is to say, what will he attain by not knowing the Brahm, knowable by way of the Vedas, the sources of knowledge? The import is that the purpose of attaining the Brahm not being accomplished, he will get nothing by performing rituals etc. prescribed in Vedas. That is to say, in case any person, after knowing Akshar (Brahm), performs rituals and yagyas (sacrificial performances), anything done by him does not constitute any karma (fruitive action). Whosoever gets to know this Reality (Supreme Being), is duly situated in his inner self being Brahm Gyani (knower of Brahm). (English translation by Court)
227. "Purush Sukta" says that Vedas originated from Supreme-self i.e. Brahm. (Yajurved 31.7, Maharshi Dayanand Sarswati bhashya of 1877 AD as transalated in English by Devi Chand 1992 Edn. This Hymn is also in Rig Veda. 10.90.9) ^^rLeks|`Jkr~ loZgqr _p% lkekfu tfJjsA NUnkSfl tfKjs rLek|tqLrLeksntk;rAA "From the adorable God unto Whom people make every kind of sacrifice, were created the Rig Veda, the Sam Veda. From Him was created the Atharva Veda and also the yajur Veda."
228. The Tradition of the aforesaid knowledge came down from Almighty to the four disciples of "Adi Shankarcharya", namely, 'Padmapad', 'Hastamalak', 'Trotak' and 'Vartikakar' i.e. Sureshwaracharya via Brahm, Narayan, Brahma, Vashisht, Sakti and his son Parasar; Vadarayan Vyas, the incarnation of Lord Vishnu; Shukdeo, Gaudpad the great, Govinda Yogindra and; Bhagvatpad Shankar, the incarnation of lord Shankar. Before starting his discourse every Acharya of Shankar Tradition recites verses as follows:
^^ÅW ukjk;.ka i|Hkoa ofl"Ba 'kfDr´~p rRiq=ijk'kj´~pA O;kla 'kqda xkSMina egkUra xksfoUn;ksxhUnzeFkkL; f'k";e~AA Jh 'kadjkpk;Zns eFkkL; i|ikn´~p gLrkeyd´~p f'k";e~A ra =ksVda okfrnsdkjeU;k uLen~xq:u~ lUrrekurks·fLeAA Jqfr&Le`fr&iqjk.kkukeky;a d:.kky;e~A uekfe HkxoRikna 'kadja yksd'kadje~A 'kadja 'kadjkpk;Z ds'koa oknjk;.ke~A lw=Hkk"; d`rkS oUns HkxoUrkS iqu% iqu%AA ÅWa ds izfrik| Hkxoku~ 'kadj] fo".kq&czg~ek] ofl"B muds iq= 'kqdnsoth] ijk'kj] O;kl] 'kqdnso egkiq:"k xkSM-iknkpk;Zth] rFkk muds f'k"; ;ksfxjkt xksfoUniknkpk;Z rFkk buds f'k"; Jh 'kadjkpk;Z] buds f'k"; i|iknkpk;Z&gLrkeydkpk;Z] Jh =ksVdkpk;Z] okfrZddkj lqjs'ojkpk;Z ls ysdj vius xq:i;ZUr leLr xq:vksa dks iz.kke djrk gwWaA I bow down Lord Shanker propounder of Om, Vishnu-Brahma, Vashistha and his son Sukhdevji, Parashar, Vyas, Shukde, the Great God Padacharyaji and His disciple Yogiraj Govind Padacharya and His disciple Padmapadacharya- Hastmalkacharya, Sri Trotkacharya, Vartikakar Sureswaracharya upto our Guru, I Salute all the Masters.
Jqfr&Le`fr rFkk iqjk.kksa ds fuf/k] d:.kk ds lkxj] lkjs lalkj ds nq%[kksa dks nwj djus okys HkxoRikn 'kadjkpk;Z th dks eSa iz.kke djrk gwWaA 'kadj rFkk muds vorkj Jh'kadjkpk;Z] fo".kq rFkk muds vorkj osnO;kl th] czg~elw= rFkk Hkk"; ds jpf;rk Hkxoku~ ds nksuksa Lo:iksa dks eSa ckj&ckj iz.kke djrk gwWaA (Guruvams Puran by Shivabodhashram 1995 Edn. Volume 1 page 35-36) "I bow down/salute the lotus-feet Shankaracharyaji, the treasure of Shruti-Smriti and Puranas (ancient Hindu Vedic Scriptures), ocean of compassion, destroyer of sorrows of entire world. I repeatedly salute both the forms of the Almighty, namely Lord Shankar and his incarnation Shri Shankaracharya, Lord Vishnu and his incarnation Vedvyas Ji, composers of Brahmsutra and its Bhashya (commentary). (Hindi translation by Court) (English translation by Court)
229. Adi Shankaracharya, following the divine order, established four Peethas in four quarters of Bharat,
(i) Sharda Peeth for west, Dwarka (Gujarat)
(ii) Sringeri Peeth for South (Chikmangloor)
(iii) Goverdhan Peeth for East (Puri)
(iv) Jyotir Peeth for North (Chamoli), Uttarakhand
230. Nomenclature of these Peethas is as under:
(a) Poorvamanyaya (Puri Jagganath Math)
(b) Pashimamanyaya (Sharda Peeth)
(c) Dakshinmanyaya (Shringari Peeth)
(d) Uttaramanayaya (Jyotirmath Badrikasharm)
231. All these Peethas had different characters in various ways are described in various texts books including "Mathamnaya". Position of Peethas as per "Mathamnaya" as under:
Shishya (Lineage) Direction Peeth State Mahavakya Veda Sampraday Padmapada East Goverdhana Pitham Odisha Prijnanambrath-ma (Consciousness is Brahman) Rig Veda Bhogvaar Suresvara South Sringreri Sarada Pitham Karnataka Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahman) Yajur Veda Bhurivaar Hastamalakacarya West Dvaraka Pitham Gujarat Tattvamasi (That thou art) Sama Veda Kitavaar Totakacarya North Jyotirmatha Pitham Uttarakhand Ayamatmabrahma (This Atman is Brahman) Atharva Veda Anandva Sharada Peeth Dwarka:
232. The 1st Peeth of Traditional Vedic knowledge in the West, established by Adi Shankaracharya is called 'Sharada Peeth'. Order of its ascetics is Keetwar, Teerth and Ashram are their title or natural glories. Kshetra (Realm) is Dwaraka, God is Siddheshwar. Goddess is Bhadrakali and (first) Acharya is Vishwaroop. Teerth (Sacred Stream) is Gomati. Swaroop is glory of celibates. Samveda is subject of teaching. Mahavakya (Great Enlightening Precept) is 'Tat Twam Asi' i.e. That thou art (Chha. Up. 6/8/7), one derives knowledge of oneness in the Self and Supreme Self. Gotra is Avigat. Territories Situated in the western direction bounded by Sindhu, Sauvir, Saurashtra and Maharashtra are apportionment of Sharda math. One who takes holy-dip in the Mahavakya "Tat Twam, Asi" as in the Triveni-sangam (sacred stream of the three rivers' confluence) with the passion of the knowledge of Reality is termed as Teerth. The Renouncer steadfast in adoption of ascetic Ashram, excluded from the shackles in the form of hope as well as free from being subjected to life and death, is termed as 'Ashram'. Order of the Renouncers that always bestows mercy upon creatures; precludes the worldly people having non-discriminating wisdom, whose acts are prompted by natural impulses that are repugnant to the scripture from becoming little creatures which are constantly subject to birth and death by making their discriminating wisdom free from the ignorance created by antagonism of desire and repulsion; is called Keetwar. One who knows one's Self properly, complies One's Dharm and amuses in one's Self-delight that Brahmachari (celibate) is termed as Swaroop.
233. This Peeth is situated in the district of Deobhumi (previously in the State of Gujarat on western Sea (Arabian Sea) shore and River Gomti. SHRI GOVERDHAN PEETH-PURI;
234. The 2nd Peeth of Traditional Vedic knowledge in the East, established by Adi Shankaracharya is called 'Goverdhan Peeth'. Order of its Renouncers is Bhogvar. 'Van' and 'Aranya' are their natural glories. Kshetra (Realm) is Purushottam. God is Jagannath. Goddess is 'Vimala' and (first) Acharya is Padmapad. Sacred Stream is called 'Mahodadhi' and celibate's glory is 'Prakash'. Their great Motto is ' Prajnanam Brahm' i.e. ' Consciousness is Brahm (Ait. Up. 3/1/3). Prescribed study is of Rigved. Gotra is Kaashyap. Territories situated in the east and in those days known as Ang, Bang, Kaling, Magadh, Utkal and Barbar are under Govardhan Peeth. Ascetic who, dwells in a beautiful lonely forest and is excluded from the Shackles of hope is called 'Van'. The ascetic who renounces this whole world, residing in the woods, always revels in supreme bliss by going adorable supreme self through the cleft entrance is called 'Aranya'. Order of ascetics that precludes human being from the objects of sense enjoyments, is called 'Bhogvar'. Celibate who is skilled in the practice of Yoga, knows Self Luminary, enlightened with the knowledge of the Reality is called 'Prakash'.
235. This Peeth is situated in the District town at Puri on the Shore of the Eastern Sea (Bay of Bengal) in the State of Odisha. SHRI JYOTIRPEETH AT SHREE PEETH- BADARIKASHRAM:
236. The 3rd Peeth of Tradition Vedic knowledge in the North, established by Adi Shankaracharya is called 'Jyotirpeeth'. Shree math is its another name. Its fruition given Order of the Renouncers is known as 'Anandvar', 'Giri', 'Parvat' and 'Sagar' are their natural glories. Realm is 'Badarikashram'. God is 'Narayan'. Goddess is 'Purnagiri' and (first) Acharya is Totak. Sacred Stream is called 'Alaknanda'. Celibate is 'Anand' and Great Motto is "Ayamatma Brahm" i.e. "This Self is Brahma" (Mand. Up./2). Celibate is Speaker of the Atharweda, Gotra is Bhrigu. The then territories of Kuru, Kashmir, Kamboj, Panchal divisions etc. are under Jyotirmath. One who always lives in the forest and hills, engaged in study of Gita, who is sober and has firm prudence, is called 'Giri', who resides in the mountain valley, whose knowledge is mature, knows specifically quintessence and quintessencelessness, is called 'Parvat' and one who picks gem of knowledge from the deep sea of Substance, never exceeds his limits, is called Sagar. Order of excellent Renouncers that precludes living beings from worldly-pleasure and objects for sense enjoyments called 'Anandvar'. The knower of the Absolute Truth who always thinks about Truth, knowledge and infinite and amuses in self-delight, is called 'Anand'. SHRI SHREENGERI PEETH-SHREENGERI:
237. The 4th Peeth of Traditional Vedic knowledge in the South, established by Adi Shankaracharya is called Shreengeri Peeth. Denomination of its Renouncers is 'Bhurivar', and Gotra is 'Bhur Bhuvah', 'Saraswati', 'Bharti' and 'Puri' are three natural glories (of the ascetics). Realm is 'Rameshwar'. God is 'Adivarah'. Bestower of all kinds of desires fruit, Kamakshi is its Goddess. (First) Acharya is 'Hastamalak' and Sacred Stream 'Tungabhadra'. Chaitanya named celibate is reader of the 'Yajur-ved'. Its great motto is 'Aham Brahm Asmi'. i.e. 'I am Brahm' (Bri. Up /1/4/10). The then territories of Andhra, Dravida, Karnataka, Kerala etc. situated in the south are under Shreengeri Peeth. An ascetic who is always engaged in the knowledge of the generator of the Shree i.e. Supreme Cosmic power, studies and expounds the Shree Vidya i.e. knowledge of the Shree and strikes upon expansion of essencelessness of the world as of sea, that steadfast Omniseer is called 'Saraswati'. One who is full of bulk of knowledge, abandoning burden of everything doesn't know load of distress, is called 'Bharati'. The ascetic who is filled up with knowledge of reality, remaining absorbed in the Supreme Reality and always fond of Supreme Self is called 'Puri.' The Order of Renouncers which precludes living being from the excessiveness of Golden Wealth is called 'Bhurivar'. Enlightened celibate who knows Universal spirit as un-pereceivable, infinite, un-decaying and pure-one, is called 'Chaiyanya'.
238. This Peeth is situated in the district Chikmangloor on the bank of River Tunga in the State of Karnataka.
239. In "Shrimad Bhagvata Mahapurana" 10.37 (Appendics 1E i.e.Text and English Translation thereof by C.L.Goswami), it says ^^_X;tq% lkekFkokZ[;ku~ osnku~ iwokZfnfHkeqZ[kS%A 'kL=feT;ka LrqfrLrksea izk;f'pra O;o/kkrdzekr~AA "Brahma brought out the four Vedas called the Rigveda, the Yajurveda, the Samaveda and the Atharvaveda severally from his mouth facing the east, south, west and north; and in the same order did he create Sastra (the duty of the priest called Hota) ljya (the duty of the Adhwaryu), Stutistoma (the duty of the Udgata) and Prayascitta (the duty of the Brahma)".
240. Every Peeth has a different administrative Head and disciples of one Peeth are distinct from another Peeth. Teachings and followings are also distinct and separate in each Peeth. There is no amalgamation of religious orders being followed in each Peeth. Ten classes of Sanyasis/Yatees or monks who formed the order of disciples under Shankaracharya School are (1) Teerth (2) Ashram (3) Van (4) Aranya (5) Giri (6) Parvat (7) Sagar (8) Saraswati (9) Bharti and (10) Puri. The aforesaid Dasnami Order is prevailing in present time also. Plaintiff and Appellant in the context of Jyotirmath /Joytispeeth adopt the title of 'Saraswati'. Tradition of Guru-'Shishya' i.e. Parampara
241. About tradition of Guru-Shishya Parampara, in "Sri Shankarcharya" ('Sri Shankaracharya Ke Jeevancharit Tatha Updeshon ka Pramanik Vivran'), written by Acharya Baldeo Upadhyay, published by Hindustani Academy, Allahabad, third edition 2003 (1st edition published in 1950), on pages 167 to 171, about "Shankar Ki Guru-Parampara", it has been written, ^^'kadj dh xq: &ijEijk ^^ (Master- Tradition of Shankar) vkpk;Z 'kadj ds lEiznk; dk o.kZu miyC/k xzUFkksa esa ,d leku gh ugha feyrk] izR;qr bu o.kZuksa esa i;kZIr fHkUurk n`f"Vxkspj gksrh gSA "Description about Sect of Shanker in books available, does not tally with uniformity, rather vast differences appear therein. 'kkDr rU= lkfgR; esa ^Jhfo|k.kZo* uked ,d furkUr fo[;kr iqLrd gSA bl fo'kkydk; xzUFk ds fHkUu&fHkUu va'k Hkkjr ds fofHkUu izkUrksa ds iqLrdky;ksa esa gLrfyf[kr :i ls miyC/k gksrs Fks] iwjk xzUFk tEew ds j?kqukFk efUnj ds iqLrdky; esa FkkA mlh izfr ds vk/kkj ij ;gh egRoiw.kZ xzUFk dk'ehj ls blh o"kZ nks ftYnksa esa izdkf'kr gqvk gSA blesa rU='kkL= ds lEiw.kZ fl)kUrksa dk foospu Jhfo|k dh mikluk ds dze dks voyEcu dj HkyhHkkWfr fd;k x;k gSA izlaxo'k blesa vkpk;Z 'kadj dh xq: ijEijk vkSj f'k"; ijEijk dk dqN o.kZu feyrk gSA Jhfo|k dh mikluk ds lkFk vkpk;Z 'kadj dk cM+k ?kfu"B lEcU/k FkkA bldk ifjp; gesa dsoy rkfU=d xzUFkksa ls gh ugha feyrk] izR;qr vkpk;Z ds }kjk LFkkfir ihBksa dh iwtk&i)fr ds fujh{k.k ls Hkh pyrk gSA vkpk;Z ds fof'k"V eBksa esa ^Jh;U=* gS ftldh iwtk eBk/kh'k ds dk;ksZa esa ,d fo'ks"k LFkku j[krh gSA 'kadj ds }kjk fojfpr xzUFkksa ls Hkh bldh i;kZIr iqf"V gksrh gSA lkSUn;Z ygjh rFkk iziaplkj ,sls gh rkfU=d xzUFk gSa ftudh jpuk ds lkFk vkpk;Z dk uke laf'y"V gSA ;s lc f=iqjk&rU= ds xzUFk gSaA bruh gh ugha] vkpk;Z us ftl ^yfyrkf='krh* dk ikf.Mr;iw.kZ Hkk"; fy[kk gS og Hkh blh rU= ds lEc) gSA In the literature of "Shakt Tantra", there is a very popular book named "Srividyarnav". Parts of Manuscript of this voluminous book were available in different libraries of various Provinces of India; complete book was available in the library of Raghunath temple, Jammu. On the basis of that very copy, this valuable book has been published this year itself in two volumes from Kashmir. Keeping in view the order/sequence of worship of Srividya, interpretation of all principles of Tantra Shastra has exhaustively been made in it. By way of reference, some description of Guru Prampara and Shisya Parampara (Tradition of Master-disciple) is found. Acharya Shanker was deeply indulged with worship of Srividya. Its proof is found not only in Trantrik Books but also from observance of methods of worship prevailing in Peethas established by Acharya. There are "Sriyantra" placed in special Mathas of Acharya, worship whereof is given an important place in the duties assigned to Mathadhish. It is also amply proved by the books authored by Shanker. Creation of "Saundarya Lahari" and Prapanch Saar" are such Tantrik books, with which, the name of Acharya is assimilated. These are books of Tripura Tantra. Not only this, the scholarly commentary on "Lalitatrishati"which Acharya has written, is also related to this Tantra. xq:&ijEijk& izpfyr xzUFkksa ds vk/kkj ij 'kadj lEiznk; dh xq: ijEijk Hkxoku~ fo".kq ls vkjEHk gksrh gS%& On the basis of regnant books, Guru Parampara of Shankar commences from Bhagwan Vishnu Shiv-Vishnu Vasissth A A A Shiv Shakti Gaudpad A A A A Parashar Govind Brahma A A A Vyas-Shuk Shanker bl ijEijk ds vuqlkj 'kadj xkSM+ikn ds izf'k"; Fks vkSj ;s xkSM+ikn 'kqdnso th ds f'k"; FksA vkpk;Z dh xq:&ijEijk rFkk f'k"; ijEijk dh lwpuk bu izfl) i|ksa esa gS& According to this tradition, Shankar was main disciple of Gaudpad and this Gaudpad was disciple of Shukdev Ji. Guru Parampara and Shisya Parampara with respect to Acharya, is found in the following famous verses:
ukj;.ka i|Hkoa ofl"Ba 'kfDra p rRiq=ijk'kja pA O;kla 'kqda xkSMina egkUra xksfoUn;ksxhUnzeFkkL; f'k";e~AA Jh'kadjkpk;ZeFkkL; i|ikna p gLrkeyda p f'k";e~A rr~ rksVda okfrZddkjeU;ku~ vLenxq:a lUrrekurks·fLeAA ijUrq ^Jhfo|k.kZo* ds vuqlkj 'kadj xkSM+ikn ds izf'k"; u Fks] izR;qr nksuksa ds chp esa ikWap iq:"kksa ds uke feyrs gSaA 'kadj dh xq:&ijEijk dze'k% bl izdkj gS&xkSM+ikn] ikod ijkpk;Z] lR;fuf/k] jkepanz] xksfoUn vkSj 'kadjA blls ;g fl) gksrk gS fd 'kadj ds xksfoUn f'k"; gksus esa dksbZ foizfrifRr ugha gS] ijUrq xkSMikn ls mudk fudV lEcU/k u FkkA izpfyr erkuqlkj xkSMikn dk 'kqdnso ds lkFk xq:&f'k"; lEcU/k Fkk] ijUrq bu nksuksa vkpk;ksZa esa nh?kZdky dk O;o/kku gksus ds dkj.k ,sfrgkfld yksx bl lEcU/k dks ekuus esa ladksp djrs gSaA dfri; fo}kuksa dh lEefr esa bl lEcU/k ds Hkhrj ,d xgjk ,sfrgkfld rF; fNik gqvk gSA cgqr lEHko gS fd v}Srokn dh izkphu /kkjk fdlh dkj.ko'k 'kqdnso th ds ckn ,dne mfPNUu gks x;h vkSj dkykUrj esa fdlh vykSfdd mik; ls vkfoHkwZr gksusokys 'kqdnso th dk fnO;ewfrZ ls xkSMikn us v}Srokn ds jgL; dks lh[kdj mls iqu% izofrZr fd;kA ijUrq ,slh vykSfdd O;k[;k ij Bksl ,sfrgkfld yksx dc vkLFkk j[ksaxs\ fdUrq vc ,sfrgkfldksa dks bl ckr dh tkudkjh ls lUrks"k gq, fcuk u jgsxk fd ^Jhfo|k.kZo* ds vuqlkj xkSMikn 'kqdnso ds lk{kkr~ f'k"; u Fks] izR;qr nksuksa ds chp esa vkpk;ksZa dk ,d nh?kZ ijEijk fo|eku FkhA bl xzUFk dk er gS fd 'kadj lEiznk; dh izo`fRr vkfn fo}ku~ egf"kZ dfiy ls gqbZ gSA dfiy ls xkSMikn rd xq:vksa ds uke dze'k% bl izdkj gSa&dfiy] vf=] of'k"B] lud] ¼5½ luUnu] Hk`xq] luRlqtkr] okenso] ukjn] ¼10½ xkSre] 'kkSud] 'kfDr] ekdZ.Ms;] dkS'kd] ¼15½ ijk'kj] 'kqd] vafxjk] d.o] tkckfy] ¼20½ Hkkj}kt] osnO;kl] bZ'kku] je.k] dinhZ ¼25½ Hkw/kj] lqHkV] tyt] Hkwrs'k] ije] ¼30½ fot;] ej.k ¼Hkjr½] in~es'k] lqHkx] fo'kq)] ¼35½ lej] dSoY;] x.ks'oj] lik;] focq/k] ¼40½ ;ksx] foKku] vuax] foHkze] nkeksnj] ¼45½ fpnkHkkl] fpUe;] dyk/kj] fo'os'oj] eUnkj] ¼50½ f=n'k] lkxj] e`M] g"kZ] flag] ¼55½ xkSM] ohj] v?kksj] /kqzo] fnokdj] ¼60½ pdz/kj] izi;s'k] prqHkqZt] vkuUnHkSjo] /khj] ¼65½ xkSMiknA vkfn xq: dfiy ls ysdj 'kadj rd 71 xq: gq, rFkk xkSMikn vkSj 'kadj ds chp esa lkr xq: gq,A But according to ''Shreevidyarnav' Shanker was not main disciple of Gaudpad, instead, between the two, names of five persons are found. Respective Guru Parampara of Shanker runs as follows: Gaudpad, Pawak Paracharya, Satyanidhi, Ramchandra, Govind and Shankar. It goes to prove that there is no contradiction about Shanker being disciple of Govind but he had no close relation with Gaudpad. According to current prevalent theory there was a relation of Master-Disciple between Gaudpad and Shukdev, but, there being interval of long period, historians feel shy in accepting this relation. In the opinion of some of Scholars, a deep historic fact is hidden inside this relation. It is quite possible that old stream of Advait philosophy, for certain reasons became wholly abandoned after Shukdevji. Later on, Gaudpad having learnt from Divyamurti the secret of Advait philosophy of Sukhdevji-who had emerged through divine means, promulgated/promoted the same again. But why the orthodox historians should have faith in such divine interpretation but the historians cannot escape from being satisfied that according to Srividyarnav, Gaudpad was not real disciple of Shukdevji; instead there existed long tradition of Acharyas in between the two. According to this book, Shankar Sect commenced from great Adi learned Maharishi Kapil. Masters/teachers ranging between Kapil to Gaudpad are as follows: - Kapil, Atri, Vashisht, Sanak ,(5) Sanandan, Bhrigu, Sanatsujat, Vamdev, Narad, (10), Gautam, Shaunak, Shakti, Markandey, Kaushak, (15) Parasar, Shuk, Angira, Kanv, Jabali (20) Bharadwaj, Vedvyas, Eishan, Raman, Kapardi (25) Bhudhar, Subhat, Jalaj, Bhutesh, Param (30) Vijay, Maran(Bharat), Padmesh, Subhag, Vishuddh (35) Samar, Kaivalya, Ganeshwar, Sapay, Vibudh (40) Yog, Vigyan, Anang, Vibhram, Damodar (45) Chidabhas, Chinmay, Kaladhar, Vishweswar, Mandar (50) Tridash, Sagar, Mrid, Harsh, Singh (55) Gaud, Veer, Aghor, Dhruva, Diwakar (60) Chakdradhar, Prapyesh, Chaturbhuj, Anand Bhairav, Dheer (65) Gaudpad. From Adi Guru Kapil to Shankar there were seventy one Gurus and between Gaudpad and Shankar there were seven Gurus (Masters).
bl ukekoyh ds dze esa foy{k.krk nh[k iM+rh gSA ¼12½ 'kfDr rFkk ¼15½ ijk'kj dk lEcU/k firk&iq= dk gSA vr% bu nksuksa esa vkuUr;Z dk gksuk LokHkkfod Fkk] ijUrq ;gkWa nks ukeksa ls buesa O;o/kku gks x;k gSA ¼16½ 'kqd ds firk osnO;kl dk uke vius iq= ls igys u gksdj muds pkj f'k";ksa ds vuUrj gS!! bl ukelwph ds vuqlkj ¼17½ 'kqdz rFkk xkSMikn ds chp mupkl vkpk;ksZa ds uke mfYyf[kr gSaA bl izdkj bu nksuksa ds Ik;kZIr O;o/kku gSaA There appears peculiarities in the sequence of this list of names. Relation between Shakti (12) and Parashar (15) is of father and son. Therefore, it was natural that there might have been difference but on account of these two names, gap has occurred here. Instead of figuring the name of Vedvyas, father of Shuk, before him, the same figures after his four disciples. According to this list, names of forty nine Acharyas are written in between (17) Shuk and Gaudpad). In this way, there is vast difference/gaps between the two.
f'k"; ijEijk (Disciple Tradition) izpfyr er ds vuqlkj vkpk;Z 'kadj ds pkj iz/kku f'k"; Fks vkSj ;s pkjksa gh laU;klh Fks] ijUrq blds foijhr Jhfo|k.kZo dh lEefr esa vkpk;Z 'kadj ds 14 f'k"; Fks tks lc ds lc nsoh ds mikld vkSj ijefl) FksA ijUrq bu f'k";ksa ds nks izdkj Fks& 5 f'k"; Fks laU;klh vksj 9 f'k"; Fks x`gLFkA laU;klh f'k";ksa ds uke gSaA & ¼1½ in~eikn] ¼2½ cks/k] ¼3½ xhokZ.k] ¼4½ vkuUnrhFkZ vkSj ¼5½ xq: ds uke ds leku gh iape f'k"; dk uke Fkk 'kadjA x`gLFk f'k";ksa ds uke gSa& ¼6½ lqUnj] ¼7½ fo".kq'kekZ] ¼8½ y{e.k] ¼9½ efYydktqZu] ¼10½ f=fodze] ¼11½ Jh/kj] ¼12½ dinhZ] ¼13½ ds'ko vkSj ¼14½ nkeksnjA bu iz/kku f'k";ksa dh f'k";&ijEijk Hkh i;kZIr foLr`r FkhA ¼1½ i|ikn&buds Ng f'k"; Fks&ek.My] ifjikod] fuokZ.k] xhokZ.k] fpnkuUn vkSj f'koksRre tks lc ds lc laU;klh FksA ¼2½ cks/kkpk;Z& buds cgqr ls f'k"; Fks tks dsjy ns'k esa QSys gq, Fks A xq: ds leku buds Hkh f'k"; nks izdkj ds Fks&x`gh vkSj lU;klhA ¼3½ xhokZ.k&buds iz/kku f'k"; Fks fo}n~xhokZ.k ftudh f'k"; ijEijk ;ksa gS& fo}n~xhokZ.k &fccq/ksUnz&lq/khUnz&eU=xhokZ.kA buds f'k"; x`gh Hkh Fks vkSj lU;klh HkhA ¼4½ vkuUnrhFkZ & lHkh f'k"; x`gLFk Fks vkSj iknqdkihB dh vkjk/kuk djrs FksA ¼5½ 'kadj& buds f'k"; eB rFkk mieBksa ds vf/kifr FksA ¼6½ lqUnjkpk;Z& rhu izdkj ds f'k"; FksA x`gh] laU;klh vkSj ihBuk;dA ¼7½ fo".kq'kekZ& buds iz/kku f'k"; dk uke Fkk izxYHkkpk;ZA Jhfo|k.kZo xzUFk ds jpf;rk fo|kj.; ;fr bUgha izxYHkkpk;Z ds f'k"; FksA ;g fl) xzUFk lk izrhr gksrk gS ftldh lekfIr ij txn~/kk=h us vius vkidks HkDr ds lkeus izdV gksdj oj ekWaxus dks dgkA xzUFkdkj dh dksbZ lkalkfjd okluk u Fkh ftlds fy, og Hkxorh ls izkFkZuk djrkA mudh ;gh dkeuk Fkh fd tks dksbZ euq"; bl xzUFk dh i)fr ns[kdj mls xq: ekudj ti djs] mls nh{kk ds fcuk Hkh flf) izkIr gks tk;A Hkxorh us oj fn;k vkSj Lo;a vUr/kkZu gks x;haA ¼8½ y{e.kkpk;Z&budh ykSfdd flf) dh ckr xzUFk esa nh x;h gSA ;s cM+s Hkkjh fl) FksA ,d ckj izkS<+nso uked jktk dh jkt/kkuh esa x;sA jktk us Hkjh lHkk esa budk lRdkj fd;k vkSj os'kdherh diM+ksa dks migkj esa fn;kA fl) th us ?kj tkdj mu diM+ksa dks gou dj fn;kA [kcj ikdj jktk us viuk oL= ekWaxkA y{e.kkpk;Z us viuh flf) ds cy ls bu oL=ksa dks ykSVk fn;k] ijUrq lkFk gh lkFk 'kki nsdj os nf{k.k dh vksj pys x;sA izkS<+nso dh cM+h fourh djus ij os izlUu rks gq,] ijUrq dgk fd esjk opu vU;Fkk ugha gks ldrkA iq= rqEgs vo'; gksxk] ij rqe mlds lq[k ls oafpr jgksxsA gqvk Hkh ,slk ghA ckyd ds xHkZLFk gksrs izkS<+nso ej x;sA jkT; dk Hkkj Jh fo|kj.; ds Åij lkSaik x;kA mUgksaus Jhpdz ds vuqlkj Jhfo|kuxj dh LFkkiuk dh rFkk vEcnso dks jkT; lefiZr dj fojDr ys[kd us ukuk rU=ksa dk vkyksMu dj bl xzUFkjRu dh jpuk dhA ¼9½ efYydktqZu ds f'k"; foU/;kpy esa] ¼10½ f=fodze ds f'k"; txUukFk {ks= esa] ¼11½ Jh/kj ds f'k"; xkSM+ ns'k] caxky vkSj fefFkyk esa] ¼12½ dinhZ ds f'k"; dk'kh] v;ks/;k vkfn LFkkuks esa fuokl djrs FksA ¼13½ ds'ko vkSj ¼14½ nkeksnj ds f'k";ksa dk fooj.k xzUFk esa ugha feyrkA Shishya Parampara (Disciple tradition) According to prevailing theory there were four chief disciples of Acharya Shankar and all these four were Sanyasi, but on the contrary, in the opinion of Shrividyarnav, Acharya Shankar had 14 disciples, who all were worshipers of Godess and Paramshidhas but these disciples were of two kinds - five disciples were Sanyasi and nine were Grihasth. Names of Sanyasi disciples are: (1) Padmapada (2) Bodh (3) Geervan (4) Anandteerth and (5) like the name of Guru, name of fifth disciple was Shanker. Names of Grihasth disciples are: (6) Sunder (7) Vishnusharma (8) Laxman (9) Mallikarjun (10) Trivikram (11) Sridhar (12) Kapardi (13) Keshav and (14) Damodar.
Shishya/Parampara of these chief disciples was also quite extensive.
(1) Padmpad - He had six disciples- Mandal, Paripawak, Nirvan, Girvan, Chidanand and Shivottam, who all were Sanyasis -
(2) Bodhacharya - He had many disciples who were spread in Kerala Region. Alike Guru he had also disciples of two categories - Grihi and Sanyasi.
(3) Geervan - His chief disciple was Vidvadgeervan, whose Shishya Parampara is as follows- Vidvadgeervan-Vibhudhendra-Sudheendra-Mantrageervan.His disciples were Grihi and Sanyasi both.
(4) Anandteerth - All disciples were Grihasth and worshipped Padukapeeth.
(5) Shankar- His disciples were owner of Mathas and Upmathas.
(6) Sunderacharya- There were three kinds of disciples. Grihi, Sanyasi and Peethnayak.
(7) Vishnusharma-Name of his principal disciple was Pragalbhacharya. Vidyaranya Yati author of the book Shrividyarnav was disciple of this Pragalbhacharya. This book appears to be a Siddha book on completion of whereof the Goddess of the world appeared before his devotee and asked for begging some boon. Author of the book had no any worldly desire which he could have begged from the Goddess Bhagwati. He only desired that when a man seeing the method contained in this book, treating it his Guru involve in Japa even without Deeksha, he should attain Siddhi. Goddess Bhagwati offered boon and disappeared herself.
(8) Laxmanacharya -The fact of his materialistic Siddhi/realisation has been mentioned in the book. He was a great Siddha. Once he visited the Capital of King Praudhdev. The king honoured him in open Court and gifted precious clothes. Siddhaji on reaching home, burnt those clothes. On hearing the news, the king demanded his clothes. With the power of his Siddhi/realisation, Laxmanacharya returned those clothes but simultaneously, after cursing, he procceded towards south. on great persuasion by Praudhdev, he was pleased but said that his utterance could not be otherwise; you will certainly get a son but would be deprived of his pleasure. It so happened. As soon as the child came into womb, Praudhdev died. Responsibility of the kingdom was conferred on Shri Vidyaranya. According to Shrichakra, he founded Shri Vidyanagar and after handing over the responsibility of kingdom to Ambdev, renunciated author invented various Tantras and composed this book.
(9) Disciple of Mallikaarjun lived in Vindhyachal, (10) disciple of Trivikram resided in Jagannath region, (11) disciple of Shridhar lived in Gauddesh, Bengal and Mithila, (12) disciples of Kapardi resided in Kashi, Ayodhya etc. places. Details of disciples of (13) Keshav and (14) Damodar are not found in this book.
(English translation by Court)
242. In the aforesaid book, "Sri Shankaracharya", commands of Adi Shankaracharya to his successors of four Peethas are described as under:
eBk/;{kksa dk mins'k (Page 213-214) vkpk;Z us dsoy eBksa dh LFkkiuk djds gh vius drZO; dh bfrJh ugha dh nh cfYd bu eBk/;{kksa ds fy, ,slh O;kogkfjd lqO;oLFkk Hkh cka/k nh ftlds vuqlkj pyus ls muds egku /kkfeZd mins'k dh lokZa'kr% iwfrZ gksrh gSA vkpk;Z ds ;s mins'k egkuq'kklu ds uke ls izfl) gSaA vkpk;Z dk ;g dBksj fu;e Fkk fd eB ds v/kh'oj yksx vius jk"Vª dh izfr"Bk ds fy, rFkk /keZ&izpkj djus ds fy, vius fufnZ"V izkUrksa esa lnk Hkze.k fd;k djsaA mUgsa vius eB esa fu;fer :i ls fuokl ugha djuk pkfg,A mUgsa vius&vius ns'kksa esa vkpk;Z izfrikfnr o.kkZJe /keZ rFkk lnkpkj dh j{kk fof/kiwoZd djuh pkfg,A vkyL; djus ls /keZ u"V gks tkus dk Mj lnk cuk jgrk gSA blfy, mRlkfgr gksdj /keZ dh j{kk esa yxuk izR;sd eB ds vkpk;Z dk ifo= drZO; gSA ,d eB ds v/;{k dks nwljs eB ds v/;{k ds foHkkx esa izos'k u djuk pkfg,A lc vkpk;ksZa dks feydj Hkkjro"kZ esa ,d egrh /kkfeZd lqO;oLFkk cuk;s j[kuh pkfg, ftlls oSfnd /keZ v{kq..k :i ls izxfr'khy cuk jgsA eB ds v/kh'ojksa ds fy, vkpk;Z dk ;gh mins'k gSA Precahings to Mahadhyaksh (Head of Peethas) (Page 213-214) Acharya did not last his duty only by establishing the Mathas, rather also provided a practical system for these Mathadhyakshas, observance whereof, serves purpose of his great religious sermons of in its entirety. These preachings are famous as Mahanushasan. It was very rigid rule of Acharya that Heads of Peeth with a view to maintain the glory of the country and for propagation of Dharma, should always go on visiting the provinces within their territory. They should not permanently reside in their Math. They should protect Varnashram Dharma and virtues propounded by Acharya in their respective provinces, strictly in accordance with Rules. There is always possibility of religion being ruined by laziness. Therefore, it is the sacrosanct duty of Acharya of every Math to happily indulge in protecting the religion. Adhyaksh of one Math should not enter/interfere with the faculty of Adhyaksh of other Math. As a joint venture, all Acharyas should maintain a great religious system in India, so that Vedic religion remains progressive incessantly. This is the preaching of Acharta to the Heads of Math.
tks dksbZ Hkh O;fDr vkpk;Z ds in ij izfrf"Br ugha gks ldrkA bl in ds fy, vusd ln~xq.kksa dh furkUr vko';drk gSA ifo=] ftrsfUnz;] osn&osnkax esa fo'kkjn] ;ksx dk Kkrk] ldy 'kkL=ksa esa fu".kkr if.Mr gh bu eBksa dh xn~nh ij cSBus dk vf/kdkjh gSA ;fn eBk/;{k bu ln~xq.kksa ls ;qDr u gks] rks fo}kuksa dks pkfg, fd mldk fuxzg djsa] pkgs og vius in ij Hkys gh vk:<+ gks x;k gksA vFkkZr xq.kghu O;fDr ds eBk/kh'k cu tkus ij Hkh mls eB dh xn~nh ls mrkj nsuk gh 'kadjkpk;Z dh vkKk gS%& mDry{k.klEiUu% L;kPpsr~ eRihBHkkXHkosr~A vU;Fkk : A random person cannot be installed on the seat of Acharya. For this office, various virtues are compulsoritly required. Only a pious, Jitendriya (conquerors of senses), well versed in Ved Vedanga, knower of Yoga, leaned-well versed in all Shastras, is eligible to hold the seats of Maths. If a Head of a Math is not possessed of these virtues, scholars should abandon him irrespective of the fact that he has been installed on the seat. Meaning thereby, even a virtueless person if appointed as Head of Math, dethroning such person from the seat is the command of Shankaracharya.
"A person having aforesaid virtues should be seated on Peeth, otherwise, even if installed, should be dethroned (abandoned) by learned people."
fo}ku yksx gh /keZ ds fu;Urk gksrs gSa] vr% vkpk;Z us eBk/;{kksa ds pfj= dh ns[k&js[k bl ns'k ds izkS<+ fo}kuksa ds Åij gh j[k NksM+h gSA bl fo"k; esa fo}kuksa dk cM+k drZO; gSA xq.kghu laU;klh /keZ dh dFkefi lqO;oLFkk ugha dj ldrkA blh dkj.k 'kadjkpk;Z us mls in ls P;qr djus dk vf/kdkj fo}kuksa dks ns fn;k gSA vkpk;Z us bu v/;{kksa dks /keZ ds mn~ns'; ls jktlh BkV&ckV ls jgus dk mins'k fn;k gS ijUrq blesa LokFkZ dh cqf) izcy u gksdj midkj cqf) gh eq[; gksuh pkfg,A ihBksa ds v/;{kksa dks rks Lo;a i|i= dh rjg txr~ ds O;ogkjksa ls fufyZIr jguk pkfg,A mudk thou gh o.kkZJe /keZ dh izfr"Bk ds fy, gSA mUgsa ru&eu&/ku yxkdj bl dk;Z ds lEiknu ds fy, iz;Ru'khy cuuk pkfg,A ;fn os ,slk djus esa leFkZ ugha gSa rks ml egRoiw.kZ in ds vf/kdkjh os dHkh Hkh ugha gks ldrs ftldh LFkkiuk Lo;a vkpk;Z&pj.kksa us oSfnd /keZ ds vH;qn; ds fy, vius gkFk ls dh FkhA Learned people are the controller of religion. Therefore, supervision over character of Head of Maths has been assigned to mature scholars of this country. A heavy duty is owed to learned people in this regard. A virtue-less Sanyasi can never properly regulate Dharma. Therefore, Shankaracharya conferred the power of dethroning him from the seat on learned persons. Acharya has preached these Heads to live a royal life from religious point of view, but instead of bearing strong element of selfishness, there should mainly be the strong element of welfare. Heads of Peethas themselves should remain unattached from materialistic affairs. Their entire life is dedicated to the installation of Varnashram Dharm. They should strive for implementation of this work, physically, mentally, and economically. If they are not capable in doing so, they can never be eligible for that important office, which was established by Acharya himself for resurrection of Vedic Relgiion. vkpk;Z ds ;s mins'k fdrus mnkRr] fdrus mnkj rFkk fdrus mikns; gSa! blls Li"V izrhr gksrk gS fd vkpk;Z dk O;ogkjKku] 'kkL=Kku dh vis{kk dFkefi ?kVdj ugha FkkA ;g egkuq'kklu vk;Z /keZ ds fy, lpeqp egku~ vuq'kklu gSA* "How exalted, liberal and useful the preachings of Acharya are ! From this, it becomes clear that practical knowledge of Acharya, in any case, was not lesser than scriptural knowledge. This Mahanushasan is in fact a great discipline for Aryan Religion." (English translation by Court)
243. During course of argument, it is also stressed on the part of appellant that validity of appointment of Head of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth would not be within the purview of judicial review inasmuch, it is a part and parcel of established customs or usages relating to particular "religious denomination" and being fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 and 26 of Constitution of India, Court would not be entitled to examine whether an installed Shankaracharya in a particular Amnaya Peeth, is duly qualified or not, when following Guru-Shishya Parampara, outgoing Shankaracharya has nominated or appointed his successor and it is sufficient to uphold such nomination for the reason that wisdom of outgoing Shankaracharya has to be honoured.
244. Wide submission as advanced, we find it difficult to subscribe for the reason that fundamental right to manage religious affairs by every religious denomination or section thereof in the manner protected by Articles 26 and 27 would not be affected where a dispute arose that as per established customs or usages, and written scriptures applicable to such religious denomination, a person installed as Head of Mutt is not validly appointed/installed or his installation is illegal and contrary to such customs or usages including written conditions of established religious scriptures applicable to such religious denomination.
245. Under Part III of Constitution, Article 13 includes within the term ' 'Law', custom, or usages having force of law in the territory of India. Which custom or usage having force of law is operating, and whether customs and usage have been correctly observed or followed, whenever this question is raised before a Court of Law, it can very well examine the same. So far as interpretation, whether such custom and usage having force of law is existing and operating, is a mixed question of fact and law and can be well examined by Court by exercising its judicial review. This also includes within its ambit true meaning of words like 'Mutt', 'Religious denomination', 'Head of Mutt', 'Mahant' etc.
246. In the present case, the capacity and legality of installation of parties as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth is attracting attention of Court. This question involves civil rights of respective parties and same can be examined.
247. The concept of 'Mutt' and 'religious denomination' which is said to have its noticeable history with establishment of Peethas by Adi Shankaracharya has also gone reformation/ change of concept with establishment of different Mutts by subsequent Hindu Sanantan Dharma's Preachers, Social Reformers, Sanyasis and Acharyas etc. It would also be necessary to have a bird eye view to that concept for the reason that difference of four Peethas established by Adi Shankaracharya with that of Mutts and religious endowments came to be established subsequently from time to time is, evident from the fact that persons installed as Shankaracharyas in four Peethas have a different reverence, respect and followership in Sanatan Dharma giving them a supreme place, though as per local traditions, customs and beliefs, many other subsequently established Mutts/ Monasteries and religious endowments also have a large followers. Here again counsel for parties have not disputed that Shankaracharyas of four Peethas have a peculiar, unique and supreme reverence amongst the followers of Sanatan Dharma and they are looked with a different status, equivalent to God.
248. The known historicity of concept of "Mutt" or "Peeth" relates back to the period of Adi Shankaracharya. Both the parties, during the course of argument have admitted that earlier thereto, there was custom, tradition and practice of Guru/Acharya Shiksha in Ashramas where spiritual, social, strategic and other training used to be given, keeping students in Ashramas like a whole time Boarding School but that was a concept nothing to do with "Mutt", Akharas, Religious Endowments etc. These concepts are different.
249. As already said, Adi Shankaracharya established four Peeths, known as "Amnay Peeth" and in common layman language are called Hindu Mutts in four corners of Country, i.e., Govardhan Math at Puri, Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth at Badrinath, Sharda Math at Dwarka and Sringeri Math at Tungbhadra. With the passage of time, this practice expanded by many renowned scholars, some of them are worth mentioned hereat.
250. "Ramanuj", later on called 'Ramanujacharya', was born in 1017 A.D., in village Perumbudur, about twenty-five miles west of Madras. His father was Kesava Somayaji and his mother was Kantimathi. Ramanuja's Tamil name was Ilaya Perumal. Quite early in life, Ramanuja lost his father. Then he came to Kancheepuram to pursue his study of 'Vedas' under one 'Yadavaprakasha', a teacher of Advaita philosophy. While studying, Ramanuj gave his own interpretations on certain Vaidik text contrary to that of his Teacher. At the end of tenth Century, "Visishtadvaita" system of philosophy was well established in Southern India. Followers of this creed were in-charge of important Vaishnavite temples at Kancheepuram, Srirangam, Tirupathi and other important places. The Head of important Vaishnavite institution was 'Yamunacharya', a great sage and profound scholar. He was also Head of the Mutt at Srirangam. One of his disciples, 'Kanchipurna', was serving in the temple at Kancheepuram. It is said that he was a Sudra, but Kanchipurna was so pious and good that people of the place had great respect and reverence for him. We are informed that there is a Temple at Kancheepuram where Kanchipurna's image has been installed and he is worshipped as a saint.
251. Be that as it may, Ramanuj came under Kanchipurna's influence. There are some stories, as to how Ramajun abandoned his family life, but the fact remains that Ramanuj abandoned life of householder and became "Sanyasi". 'Yamunacharya' became very old and was looking out for a young person to take his place as Head of Mutt at Srirangam. He heard about Ramanuj and invited him but by the time Ramanuj reached Srirangam, Yamunacharya was dead. As per wishes of Yamunacharya, Ramanuj was installed as Head of "Visishtadvaita" Mutt at Srirangam and took solemn promises to fulfill the wishes of Yamunacharya, i.e., a Visishtadvaita Bhashya should be written for Brahma Sutras of Vyasa which till then had been taught orally to the disciples of Visishtadvaita philosophy and that the names of 'Parasara', author of 'Vishnu Purana', and Saint 'Sadagopa' should be perpetuated. Commentary of 'Brahma Sutras' written by 'Ramanuj' is known as "Sri Bhashya". It is said that Visishtadvaita system is an ancient one. It was expounded by Bodhayana in his Vritti, written about 400 B.C. and Ramanuj followed Bodhayana in his interpretations of Brahma Sutras. Followers of Ramanuj's sect of Vaishnavas are called Sri Sampradaya. Ramanuj also wrote "Vedanta Sara"(essence of Vedanta), "Vedanta Sangraha" (a resume of Vedanta) and "Vedanta Deepa" (the light of Vedanta). He travelled throughout the length and breadth of India including Kashi, Kashmir and Badrinath. It is said that Ramanuj lived about 120 years.
252. We are not going in details of teaching of Ramanuj, which was basically of "advaita", but concept was slightly modified as "Visishtadvaita" and has some modification on the teachings of Adi Shankaracharya. What we basically find for our purpose is that concept of Mutt was strengthened and continued by one of the known great Saints, i.e., 'Ramanujacharya'.
253. "Ramanand" had its origin sometimes between 1300 to 1380 A.D. He mostly lived in Varanasi and is recognized as founder of "Ramanandi Sampradaya". It is said that after philosophy of 'Visishtadvaita' propounded by Ramanujacharya, there was some dissent amongst the followers of Shankar on the concept of Advaita for the kind of Nirguna Brahma and concept of Advaitism for the kind of Saguna Brahma, i.e, God with attributes. According to later philosophy, God is Saguna Brahma. The creative process and all the objects in creation are real but not illusory as held by Adi Sankaracharya. Therefore, God, soul, matter are real. But God is inner substance and rest are his attributes. Adi Shankaracharya basically said everything for Brahamins. Ramanuja, on the contrary, also invited downtrodden to Vaishnavism. In this way, one theory was divided into two. He was born at Allahabad and initially a great follower of ''Ramanujacharya. Later he founded his own sect and preached his principles in Hindi at Banaras and Agra. He was a worshipper of Rama. It is said that he was first to employ vernacular medium to propagate his ideas. Simplification of worship and emancipation of people from traditional caste rules were his two important contributions to the Bhakti movement. He opposed caste system and chose his disciples from all sections of society. His disciples included Kabir, Raidas, Narahari etc. The period of Swami Ramanand is taken as 1299 to 1410 C.E. Followers of Ramanand are called as "Ramats", a sect of Vaishnavas founded by Ramanand. His area of function mostly constituted aesthetic population found in Banaras and Ayodhya. Ramanand also established several Maths, consisting only of 'celibates'. They obey no caste rules and even Sudras are in their brotherhood. "Ramats" worship only 'Rama' and they call themselves "Dass" (servants of Lord).
254. In thirteenth century, "Madhavacharya" from Kannada region came to propagate Dvaita or dualism of Jivatma and Paramatma. According to his philosophy, world is not an illusion but a reality. God, soul, matter are unique in nature.
255. "Nimbarka" and "Vallabhacharya" were also other preachers of Vaishnavite Bhakti in Telungana region. 'Surdas' was disciple of 'Vallabhacharya' and he popularized Krishna cult in northern India. Similarly, in Rajasthan, 'Mirabai' came as a great devotee of Lord Krishna and spread Bhakti in Lord Krishna through her bhajans. In Northern India, particularly in Avadh, 'Tulsidas' in 1500-1600 AD, a worshipper of Lord Rama, composed Ramcharitmanas, the Hindi version of Ramayana. In this era of Bhakti cult, in 14th and 15th century, Kabir and Nanak also became great apostles of Bhakti cult. They drew inspiration from old masters but propounded teachings in a new concept and refined path. They tried to solve problems of common people arising from age-old superstitions and propounded path of salvation through Bhakti or pure devotion.
256. Adi Shankaracharya also constituted 'Dashnami Akhara' associated with Amnay Peetham, i.e., four peethas established by him. Tradition of Akharas, we find in subsequent period also, inasmuch 'Swami Brijanand' and 'Balanand' who belong to Ramanandi sect of Bairagies established three 'Anni' known as (1) 'Nirmohi', (2) 'Digamber' and (3) 'Nirwani'. These Annis were established for protection and improvement of "Chatuha Ramanandi Sampraday" comprising of seven Akharas, namely, (1) Sri Panch Ramanandi Nirmohi Akhara, (2) Sri Panch Ramanandi Nirwani Akhara, (3) Sri Panch Ramanandi Digambari Akhara, (4) Sri Panch Ramanandi Santoshi Akhara, (5) Sri Panch Ramanandi Khaki Akhara, (6) Sri Panch Ramanandi Niralambi and (7) Sri Panch Ramanandi Maha Nirwani. These Akharas work as "Panchayati Maths", function on democratic pattern. The real power vests in Panch. Appointment of Mahant is by election. The person, who is elected by Panchayat becomes Head of Akhara.
257. "Maths", "religious denomination" as also "Panchayati Maths" have a well known concept. From the material placed herein, we find that a "Math" has been considered as an important kind of Hindu religious endowment. It spells differently at places, namely, 'Math', 'Mutt' or 'Muttum'. In ordinary language, it signifies an "abode" or "residence" of ascetics. In legal parlance, it connotes a "monastic institution" presided over by a Superior and established for the use and benefit of ascetics belonging to a particular order, who generally are disciples or co-disciples of the superior.
258. Detailed history and other characteristics of religious institution, i.e., "Math" has been discussed in the erudite work of Dr. B.K. Mukherjea's, "The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts" (Tagore Law Lectures) (hereinafter referred to as "Mukherjea's Hindu Law"), which was first published in 1952 and we are referring relevant extract from its 4th edition, edited by P.B. Gajendragadkar and P.M. Bakshi. It is stated in para 7.5 at page 332 that Hindu Maths were established for the first time by Adi Shankaracharya. He himself founded four Maths at the four corners of India and made them centres of his Vedantik teaching. Each of these Maths was placed in the charge of one of his four principal disciples, who were, Padmapad, Hastamalak, Sureswar and Trotaka. These four disciples had their own disciples also. In the course of time ten orders or classes of monks were formed, into which the monks of Shankar School stood divided. These ten orders popularly known as 'Dasnamis' bear the title Tirtha, Asrama, Vana, Aranya, Giri, Parvat, Sagar, Saraswati, Bharati and Puri. The disciples of Trotaka at Jyotir Mutt at Badrinath were Giri, Parvat and Sagar, while Sringeri Math claimed as its adherents Saraswati, Bharati and Puri. In addition to Sanyasis who belong to the fourth stage of life, there were "Naishthik Brahmacharis" or perpetual students attached to all Maths. This practice started by Adi Shankaracharya was followed by almost all the religious teachers since then. First in order of time was Sri Ramanujacharya,who propounded theory "qualified monism" in opposition to the "pure monism" of Adi Shankaracharya. Shankar's theory was based upon rigorous logic, recognised Supreme Brahma as the only one and absolute reality. It regarded everything else as phenomenal or illusory. Ramanuj and other Vaishnava teachers who followed him were all philosophical theists. They tried to reconcile their metaphysical doctrines with the yearnings of human heart which always requires a personal God as the supreme cause of all that exists and an eternal soul which yearns for "an approach to an union with that Being". Followers of Ramanuj are known as "Sri Vaishnavas". The object of their adoration is "Supreme" being in the form of "Vishnu" who is always associated with "Shri" or "Lakshmi". On the model of Dashnami Maths of Shankaracharya, Ramanuj founded a large number of Maths for the purpose of strengthening the doctrine propounded by him. Then came Sri Ramanand (born in 1299 A.D.), disciple of Ramanuj. He founded a sect of Vaishnavas known as "Ramats". Ramanand himself is said to have built a Math, for the "ascetics" of his sect, in Benares. The "Ramats" worship one God in the form of Ram.
259. Ordinarily an 'ascetic' (Sanyasi) is one who renounces the world and devotes himself to religion, owns no property, no fixed place of residence and accepts such food and lodgings as are provided by pious householders. If a pious ascetic gathers around him a number of disciples whom he initiates into the mysteries or tenets of his order and such of his disciples intend to become 'ascetics', renounce all connection with their family including family wealth and completely affiliate themselves with the said spiritual teacher, a spiritual fraternity would eventually grow up. If pious, generous persons endow such a fraternity with property, it naturally vests in the Preceptor for the time being and a home is created for the brotherhood, i.e., a Math and that would lead to the constitution and building of a Math. Once the "Math" is established, succession to headship takes place within spiritual family according to the usages that grow up in a particular institution.
260. The term "Math" has been described in "Law Lexicon"-The Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary by P. Ramanatha Aiyer (1997) at page 1205 as under:
"Math. Although there are some differences between debuttar property and property dedicated to a math, where the math is an idol installed in it, property appertaining to a math, whether dedicated to the idol or not, is not the personal property of the head of the math; and when the holder or Mahant is not only a sanyasi but also a celibate, the property is utterly incapable of passing to natural heirs. The fact that the holder executes a hibanama in which he describes the math as his math carries little weight; the math with the idol cannot be his personal property. The presumption in the case of a mahant who is a sanyasi and a celibate, having no family of his own, and who is free from all worldly attachments, is that the property held or acquired by him is so held or acquired on behalf of the math to which his life is entirely devoted. A presumption of the same kind would arise in respect of the property subsequently acquired by such celibate Mahant. Susil Chandra Sen and another v. Gobind Chandra Das and another, 6 RP 705=150 IC 61=AIR 1934 Pat 431.
The term 'Math' is used in the sense either of an institution or of a building. Maths are in the nature of monastic institutions and the term may also be used for the building in which such an institution is housed. Where originally there was a banking or money-lending business which passed from each of its proprietors to his chosen successor, chosen for his business capacity and not for his learning or piety, and there was no religious object behind the business but they called themselves sanyasis and their residence 'Math', it was held that the property acquired by the proprietors could not be claimed to be 'Math' properties as there was no 'Math" in the legal sense of the word. Mayanand Gir v. Parshottamanand Gir, 1943 ALJ 400=1943 OWN (HC) 250.
An institution comes within the definition of 'math' if it satisfies three conditions; (i) that the institution be for the promotion of the Hindu Religion; (ii) that it be presided over by a person whose duty is to engage himself in-spiritual service or who exercises or claims to exercise spiritual headship over a body of disciples; and (iii) that the office of such person devolves in accordance with the directions of the founder of the institution or is regulated by usage Srinivas Das v. Surjanarayan, AIR 1967 SC 256, 259. [Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (4 of 1939), Sec. 6(7)]" (emphasis added)
261. In Sammantha Pandara Vs. Sellappa Chetti ILR 2 (1878-81) Madras 175, Madras High Court discusses origin of 'Math' as under:
"The origin of mattams is ordinarily as follows : A preceptor of religious doctrine gathers around him a number of disciples whom he initiates into the particular mysteries of the order, and instructs in its religious tenets. Such of these disciples as intend to become religious teachers, renounce their connection with their family and all claims to the family wealth, and, as it were, affiliate themselves to the spiritual teacher whose, school they have entered. Pious persons endow the schools with property which is vested in the preceptor for the time being, and a home for the school is erected and a mattam constituted. The property of the mattam does not descend to the disciples or elders in common; the preceptor, the head of the institution, selects among the affiliated disciples him whom he deems the most competent, and in his own life-time installs the disciple so selected as his successor, not uncommonly with some ceremonies. After the death of the preceptor the disciple so chosen is installed in the gaddi, and takes by succession the property which has been held by his predecessor. The property is in fact attached to the office and passes by inheritance to no one who does not fill the office. It is in a certain sense trust property; it is devoted to the maintenance of the establishment, but the superior has large dominion over it, and is not accountable for its management nor for the expenditure of the income, provided he does not apply it to any purpose other than what may fairly be regarded as in furtherance of the objects of the institution. Acting for the whole institution he may contract debts for purposes connected with his mattam, and debts so contracted might be recovered from the mattam property and would devolve as a liability on his successor to the extent of the assets received by him.
We do not of course mean to lay it down that there are not mattams which may have been established for purposes other than those we have described, nor that the property may not in some cases be held on different conditions and subject to different incidents. We have, described the nature of the generality of such institutions and the incidents of the property which is devoted to their maintenance." (emphasis added)
262. Considering, what is meant by a 'Math', a Division Bench of Madras High Court in Giyana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi Vs. Kandasami Tambiran 1887 ILR Vol. 10 Madras 375 held:
"The origin of these associations, their constitution and development, form part of the history of the establishment and spread of the Brahminical system of religious doctrine among the Sudra communities in Southern India. Originally, the ascetic, who renounced the world and devoted himself to religion, confined his attention to the study of theology, to imparting religious instruction to his disciples, and to complying with the ordinances prescribed for the guidance of his order. He then owned no property, except his cloths, sandals, religious books and the idol he kept for his personal worship and a few other articles of trifling value which were absolutely necessary (Mitakshara, Chap. II, s. 8, para. 8). He had no fixed residence and moved from village to village, accepting such lodgings and food as were provided for him by pious laymen, who were in their turn enjoined by the Shastras to honour and support him. This is the mode in which Brahman Sanniyasis live even at the present time. In several villages pious laymen erected buildings for the residence of hermits when they visited their villages, and these were called Mutts. In its original and narrow sense, then, the term "Mutt" signified the residence of an ascetic or Sanniyasi or Paradesi.
But when the Buddhists assailed the Brahminical religion and when Sankarachariyar, the founder of the Advaita or non-dualistic school of philosophy, ultimately prevailed against them, he established some Mutts in order to maintain and strengthen the doctrine and the system of religions philosophy he taught, Sanniyasis being placed at the head of those institutions. After Sankarachariyar, the founders of the Vaishnava, Madhva and other schools of religious philosophy in this Presidency established Mutts for a similar purpose. In former times these institutions exercised considerable influence over the laymen in their neighbourhood; they became centres of classical and religious learning and materially aided in promoting religious knowledge and in encouraging religious and other charities. The ascetics who presided over them were held, owing to their position as religious preceptors, and often also in consequence of their own learning and piety, in great reverence by Hindu princes and noblemen, who from time to time made large presents to them and endowed the Mutts under their control with grants of land. Thus, a class of endowed Mutts came into existence in the nature of monastic institutions, presided over by ascetics or Sanniyasis who had renounced the world. Thus, the ascetic who originally owned little or no property, came to own the Matam under his charge and its endowment, in trust for the maintenance of the Mutt, for his own support, for that of his disciples, and for the performance of religious and other charities in connection with it, according to usage." (emphasis added)
263. In Vidyapurna Tirtha Swami Vs. Vidyanidhi Tirtha Swami 1904 ILR Vol. XXVII Madras 435, Madras High Court, following its earlier decision in Sammantha Pandara Vs. Sellappa Chetti (supra), observed with respect to original growth of 'Math' in this country as under:
"The origin and growth of mutts in this country is thus described in the two judgments of this Court already referred to : "A preceptor of religious doctrine gathers around him a number of disciples whom he initiates into the particular mysteries of the order and instructs in its religious tenets. Such of these disciples as intend to become religious teachers renounce their connection with the family and all claims to the family wealth and, as it were, affiliate themselves to the spiritual teacher whose school they have entered. Pious persons endow the schools with property which is vested in the preceptor for the time being and a home for the school is erected and mattam constituted" (Giyana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi v. Kandasami Tambiran I.L.R., 10 Mad., 375). "The ascetics who presided over them were held, owing to their position as religious preceptors and often also in consequence of their own learning and piety, in great reverence by Hindu princes and noblemen who, from time to time, made large presents to them and endowed the mutts under their control with grants of land. Thus a class of endowed mutts came into existence, in the nature of monastic institutions, presided over by ascetics or sanniyasis who had renounced the world." The object of these mutts is generally the promotion of religious knowledge, the imparting of spiritual instruction to be disciples and followers of the mutt and "the maintenance and strengthening of the doctrines and tenets of particular schools of philosophy."
264. What has been said in Giyana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi (supra), was followed in Kailasam Pillai Vs. Nataraja Thambiran and Ors. 1910 I.L.R. 33 Madras 265 at page 267.
265. Privy Council in Ram Parkash Das Vs. Anand Das and Ors. AIR 1916 Privy Council 256 had also occasion to consider about 'Math' and observed:
"An asthal, commonly known in Northern India as a muth, is an institution of a monastic nature. It is established for the service of a particular cult, the instruction in its tenets and the observance of its rites. The followers of the cult and disciples in the institution are known as chelas; the chelas are of two classes celibate and non-celibate. In the asthal now being dealt with, the religious brethren were the bairagi or celibate chelas; the lay brethren were girhast or householder chelas. The mahant must, by the custom of the muth, be a bairagi or religious chela." (emphasis added)
266. Again in Sri Vidya Varuthi Thirth Swamigal Vs. Baluswami Ayyar and Ors. AIR 1922 P.C. 123, Privy Council expressed its views on page 126 about "Maths" in the following words:
"In many cases in Southern India, especially where the diffusion of Aryan Brahmanism was essential for bringing the Dravidian peoples under the religious rule of the Hindu system, colleges and monasteries under the names of Mutt were founded under spiritual teachers of recognised sanctity. These men had and have ample discretion in the application of the funds of the institution, but always subject to certain obligations and duties, equally governed by custom and usage."
267. Concept of Mutt, private and public, has been considered in Bihar State Board of Religious Trust Vs. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das, AIR 1971 SC 2057, and in para 17, Court observed :
"A religious mutt in northern India is usually known as asthal, a monastic institution founded for the maintenance and spread of a particular sampradaya or cult. The distinction between dedication to a temple and a mutt is that in the former case it is to a particular deity, while in the latter, it is to a superior or a mahant. ... A mutt can be dedicated for the use of ascetics generally or for the ascetics of a particular sect or cult, in which case it would be a public institution. Mutts have generally sadavrats, i.e. arrangements for giving food and shelter to wayfarers and ascetics attached to them. They may have temples to which the public is allowed access." (emphasis added)
268. All the aforesaid decisions were considered in Shri Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir and others 1981 (3) SCC 689=AIR 1980 SC 707. In para 19, Court concluded as under:
"19. ..............Math means a place for the residence of ascetics and their pupils, and the like. Since the time of Sankaracharya, who established Hindu maths, these maths developed into institution devoted to the teaching of different systems of Hindu religious philosophy, presided over by ascetics, who were held in great reverence as religious preceptors, and princes and noblemen endowed these institutions with large grants of property."
269. In Krishna Singh (supra), Court also observed that a Math is an institutional sanctum presided over by a superior who combines in himself the dual office of being religious or spiritual head of particular cult or religious fraternity, and of the manager of secular properties of institution of Math. It also held that the principles noticed in the above cases would make it sufficiently clear that "a math is an institutional sanctum presided over by a superior who combines in himself the dual office of being the religious or spiritual head of the particular cult or religious fraternity, and of the manager of the secular properties of the institution of the math."
270. A "Math" is not a Temple inasmuch it is a place for rendering charitable and religious services in general. Merely there are idols in the Math, it cannot be treated as a 'Temple'. Similarly, an institution which is in its origin a Math, cannot be treated as a temple because idols are also worshipped in the Math. Math can not be treated as a place of public religious worship mere by reason of the worship of idols. The primary purpose of a 'Math' is to encourage and foster spiritual learning by maintenance of a competent line of teachers who impart religious instructions to the disciples and followers of the Math and try to strengthen doctrines of particular school or order of which they profess to be adherents. Deity or an idol may be an essential element in a 'Math' if worship of a God in a certain form is an essential feature of religious doctrine of a certain order. The worship of God in that form would be part of their religious teaching. It would be the duty of any Math of that order to foster and encourage, otherwise it may not be necessary. This has been pointed out in 'Mukherjea's' Hindu Law (supra), 4th Edn. at page 331-332 as under :
"...there are religious orders like those of the Shankara School which believe in monastic doctrines of the Vedanta and to not regard the worship of a personal God as a necessary or essential part of the religious teachings. Even in Shankar Mutts, there may exist a shrine for a particular idol but it cannot be said that the presiding element in a Mutt must be a deity or that there cannot be a Mutt without an idol. A shrine or a temple may ordinarily be seen as an adjunct to a Mutt, but it is not a necessary one and even when it exists, it is not the chief or the indispensable part of the institution. It is only ancillary to the main purpose for whicht he Mutt is endowed and the presiding element in a Mutt is always the Mohunt or the spiritual preceptor."
271. A place of worship is not a necessary part of a Math, though it is often found in such institution and although primarily intended for the use of inmates, the public may also be admitted to such places of religious worship. (See Thamba Vs. Arundel I.L.R. 6 Mad. 287).
272. The presiding element in a Math is an 'ascetic' or a religious teacher, who together with his disciples and co-disciples form spiritual family. It owes its existence to benefactions or grants of property made by pious benefactors. The object of benefaction is the creation of an institution for the benefit of a fraternity of religious men at the head of which stands the superior or Mahant (also termed as "Mohunt"), who represents the entire institution. (vide Satya Charan Sarkar Vs. Mohanta Rudrananda Giri AIR 1953 Cal. 716).
273. In Shri Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir (supra), Court also quoted the relevant extracts from Mukherjea's Hindu Law (supra) as to what a "Math" would signify. It further held that the property belong to a Math is in fact attached to the office of Mahant, and passed by inheritance to no one who does not fill the office. The Head of a Math, as such, is not a trustee in the sense in which that term is generally understood, but in legal contemplation he has an estate for life in its permanent endowments and an absolute property in the income derived from the offerings of his followers, subject only to the "burden of maintaining the institution". He is bound to spend a large part of income derived from the offerings of his followers on charitable or religious objects.
274. The words "the burden of maintaining the institution" must be understood to include the maintenance of Math, the support of its Head and his disciples and the performance of religious and other charities in connection with it, in accordance with usage.
275. According to Hindu jurisprudence, religious institutions such as a "Math" is treated a "juristic entity" with a legal personality capable of holding and acquiring property. The ownership of property vests in the institution. From the very nature of Math, it can act and assert its rights only through a human agency known as "Mahant", Shebait are Dharmakarta or sometimes known as Trustee. Court, in Shri Krishna Singh (supra), quoted following observations of Bombay High Court (Jenkins, C.J.) in Babajirao Vs. Laxmandas 1904 ILR 28 Bom. 215 at 223 with approval which defines true notion of a "Math" in the following terms :
"A math, like an idol, is in Hindu law a judicial person capable of acquiring, holding and vindicating legal rights, though of necessity it can only act in relation to those rights through the medium of some human agency." (emphasis added)
276. In H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt and others Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and others 1979 (4) SCC 642, Hon'ble P.N. Shinghal, J., in a separate judgment, though concurring with the conclusion of majority view of Constitution Bench, in para 47 observed "A Mutt is a monastic institution for the use and benefit of ascetics belonging to a particular order presided over by a superior who is its religious teacher. The Mutt property, though originally given by a donor, belongs to that spiritual family represented by the superior or Mahant. It does not, however, vest in him, as he is some sort of a "shebait", and vests in the Mutt as a juristic person." (emphasis added)
277. The term "Mahant" has been described in 'Law Lexicon-The Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary by P. Ramanatha' (supra), on page 1161 as under:
"Mahant. (H.) The head of a religious establishment of the medicant orders of the Hindus. (Wil. Gloss. 317.) A Mahant or the head of a Math is not a "trustee" in the sense in which that term is understood in English law. The only law as to a Mahant and his office, functions and duties, is to be found in custom and practice, which is to be proved by testimony. But though a Mahant is not a trustee, in the English sense, he is, in view of the obligations and duties resting on him, answerable, as a trustee in the general sense, for the proper administration of the institution of which he is the head. The existence of a very wide discretion in the Mahant as to the application of the income of the Math or asthal is by no means inconsistent with a fiduciary obligation so to manage the property of the Math that the objects for which the Math exists shall be effectively serve. (Kesho Das v. Amar Dasji and others, 14 Pat 379=156 IC 1093=8 RP 62=16 Pat LT 35=AIR 1935 Pat 111)" (emphasis added)
278. The position of a "Mahant" of a "Math" is like that of a "Head of the institution". He is neither a corporation nor a life tenant in respect of Math property. He is also not a trustee in the sense in which the term is understood in English law. Call by whatever name, he is the manager or custodian of the institution. The property which he holds does not vest in him; it vests in the institution and is held by him as a Manager of the same. [See Vidya varyathi Vs. Baluswami (Supra)].
279. In Krishna Singh Ahir (supra) regarding succession of Mahantship of a Math or religious institution, Court said:
"30. The law is well settled that succession to mahantship of a math or religious institution is regulated by custom or usage of the particular institution, except where a rule of succession is laid down by the founder himself who created the endowment. See: Genda Puri v. Chatar Puri (1886) 13 Ind App 100 (PC); Sital Das v. Sant Ram AIR 1954 SC 606 and Mahalinga Thambiran v. La Sri Kasivasi (1974) 2 SCR 74." (emphasis added)
280. According to usage, wide discretion in the application of funds of institution is possessed by "Mahant" but it is always subject to certain obligations and duties equally prescribed by customs and usages.
281. We may also refer to one more aspect of a Math, i.e., public and private Maths. B.K. Mukherjea in Hindu law (supra) has discussed about such Maths and observed that there can be a private Math depending upon the construction of grant, customs and usage of the institution etc. However, it has further observed, where the body is created for the benefit of public generally, Math is dedicated for the use of ascetics generally, such Math would be regarded as public institution. Maths have generally Sadavrats or arrangement for feeding and giving shelter to wayfarers and ascetics attached to them. They may also have Temples to which the public is allowed access. Such circumstances might indicate public character of endowment but nevertheless it is probable to have a private Math where endowment is not intended to confer benefit upon the public generally or even upon the members of a particular religious sect or order.
282. So far as phrase "religious denomination" is concerned, we find that it has attained significance for use in Articles 26 and 27 of Constitution. In order to understand the expression 'religious denomination', we have to understand both the expressions, namely, 'religion' and 'denomination'.
283. Obviously, the words 'religion', 'denomination' and "religious denomination" are not defined in the Constitution, though they occur in Articles 15 (1), 15 (2), 16 (2), 16 (5), 23 (2), 25 to 28, 29 (2) and 30. In order to understand their scope, it would be useful to refer aforesaid provisions as under :
15. (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability,liability, restriction or condition with regard to-
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and place of public entertainment; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and place of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
16. (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. (5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.
23. (2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.
25. (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law-
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
26. Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right-
(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;
(b) to manage its own affairs in matter of religion;
(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
(d) to administer such property in accordance with law.
27. No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.
28. (1) No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds. (2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but has been established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution. (3) No person attending any educational institution recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction that may be imparted in such institution or to attend any religious worship that may be conducted in such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person or, if such person is a minor, his guardian has given his consent thereto.
29. (2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.
30. (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. (2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language. (emphasis added)
284. Religion is certainly a matter of faith of individuals or communities. Religion has its basis in a system of beliefs or doctrine which are regarded by those, who profess that religion, are conducive to their spiritual well being, but it would not be correct to say that religion is nothing else but a doctrine or belief. A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, it might prescribe rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral part of religion and these forms and observances might extend even to matters of food and dress.
285. The expression "religion" has been defined in the "Words and Phrases", Permanent Edition, Vol. 36-A, page 461-463 and onwards, and reads as under :
"The terms 'religion' and 'religious' in ordinary usage are not rigid concepts.
'Religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character and of obedience to his will.
"The word 'religion' in its primary sense (from 'religare' to rebind-bind back), imports as applied to moral questions, only a recognition of a conscious duly to obey restraining principles of conduct. In such sense we suppose there is no one who will admit that he is without religion.
"'religion' is bond uniting man to God and virtue whose purpose is to render God worship due him as source of all being and principle of all government of things.
"'Religion' has reference to man's relation to divinity to the moral obligation of reverence and worship. Obedience, and submission. It is the recognition of God as an object of worship, love and obedience; right feeling ship, love and obedience; right feeling towards God, as highly apprehended.
"'Religion' means the service and adoration of God or a God as expressed in forms of worship; and apprehension, awareness, or conviction of the existence of a Supreme Being; any system of faith, doctrine and worship, as the Christian religion, the religions of the Orient; a particular system of faith or worship.
"'The term 'religion' as used in tax exemption law, simply includes (1) a belief, not necessarily referring to supernatural powers; (2) a cult, involving a gregarious association openly expressing the belief; (3) a system of moral practice directly resulting from an adherence to the belief; and (4) an organisation within the cult designed to observe the tenets or belief, the content of such belief being of no moment.
"while 'religion' in its broadest sense includes all forms of belief in the existence of superior beings capable of exercising power over the human race, as commonly accepted it means the formal recognition of God, as members of societies and association, and the term 'a religious purpose', as used in the constitutional provision exempting from taxation property used for religious purposes, means the use of property by a religious society or body of persons as a place for public worship.
"'Religion' is a squaring human life with superhuman life. Belief in a superhuman power and such an adjustment of human activities to the requirements of that power as may enable the individual believer to exist more happily is common to all 'religions'. The term 'religion' has reference to one's views on his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose on reverence for His being and character and obedience to his will.
"The term 'religion' has reference to one's view of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will. With obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the law of society designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with."
286. In Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. LXXVI (1952), pages 727-729, word "religion" has been described as under:
"RELIGION. The word "religion" is derived from "religare," meaning to rebind, to bind back; and in its most general sense it means devotion or fidelity, as to a principle or practice; scrupulous conformity; conscientiousness; deep attachment like that felt for an object of worship.
There is not complete agreement on a definition of the word "religion" as it is used in the theological sense, and the content of the term is found in the history of the human race and is incapable of compression into a few words. It is not defined in the Bible or in various state constitutions, and although the word is used in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, see Constitutional Law § 206 a, it is not defined in the Constitution, and it is therefore necessary to go elsewhere to ascertain the meaning of the term, and it has been said that there is nowhere to go more appropriately than to the history of the times in the midst of which the Bill of Rights of the federal Constitution was adopted.
What has been referred to as a "minimum definition" of the word "religion" as stated by a legal philosopher is that the term "religion" has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for His being and character, and of obedience to His will.
As stated by a religious philosopher, religion is squaring human life with superhuman life, and what is common to all religions is belief in a superhuman power and an adjustment of human activities to the requirements of that power, such adjustment as may enable the individual believer to exist more happily.
As generally accepted, "religion" may be defined as a bond uniting man to God and a virtue whose purpose is to render God the worship due to him as the source of all being and the principle of all government of things; the recognition of God as an object of worship, love, and obedience; the service and adoration of God or a god as expressed in forms of worship, in obedience to divine commands, especially as found in accepted sacred writings or as declared by recognized teachers and in the pursuit of a way of life regarded as incumbent on true believers; an apprehension, awareness, or conviction of the existence of a Supreme Being, or, more widely, of supernatural powers or influences controlling one's own, humanity's, or nature's destiny; also, such as apprehension, etc., accompanied by or arousing reverence, love, gratitude, the will to obey and serve and the like; religious experience or insight; often, specifically, the awakening of religious belief, convictions, etc., as in conversion; a belief in an invisible superhuman power, or powers, conceived of after the analogy of the human spirit, on which, or whom, man regards himself as dependent, and to which, or whom, he thinks himself in some degree responsible, together with the feelings and practices which naturally flow from such a belief; some system of faith and practice resting on the idea of the existence of one God, the creator and ruler, to whom His creatures owe obedience and love. More specifically, the word "religion" is understood to mean conformity in faith and life to the precepts inculcated in the Bible, respecting conduct of life and duty toward God and man; the Christian faith and practice.
The essence of religion is belief in a relation to God involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, and it includes a way of life as well as beliefs on the nature of the world. In its broadest sense "religion" comprehends all systems of belief in the existence of being superior to, and capable to exercising an influence for good or evil on, the human race, and all forms of worship of service intended to influence or give honor to such superior powers; any system of faith and worship; morality with a sanction drawn from a future state of rewards and punishment." (emphasis added)
287. Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, page 1293 describe it as under:
"religion. A system of faith and worship usu. involving belief in a supreme being and usu. containing a moral or ethical code; esp., such a system recognized and practiced by a particular church, sect, or denomination. In construing the protections under the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, courts have interpreted the term religion quite broadly to include a wide variety of theistic and nontheistic beliefs."
288. Law Lexicon-The Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary by P. Ramanatha Aiyer (supra) describe "religion" at page 1646-1647 as under:
"Religion. (Religio). Virtue, as founded on reverence of God, and Expectation of future rewards and punishments; a system of Divine Faith and Worship as opposed to others. (Johns) That habit of reverence towards the Divine Nature, whereby we are enabled and inclined to serve and worship him, after such a manner as we conceive most acceptable to him, is called Religion. (Tomlins Law Dic.) "What is Religion? Is it not what a man honestly believes in an approves of and thinks it is duty to inculcate on others, whether with regard to this world or the next? A belief in any system of retribution by an overruling power. It must, I think include the principle of gratitude to an active power who can confer blessings" (per Willes, J., Baxter v. Langley, 38 LJMC 5).
In all countries the word "religion" is ordinarily understood to mean some system of faith and practice resting on the idea of the existence of one God, the creator and ruler, to whom his creatures owe obedience and love.
Religion is morality, with a sanction drawn from a future state of rewards and punishments.
The word "religion" in its primary sense imports, as applied to moral questions, only a recognition of a conscious duty to obey restraining principles of conduct. In such sense we suppose there is no one who will admit that he is without religion.
By the generic word "religion" is not meant the Christian religion or Bible religion, but it means the religion of man, and not the religion of any class of men.
"I for one would never be a party, unless the law were clear, to saying to any man who put forward his views on those most sacred things, that he should be branded as apparently criminal because he differed from the majority of mankind in his religious views or convictions on the subject of religion. If that were so, we should get into ages and times which, thank God, we do not live in, when people were put to death for opinions and beliefs which now almost all of us believe to be true."--[Lord Coleridge, C.J., Reg. v. Bradlaugh and others, (1883) 15 Cox. C.C. 230] "All persecution and oppression of weak consciences on the score of religious persuasions, are highly unjustifiable upon every principle of natural reason, civil liberty, or sound religion." Sir Wm. Blackstone, (1765) Com. Bk. IV, ch. 4, p. 40.
The teachings of Sri Arubindo is only philosophy and not religion. S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1, Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act (59 of 1980) The expression "religion" mentioned in cl. (b) of Art. 26, includes not only the philosophical side of religion, but also religious practices as laid down in the tenants of any religious sect. Ram Chandra Deb v. State of Orissa, AIR 1959 Ori 5.
The word 'religion' means the distinct religion and all recognized practices thereof. Arya Samaj Educational, Trust, Delhi v. the Director of Education Delhi Administration Delhi, AIR 1976 Del 207.
The term "religion" whatever its best definition, clearly refers to certain characteristic types of data (beliefs, practices, feelings, moods, attitudes etc.). It primarily involves some immediate consciousness of transcendent realities of supreme personal worth vitally influencing life and thought, expressing themselves in forms which are conditioned by the entire stage of development reached by the individual and his environments and tending to become more explicit and static in mythologies, theologies, philosophies and scientific doctrines. Ramanasramam v. Commissioner for Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments, AIR 1961 Mad 265 (269).
Religion is concerned with man's relations with God. If reason leads people not to accept Christianity or any known religion, but they do believe in the excellence of qualities such as truth, beauty and love, or believe in the Platonic concept of the ideal, their beliefs may be to them the equivalent of a religion, but viewed objectively they are not religion, Barralet v. Attorney General, (1980) 3 All ER 918 (924)."
289. In New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition, page 841, define "religion":
"re-li-gion n. man's expression of his acknowledgment of the divine, a system of beliefs and practices relating to the sacred and uniting its adherents in a community, e.g. Judaism, Christianity, adherence to such a system, a man without religion, something which has a powerful hold on a person's way of thinking, interests etc."
290. In Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt AIR 1954 SC 282, Court in para 17 said:
"17.......Religion is certainly a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theistic. There are well known religions in India like Buddhism and Jainism which do not believe in God or in any Intelligent First Cause. A religion undoubtedly has its basis in a system of belief or doctrines which are regarded by those who profess that religion as conductive to their spiritual well being, but it would not be correct to say that religion is nothing else but a doctrine or belief. A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, it might prescribe rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion, and these forms and observances might extend even to matters of food and dress."
291. In Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. The State of Bombay and others, AIR 1954 SC 388, Court observed:
"A 'religion' is not merely an opinion, doctrine or belief. It has its outward expression in acts as well. Religious practices or performances of acts in pursuance of religious belief are as much a part of religion as faith or belief in particular doctrines. Thus if the tenets of the Jain or the Parsi religion lay down that certain rites and ceremonies are to be performed at certain times and in a particular manner, it cannot be said that these are secular activities partaking of commercial or economic character simply because they involve expenditure of money or employment of priests or the use of marketable commodities. No outside authority has any right to say that these are not essential parts of religion and it is not open to the secular authority of the State to restrict or prohibit them in any manner they like under the guise of administering the trust estate."
292. Another Constitution Bench in S.P. Mittal Vs. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 1 considered "religion" and in para 12 of judgment said :
"12.............The Constitution considers Religion as a matter of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, a matter involving the conscience and a matter which may be professed, practised and propagated by anyone and which may even have some secular activity associated with it.........."
293. In S.P. Mittal (supra) , Court also held:
"'Religion' is morality, with a sanction drawn from a future state of rewards and punishments. The term 'religion' and 'religious' in ordinary usage are not rigid concepts. 'Religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will. The word 'religion' in its primary sense (from 'religare', to rebind, bind back), imports, as applied to moral questions, only recognition of a conscious duty to obey restraining principles of conduct. In such sense we suppose there is no one who will admit that he is without religion. Religion is bond-uniting man to God, and virtue whose purpose is to render God worship due him as source of all being and principle of all government of things. 'Religion' has reference to man's relation to divinity; to the moral obligation of reverence and worship, obedience, and submission. It is the recognition of God as an object of worship, love and obedience; right feeling toward God, as highly apprehended. 'Religion' means the service and adoration of God or a god as expressed in forms of worship; an apprehension, awareness, or conviction of the existence of a Supreme Being; any system of faith, doctrine and worship, as the Christian religion, the religions of the Orient; a particular system of faith or worship. While 'religion' in its broadest sense includes all forms of belief in the existence of superior beings capable of exercising power over the human race, as commonly accepted it means the formal recognition of God, as members of societies and associations, and the term, 'a religious purpose', as used in the constitutional provision exempting from taxation property used for religious purposes, means the use of property by a religious society or body of persons as a place for pubic worship. 'Religion' is squaring human life with superhuman life. Belief on a superhuman power and such an adjustment of human activities to the requirements of that power as may enable the individual believer to exist more happily is common to all 'religions'. The term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will. With man's relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which he of his belief on those subjects shall make an expression, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with."
294. In Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others Vs. Moran Mar Marthoma and another, 1995 (Supple) (4) SCC 286, word 'religion' was described as under:
"Religion" is the belief, which binds spiritual nature of men to supernatural being. It includes worship, belief, faith, devotion etc. and extends to rituals. Religious right is the right of a person believing in a particular faith to practice it, preach it and profess it."
295. In A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu Vs. State of A.P. and others, 1996(9) SCC 548, Court described "religion" with reference to Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution as under:
"'Religion' as used in these articles must be construed in its strict and etymological sense. 'Religion' is that which binds a man with his Cosmos, his Creator or Super force. It is difficult and rather impossible to define or delimit the expressions 'religion' or "matters of religion' used in Article 25 and 26. Essentially, religion is a matter of personal faith and belief of personal relations of an individual with what he regards as Cosmos, his maker or his creator, which, he believes, regulates the existence of insentient beings and the forces of the universe. 'Religion' is not necessarily theistic and in fact there are well-known religions in India itself like Buddhism and Jainism, which do not believe in the existence of God. In India, Muslims believe in Allah and have faith in Islam; Christians in Christ and Christianity; Parsis is Zoroastrianism; Sikhs in Guru Granth Sahib and teachings of Guru Nanak Devji, its founder, which is a facet of Hinduism like Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj etc. A religion undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs and doctrine, which are regarded by those who profess religion to be conducive to their spiritual well being. A religion is not merely an opinion, doctrine or belief. It has outward expression in acts as well."
296. In T.K. Gopal alias Gopi Vs. State of Karnataka, 2000 (6) SCC 168, Court said:
"'Religion' is a matter of faith stemming from the depth of the heart and mind. 'Religion' is a belief, which binds the spiritual nature of man to a supernatural being; it is an object of conscientious devotion, faith and pietism. Devotion in its fullest sense is a consecration and denotes an act of worship. Faith in the strict sense constitutes firm reliance on the truth of religious doctrines in every system of religion. Religion, faith or devotion is not easily interchangeable."
297. In Ms. Aruna Roy and others Vs. Union of India and others, JT 2002 (7) SC 103 it was said:
"The word 'religion' has different shades and colours. Important shade is dharma (duty), that is to say, duty towards the society and the soul. It should not be misunderstood nor contention could be raised that as it is used in the national policy of education, secularism would be at peril."
298. In P.M.A. Metropolitan (supra), Court in respect of faith and belief also observed:"Religion is founded on faith and belief. Faith emanates from conscience and belief is result of teaching and learning." (para 3)
299. The word "denomination" has been described in Black's Law Dictionary Seventh Edition on page 446 as under:
"denomination. 1. An act of naming. 2. A collective designation, esp. of a religious sect."
300. In "Words and Phrases", Permanent Edition, Vol. 12 (1962), page 105, defines it as under :
"A "denomination" is a religious sect having a particular name. Hale v. Everett, 53 N.H. 9, 92, 16 Am.Rep. 82.
A "denomination" is defined by Webster as "A class or collection of individuals called by the same name; a sect." Wilson v. Perry, 1 S.E. 302, 304, 314, 29 W.Va. 169.
In an indictment charging the larceny of national bank bills, the number and denomination of which are to the grand jury unknown, "denomination" refers to the value or number of dollars the several bills represented, as the denomination of $500, etc. Duvall v. State, 63 Ala. 12, 17.
"Religious sect, order, or denomination," as used in V.A.M.S. Const. 1865, art, 1, § 13, providing that a "religious sect, order, or denomination" was capable of receiving a devise, etc., is not to be limited in meaning to such religious bodies as are composed of many local congregations linked together by rules of the sect, order, or congregation, so that what property one holds belongs in some sense to the whole, but includes a local congregation uncontrolled by any general ecclesiastical organization. Boyce v. Christian, 69 Mo. 492, 494."
301. The Law Lexicon-The Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary by P. Ramanatha Aiyer (supra) describes "denomination" on page 521:
"Denomination. A class or collection of individuals called by the sane name; a sect; a class of units in money (coins of small denomination); a distinctively named church or sect (as, elergy of all denominations).
A class or society of individuals called by the same name especially a religious group or a community of believers called by the same name."
302. New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of English Language, Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition, at page 256 defined the word "denomination" as under:
"de-nom-i-na-tion n. the act of denominating, a name, esp. one given to a class or category, one of a series of units in numbers, weights or money, a religious sect, Protestant denominations."
303. The term "denomination" came to be considered in Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1995 SC 2089 and in para 14 of judgement, referring to Oxford Dictionary, Court quoted from Sri Shirur Mutt (supra) as under :
"...The word denomination has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary to mean a collection of individuals classed together under the same name: a religious sect of body having a common faith and organisation and designated by a distinctive name......"
304. In Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1997(4) SCC 606 Court said:
"On the practices of the Math, the meaning of the connotation "denomination" in that behalf, it was held that each such sect or special sects which are founded by their organizer generally by name be called a religious denomination as it is designated by distinctive name in many cases. It is the name of the founder and has common faith and common spiritual organization. Article 26 of the Constitution contemplates not merely a religious denomination but also a section thereof. The words "religious denomination" under Article 26 of the Constitution must take their colour from the word religion and if this be so the expression religious denomination must be (1) a collection of religious faith, a system of belief, which is conducive to the spiritual well-being, i.e, a common faith; (2) Common organization; (3) a designation by a distinctive name."
305. In Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. LXXVI (1952) on page 738 the word "religious sect or denomination" has been described as under:
"The term "religious sect or denomination" refers to people believing in the same religious doctrines who are more or less closely associated or organized to advance such doctrines and increase the number of believers therein; a body or number of persons united in tenets but constituting a distinct organization or party by holding sentiments or doctrines different from those of other sects or people.
The term "religious sect or denomination" refers to people believing in the same religious doctrines who are more or less closely associated or organized to advance such doctrines and increase the number of believers therein; a church, or body of persons in some way united for purposes of worship, who profess a common religious faith, and are distinguished from those composing other such bodies by a name of their own; a body or number of persons united in tenets but constituting a distinct organization or party by holding sentiments or doctrines different from those of other sects or people.
Denomination. A class or collection of individuals called by the same name; a sect. It has been said to be equivalent to, or synonymous with, "persuasion."
Persuasion. In religious affairs, a creed or belief; hence a sect or party adhering to a creed or system of opinions."
306. The word "religious denomination or religious sect" has been described in Words and Phrases Permanent Edition Vol. 36A (1962) on page 479:
"A religious sect is a body or number of persons united in tenets, but constituting a distinct organization or party, by holding sentiments or doctrines different from those of other sects or people. State v. Hallock, 16 Nev. 373, 385.
"People believing in the same religious doctrines, who are more or less closely associated or organized to advance such doctrines and increase the number of believers therein," constitute a religious sect. State v. District Board of School Dist. No. 8, 44 N.W. 967, 973, 76 Wis. 177, 7 L.R.A. 330, 20 Am.St.Rep. 41.
"Religious sect, order, or denomination," as used in V.A.M.S. Const. 1865, art, 1, § 13, providing that a "religious sect, order, or denomination" was capable of receiving a devise, etc., is not to be limited in meaning to such religious bodies as are composed of many local congregations linked together by rules of the sect, order, or congregation, so that what property one holds belongs in some sense to the whole, but includes a local congregation uncontrolled by any general ecclesiastical organization. Boyce v. Christian, 69 Mo. 492, 494."
Within Const. Art. 1, § 1, par. 14, providing that no money shall be taken from the public treasury in aid of any church, sect, denomination, or sectarian institution, a "religious sect" is a body or number of persons united in tenets and constituting a distinct organization or party holding sentiments or doctrines different from those of other sects or people, and having a common system of faith. Every such sect is "sectarian," and a "church" is an organization for religious purposes or for the public worship of God. Benett v. City of La Grange, 112 S.E. 482, 485, 153 Ga. 428, 22 A.L.R. 1312."
307. The term "religious sect" is described in the Law Lexicon-The Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary by P. Ramanatha Aiyer (supra) at page 1648 as under:
"Religious sect. "People believing in the same religious doctrines, who are more or less closely associated or organized to advance such doctrines and increase the number of believers therein," constitute a religious sect. A religious sect is a body or number of persons united in tenets, but constituting a distinct organization or party, by holding sentiments or doctrines different from those of other sects or people."
308. In New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition at page 841 the word "religious" has been described as under:
"re-li-gious 1. adj. of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion, faithful in religion, associated with the practice of religion, a religious rite (of behavior) governed by principles adhered to as strictly as if they were those of a religion, a religious regard for accuracy, of or pertaining to a monastic order 2. pl. re-li-gious n. someone who has made monastic vows."
309. The term "religious denomination" came up for consideration in Sri Shirur Mutt (Supra) and after referring to Oxford Dictionary, Court observed that the meaning of "religious denomination" is a collection of individuals classed together under the same name; a religious sect or body having a common faith and organization and designated by a distinctive name. Court held that different sects or sub-sects can certainly be called a religious denomination as it is designated by a distinctive name, has a common faith and common spiritual organization.
310. In S.P. Mittal (supra), Court also considered the term 'religious denomination' and said:
"The word 'religious denomination' in Article 26 of the Constitution must take their colour from the word 'religion' and if this be so, the expression 'religious denomination' must also satisfy three conditions". It must be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs or doctrines, which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well being, that is, a common faith; Common organization; and Designation by a distinctive name."
311. In S. R. Bommai and others Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1994 SC 1918 and M/s Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1992 (1) SCC 659 the aforesaid tests for determination of "religious denomination" were reiterated.
312. In Nallor Marthandam Vellalar and others Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and others 2003 (10) SCC 712, it was held that the words "religious denomination" take their colour from the word "religion". Court further said that the expression "religious denomination" must satisfy three requirements- (1) it must be collection of individuals, who have a system of beliefs or doctrine which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, i.e. a common faith, (2) a common organization; and (3) designation of a distinctive name. It necessarily follows that the common faith of the community should be based on religion in that they should have common religious tenets and basic cord which connects them, should be religion and not merely consideration of caste of community or social status.
313. Following the view taken with regard to "religious denomination" in Sri Shirur Mutt (supra), a three-Judge Bench in Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta and others Vs. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and another 1983 (4) SCC 522 held that "Ananda Marg", which is a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well being; a common organization; a definite name could be regard as a "religious denomination" within Hindu religion as it satisfies the test laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sri Shirur Mutt (supra).
314. In Bramchari Sidheswar Shai (supra), Court held that Ram Krishna Mission is also a "religious denomination", and while expressing so, Court in para 51 of judgment said :
"51. No good reason is shown to us for not accepting the view of the Division Bench of the point that Ramakrishna Mission or Ramakrishna Math is a religious denomination. It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that Sri Ramakrishna could be regarded as religious teacher who expounded, practised and preached the principles of Vedanta on which Hindu religion is founded, to meet the challenges posed to humanity in the changing world and made his disciples to spread the principles so expounded by him not only in India but all over the world as the basic principles of Hinduism. It cannot also be disputed that the disciples of Ramakrishna formed Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission for propagation and promotion of the principles, so expounded, practised and preached by Ramakrishna Parmahansa, by way of publications and building of temples, prayer halls and building of educational, cultural and charitable institutions as performance of sevas resulting in the coming up of organisations as Ramakrishna Maths and Ramakrishna Missions, all over the world. These Maths and Missions of Ramakrishna composed of the followers of principles of Hinduism as expounded, preached or practised by Ramakrishna as his disciples or otherwise form a cult or sect of Hindu religion. They believe in the birth of sage Ramakrishna in Dakshineswar as an Avatar of Rama and Krishna and follow the principles of Hinduism discovered, expounded, preached and practised by him as those conducive to their spiritual well-being as the principles of highest Vedanta which surpassed the principles of Vedanta conceived and propagated by Sankaracharya, Madhavacharya and Ramanunjacharya, who were earlier exponents of Hinduism. Hence, as rightly held by the Division Bench of the High Court, followers of Ramakrishna, who are a collection of individuals, who adhere to a system of beliefs as conducive to their spiritual wellbeing, who have organised themselves collectively and who have an organisation of definite name as Ramakrishna Math or Ramakrishna Mission could, in our view, be regarded as a religious denomination within Hindu religion, inasmuch as they satisfy the tests laid down by this Court in Sri Shirur Math's case (AIR 1954 SC 282) (supra) for regarding a denomination as a religious denomination."
315. It may be noticed at this stage the scope of judicial review about what constitutes 'religious belief' or what is essential religious practices or what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of a particular religion, is not subject to the belief or faith of a judge but once it is found that a belief, faith, rite or ceremony is genuinely and consciously treated to be part of profession or practice of a religion by the segment of people of distinct group, believing in that particular religion, suffice it to constitute "religion" within the term of Article 25 of the Constitution whereunder the persons of the said segment have a fundamental right to practice their religion without any interruption from State. This right is subject only to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution as well as the power of the State to make laws in respect of the matter provided in Article 25(2) of the Constitution. This right is conferred to the persons professing, practising and propagating the concerned religion.
316. In Jamshed Ji Vs. Soonabai, (1909) 22 Bom 122 Hon'ble Davar, J., in respect of the belief of a community regarding 'religion' observed:
"If this is the belief of the community and it is proved undoubtedly to be the belief of the Zoroastrian community,-a secular Judge is bound to accept that belief-it is not for him to sit in judgement on that belief, he has no right to interfere with the conscience of a donor who makes a gift in favour of what he believes to be the advancement of his religion and the welfare of his community or mankind."
317. The above view has been quoted with approval in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi (supra) and in Bijoe Emmanuel and others Vs. State of Kerala and others, 1986(3) SCC 615 wherein after quoting the above observation, Court approved the same in the following words:
"We do endorse the view suggested by Davar J.'s observation that the question is not whether a particular religious belief or practice appeals to our reason or sentiment but whether the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held as part of the profession or practice of religion. Our personal views and reactions are irrelevant. If the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held it attracts the protection of Article 25 but subject, of course, to the inhibitions contained therein." (emphasis added)
318. The contents and scope of Articles 25 and 26 of Constitution have been considered in a number of decisions and it would be suffice to refer a Constitution Bench decision in Sardar Syedna Tahel Saifuddin Saheb Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853 wherein, referring to its earlier decisions, in para 34, Court observed:
"The content of Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution came up for consideration before this Court in 1954 SCR 1005: (AIR 1954 S.C. 282), Ramanuj Das v. State of Orissa, 1954 SCR 1046: (AIR 1954 SC 400), 1958 SCR 895: (AIR 1958 S.C. 255); (Civil Appeal No. 272 of 1960 D/- 17-3-1961: (AIR 1961 SC 1402), and several other cases and the main principles underlying these provisions have by these decisions been placed beyond controversy. The first is that the protection of these articles is not limited to matters of doctrine or belief, they extend also to acts done in pursuance of religion and therefore contain a guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral parts of religion. The second is that what constitutes an essential part of a religion or religious practice has to be decided by the courts with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion and include practices which are regarded by the community as a part of its religion."
319. Here referring as to what constitute "religious denomination", Court also observed that the identity of a "religious denomination" consists in the identity of its doctrine, creeds and tenets and these are intended to ensure unity of the faith which its adherents profess and the identity of religious views and bonds of union which binds them together as one community. In the absence of conformity to essentials, the denomination would not be an entity cemented into solidity by harmonious uniformity of opinion, it would be a mere incongruous heap of, as it were, grains of sand, thrown together without being united, each of these intellectual and isolated grains differing from every other, and the whole forming nominally united while really unconnected mass; fraught with nothing but internal dissimilitude, and mutual and reciprocal contradiction and dissension. (This is a quote from the passage of Lord Halsbury in Free Church of Scotland Vs. Overtoun; 1904 AC 515 which in turn refer to the observations of "Smith B." in Dill Vs. Watson, (1836) 2 Jones Rep. (Ir Ex) 48).
320. Court further observed that a denomination within Article 26 and persons who are members of that denomination are under Article 25 entitled to ensure continuity of denomination and such continuity is possible only by maintaining bond of religious discipline which would secure that continued adherence of its members to certain essentials like faith, doctrine, tenets and practices. The right guaranteed by Article 25(1) is not confined to freedom of conscience in the sense of the right to hold a belief and to propagate that belief, but includes right to the practice of religion, the consequences of that practice must also bear the same complexion and be the subject of a like guarantee.
321. In Sardar Sarup Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1959 SC 860 another Constitution Bench observed that freedom of religion in our Constitution is not confined to religious beliefs only but extends to essential religious practices as well subject to the restriction which the Constitution has laid down. Referring to Shirur Mutt (supra) it also held that a religious denomination or organization enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion they hold. Similarly referring to Venkataramana Devaru Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255 the court said that matters of religion in Article 26(b) include practices essential according to the community as part of its religion.
(d) About Mathamnaya-Mahanushasan
322. It is in the context of above discussion, issue relating to status of instructions contained in "Mathamnaya Mahanushasan" has to be examined , whether constitute established customs and usages having force of law in respect of religious denomination, with which we are concerned, i.e. whether with respect to Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth established by Adi Shankaracharya, any custom and usage, otherwise than the written instructions contained in the above books of command, has been proved by any of parties so as to prevail over the instructions contained in aforesaid books of command.
323. Though plaintiff has claimed that Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan are the books containing commands of Adi Shankaracharya, governing four Peethas established by him which are called "Amnaya" (teaching of Vedas) and Peetham (seats of teaching of Vedas) and in written statement appellant has said that these are not mandatory commands but only recommendatory but during evidence it has been admitted by several witnesses of both parties that these books contain commands of high degree of reverence and they have been followed traditionally in all the four Peethas strictly and must be observed.
324. Plaintiff said that "Mahanushasanam", is the book of Law which has been left by Adi Shankaracharya, founder of Shardamath-Dwarka, Goverdhanmath-Puri, Shringerimath-Shringer and Jyotirmath Badarikashram for proper governance and functioning thereof. This sacred book is a written Constitution of said four Peeths/Maths established by Adi Shankaracharya.
325. Mathamnayasetu and Mahanushasan edited and translated in Hindi by Padmshri Acharya Baldeo Upadhyay was published as Appendics 'Gha' to "Shri Shankar Digvijaya" of Madhavacharya in its 1st Edition 1943 and 3rd Edn. 1985 (hereinafter referred as "Mathamnay" Hindi Edn). 1st Edn. Of Parmeshwar Nath Mishra's Sharda Bhashya, an English Commentary of Mathamnayasetu or Mahanushasanam along with its text and English translation was published by Shri Sadanand Brahmchari in the year 2001 of Christ Era (hereinafter referred as "Mathamanay English Edn.") Save and except verse nos. 65 and 72 of Mathamnay English Edn., all other verses are found in "Mathamnay Hindi Edn.", though method of numbering is different. Herein verses number of Mathamanay "English Edn." have been referred. Some of the relevant verses, i.e., 38, 55, 61 and 63 of "Mathamanya-Mahanushasan" reads as under:
^^e;kZnS"kk lqfoKs;k prqeZBfo/kkf;uhA rkesrka leqikfJR; vkpk;kZ% LFkkfirk% dzekr~AA38AA These distinct definitions and injunctions with regard to the four Monasteries on the basis of which Acharyas are installed in hereditary descent, must be properly known. (38) lq/kUok fg egkjktLrFkkU;s p ujsJ~ojk%A /kekZikjEijhesrka iky;Urq fujUrje~ AA55AA Sovereign king Sudhanva and other kings should forever observe this tradition of Dharma. (55) bR;soa euqjI;kg xkSreks·fi fo'ks"kr%A fof'k"Vf'k"Vkpkjks·fi ewyknso izfl);frAA61AA It has been told by Manu as also by Gautam Specifically that conduct of the Excellent personality whose conducts are commanding in nature, is also known as Dharma like its Source i.e. Vedas. (61) /keZL; i)frg~;s"kk txr% fLFkfrgsrosA loZo.kkZJek.kka fg ;Fkk'kkL=a fo/kh;rs AA63AA This system of Dharma has been inducted according to Scriptures for the protection of the world and all Varnasharams. (63) (English translation by Court)
326. Meaning of word "Mathamnay Setu" or "Mathamnay-Mahanushasan" breaking the words in "Math-Amnay-Setu" and "Maha-Anushasanam" have been explained as under:
(i) 'Matha' means 'the retired hut (or cell) of an ascetic (or student) (A Sanskrit English Dictionary of Sir Monier-Williams, 16th reprint of corrected Edn. 2002 published by Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi at p. 774)(hereinafter referred to "Monier-Williams Dictionary")
(ii)vkEuk;% means Vedas with its subsidiaries which is out come of its meanings as given in the the Religious Books and Dictionaries referred hereinafter.
(a) In Mahabharata vkEuk;% has been enumerated amongst thousand-names of Lord Shiv, there lekEUuk;ks·lekEUuk;% means You are the Veda, You are the Smritis the Itihasas, the Puranas, and other scriptures.
(b) According to V.S. Opte vkEuk;% means iq.; ijEijk ¼[k½ vr% osn] lkaxksikax osn ¼czkg~e.k] mifu"kn rFkk vkj.;d lfgr½A
(c) According to Monier- Williams A-mnaya, means- a Veda or the Vedas in the Aggregate; received doctrine.
(iii) 'Setu' according to Adi Shankaracharya "lsrq" means binding authority i.e. Law. In his commentary he says;
^^mUgha Hkwrksa dk ;g ikyf;rk&j{kk djus okyk gS ;g lsrq gS] fdu fo'ks"k.kksa okyk lsrq gSA lks Jqfr crykrh gS&fo/kj.k vFkkZr~ o.kkZJekfn O;oLFkk dk fo/kkj.k djus okyk ; ;gh ckr Jqfr dgrh gS&bu HkwyksZd ls ysdj czg~eyksdi;ZUr yksdksa ds vlEHksn ds fy;s vFkkZr~ e;kZnk dk Hksnu u gksus ds fy;sA ;fn ijes'oj lsrq ds leku yksdksa dk fo/kkj.k u djsa rks mudh e;kZnk VwV tk; vr% yksdksa ds vlEHksn fy;s ;g ijes'oj] tks fd Lo;a T;ksfr vkRek gh gS] lsrqLo:i gSA bl izdkj tkuus okyk o'kh gS & bR;kfn okD; ls ;g czg~efo|k dk Qy gh fn[kk;k x;k gSA** "This is nourisher-protector of those very entities. This is a bridge, which characteristics it possesses? Shruti says- Vidharan which determines Varnashram system; So the Shruti says, so as not to violate the the proprieties of all these earthly worlds upto the ethereal ones. If the Almighty, like the bridge, does not delineate the worlds, then the proprieties would get violated. Therefore, for the maintenance of the proprieties of all the worlds, the Almighty who is luminous, works as a bridge. The knower of this is the one who has controlled senses; from this expression the result of spiritual knowledge stands shown. (English translation by Court)
(b) According to Monier- Williams lsrq Setu-means; binding, who or what binds or fetters, fixed rule.
(c) According to V.S. Apte lsrq% means fuf'pr fu;e ;k fof/k] loZ lEer izFkkA
(iv) Mahaa means 'great, might, and strong
(v) vuq'kklu means 'Command; Aadesh, Niyam, Vidhi
(a) According to Adi Shankaracharya osnkuq'kklue~ (Ved+ Anushasan) means i.e. Command of the Vedas.
(b) Acc has ording to Monier Williams e;kZnk maryuada-Means: the bounds or limits of morality and propriety, rule or custom, distinct law or definition, a covenant, agreement, bond, contract, continuance in the right way, propriety of conduct.
(c) y{k.ke~& Lakshana- means: characteristic, attribute, quality, possessed of .
(d) fo/kkue~&Vi-dhana-Dhayin, mfn. Means: regulating prescribing, containing an injunction or ordinance with regard to (comp), Nyayas.
(e) According to V.S. Apte y{k.ke~ - means fo'ks"krk] [kwch Js"Brk] mRd"kZ] 'kqHk y{k.kksa ls ;qDrA "According to V.S. Apte Lakshanam means specialty, goodness, greatness, rise and possessing good qualities." (English translation by Court)
(f) fo/kkue~& O;oLFkk djuk] fu;e] mins'k] v/;kns'k] /kkfeZd fu;e ;k fof/k] fu"ks/k& euq- 9@148 Hkx- 16@24, 17@24 + "To manage, rule, sermon, ordinance, religious rule or law, prohibition (Manu.9/148 Bhag.16/24A 17/24)"
(v) 'Mathamnayasetu' or 'Mahanushasanam' means Prescribed Rules or Great Commandments for Vedic monasteries.
(English translation by Court)
327. In "Mathamnaya Mahanushanam", Adi Shankaracharya has said that 'ascetic' with requisite qualifications, duly ascended on His Divinity's any of four Veidic monasteries, shall be deemed that he is nonelse but 'Shankaracharya'. By this religious command Adi Shankaracharya made 'Shankaracharya; a "Daivee Padavi". ^^vLeRihBlek:<% ifjozkMqDry{k.k% A vgesosfr foKs;ks ^;L; nso* bfrJqrs%AA51AA mDr ¼48 osa 'yksd esa fufnZ"V½ y{k.kksa ls lEiUu laU;klh esjs ihB ij vklhu gks rks mls ^eSa ¼'kadj½ gh gwW* ¼bl izdkj esjk gh Lo:i½ le>uk pkfg;s] D;ksafd ¼bl lEcU/k esa½ ^;L; nso* bR;kfn Jqfr izek.k gS& Excellent renouncer endowed with aforesaid Supreme knowledge ascended on my Seat should be fully known as ' He is I' i.e. Shankar (in this respect) 'Yasya Dev' Shruit is testimony. (51) ^;L; nsos ijkHkfDr;ZFkknsos rFkk xqjkS A rL;Srs dfFkrk g~;FkkZ% izdk'kUrs egkReu%AA ¼'osrk'orjksifu"kn~ v-6@23½ vFkkZr~ ftls vius b"Vnso esa ijeHkfDr gS] rFkk tSlh b"Vnso esa gS oSlh xq: esa Hkh gS] mlh 'kq)kRek O;fDr dks dgs x;s ;s ¼mifu"kn~ ds½ rkRi;Z le> esa vkrs gSaA** "He who has supreme devotion to the Deity, and as much of it to the Guru as to the Deity, to him indeed, to the great souled one these subject matters that have been spoken become revealed." (Shvetasvatar Upanishad. 6.23) (English Translation by Court)
328. Here Acharya Shankar has given testimony of the Revelation, "Shvetasvatar Upanishad" which says; 'Who has as much steadfast faith and unartificial devotion in the Spiritual master as in selfuminous Supreme Lord, only that great soul can realize the substance of the aforesaid instruction'. After quoting this verse of "Svetashvatar Upanishad" in his commentary on Vis. 'Sahasranam", Acharya says thus it is also proved by the hymn of Svetashvatar Upanishad. That one should have excellent supreme devotion in the Supreme Self (Sri Hari) and in the Spiritual Master (ibid Comm. Onverse 14/Name 1). Hence there is command of Acharya Shankar that each of the four Acharyas ascended on his aforesaid four seats respectively must be known as 'Acharya' Shankar himself i.e. an incarnation of Acharya Shankar. In this verse as also in other verses of this Command the word 'Parivard' means "Paramhams Parivajak" i.e. excellent Renouncer who excels all four stages of life, because only such types of Renouncers are entitled for being initiated with "Great Motto". Acharya says:
^^lq/kUou% lekSRlqD;fuo`R;S /keZ&gsrosA nsojktksipkjka'p ;Fkkonuqiky;sr~ AA53AA dsoya /keZeqfn~n'; foHkoks czg~epsrlke~AA fofgr'pksidkjk; in~ei=u;a oztsr~AA54AA "For Dharma and Perdition of Sudhanva's exertions (Acharya) should maintain figurative applications of the Sovereign of Gods, as they are." (53) This Majesty has been bestowed upon reigning omniscient only for the purpose of Dharma and (they should) act like lotus leaf in water for the purpose of benevolence. (54)"
329. Adi Shankaracharya says that 'not that anyone can himself be appointed by any sentences arising out of his own wisdom, nor is well versed master can be appointed by his ignorant servant. ^^ - -u fg LofoKkuksRFksu oplk Lo;a fu;qT;rsA ukfi cgqfoRLokE;foosfduk Hk`R;suA vkEuk; fuR;Ros lfr LokrU«;kRlokZUizfr fu;ksDr`RolkeF;Zfefr ps= mRdnks"kkr~A
- - vius foKku ls mRiUu gq, opu ls gh dksbZ Lo;a fu;qDr ugha gks ldrk vkSj u cgqK Lokeh gh vius vYiK lsod ls fu;qDr gks ldrk gSA** ".......Not that anyone can himself be appointed by any sentence issued out of his own wisdom, nor is a very -learned Master can be appointed by his servant of limited knowledge."
330. In this backdrop it is pointed out that Shankaracharya can be selected and appointed by a person having same and similar qualifications and of the same stature. In Verse 52 of "Mathamnaya Setu or Mahanushasanam" it has been said
(a)^^,d ,okfHk"ksP;% L;knUrs y{k.klEer%A rRrRihBs dzes.kSo u cgq ;qT;rs Dofpr~AA52AA "At last according to Supreme Knowledge one should be consecrated on concerned Peeth in succession, on no occasion more than one should be appointed." vfHk"ksp~- Abhi-shic -means to consecrate, anoint, appoint by consecration.
^^vfHk"ksd% ¼vfHk$flp~$?k´~½ means 2- jkT;fryd djuk] jktk ;k ewfrZ vkfn dk tyflapu }kjk izfr"Bkiu] 3- ¼fo'ks"kr%½ jktkvksa dk flagklukjksg.k] izfr"Bkiu] ijkjksg.k] jkT;fryd laLdkj]A And vfHk"ksd ¼fo-½ means jkT;fHkf"kRd] ;Fkkfof/k in ij izfrf"Br fd;k gqvkA** (Abhishekah means (Abhi+sinch+n), 2. To perform coronation, installation of King or Idol consecrating with water. 3. (Particularly) enthronement of Kings, installation, coronation ceremony and Abhishekah means Coronation, anointed in an office according to rules prescribed). (English translation by Court)
(b)^^u fg LofoKkuksRFksu oplk Lo;a fu;qT;rsA ukfi cgqfoRLokE;foosfduk Hk`R;suA** ^^vius foKku ls mRiUu gq, opu ls gh dksbZ Lo;a fu;qfDr ugha gks ldrk vkSj u cgqK Lokeh gh vius vYiK lsod ls fu;qDr gks ldrk gSA** "Not that anyone can himself be appointed by any sentence issued out of his own wisdom, nor is a very -learned Master can be appointed by his servant of limited knowledge." (Hindi and English translation by Court)
331. In "Mathamnayasetu" and "Mahanushasanam" Adi Shankar- -acharya has laid down that at the end of one Shankaracharya, another Shankaracharya shall be appointed by Consecration and on one seat only one Shankaracharya can be appointed at a time because as observed in above verse no one can himself be appointed by any sentence issuing out of his own wisdom, nor a very learned Master can be appointed by his servant having limited knowledge.
332. Abhishek is a Vedic religious ritual, whereby Rulers of Dharma, Gods, Men, etc. are appointed. By way of Abhishek, a reigning Shankaracharya of any of four Vedic Peethas of Adi Shankaracharya imbibes divine powers of Adi Shankaracharya in the qualified Renouncer and thereby grants him status to attain Shankaracharyaship, which status confers upon consecrated person, capacity to acquire majesty of Shankaracharya and ascend on the seat of Adi Shankaracharya by attaining Godship.
333. According to Rigved's Aitereya, Brahman Abhishekam is always done by the superior. In olden days, Prajapati sprinkled (consecrated) Indra, Soma the king, Varuna, Yama, Manu.
334. Following command in Verse 55 (supra), king Sudhanva had issued a Charter i.e. Firman or King's writ being dated Udhisthir Era 2663 Ashwin Shukla 15 wherefrom it becomes clear that 1st set of four Acharyas of four Monasteries established by Adi Shankaracharya were Yogi, Sarvajna and, Adi Shankaracharya had appointed them by way of consecrating each of them on their respective Math. Relevant portion of sad Charter reads as follows:
" On the prayer of the entire world, prominent Brahmins, Kshatriyas etc. like us, (Bhagwatpad) duly established four Dharm Capitals in the name of Goverdhan, Jyotir, Sharda and Shringeri monasteries in the realm of Jagannath, Badari, Dwarka and Shring-Rishi; there with the consent of ours, the people, installed by consecrating- Sri Totak alias Pratardanacharya on Jyotir-Math for protecting distinct laws of Dharm easily owing to Superiority of the yogis in the north, Prithvidhar alias Hastmalakacharya in the Ashram of Rishi Shring who is of his similar nature; Padampad alias Sanandanacharya in Bhogvardhan who has his own view in the considered subject as also is omniscient in spite of being hot natured; Vishwaroop alias Sureshwaracharya world famous in wordily and Vedic systems, reputed, manifestation of omniscient on Sharda peeth Dwarka . . . Installing the four Acharyas in the four directions of Bharatvarsh (Bhagvatpad) commanded them to protect their own realms according to distinct law of their monasteries and illuminate the Veidic Path. We the Brahmins and the Kashatriya, the inhabitants of those realms should abide by the instructions imparted by the Acharyas, the Lords of those realms..... we every one born in Brahmin and Kashatriya clans bounded in rules according to the command of Bhagvatpad accept it gracefully:
335. Sudhanva was the king of Mahismati, which is presently known as Maheshwar in State of Madhya Pradesh. In the Genealogical list of Chahman Dynasty reproduced by historian 'Shyamal Das' in his book " History of Mewar" published in the year 1886, king Sudhanva comes at serial no. 6. In the said list, first king is Chahman and 41st king is Vasudev. Another historian 'Dr. Dasarath Sharma' has produced another list of Chahman Dynasty on the basis of available stone and copper plate inscriptions of kings of said Dynasty starting from the aforesaid king Vasudev. According to this Genealogical list great emperor Prithviraj Chahman is the king of 22nd generation of Vasudev Dytnasty.
336. After amalgamation of these two lists, we find that King Sudhanva whose name has been referred by Adi Shankaracharya as 'contemporary ruler' in his book 'Mathamnaya' and 'Mahanushasanam' comes on serial no. 6, King Vasudev comes on serial no.41 and Prithviraj Chahman comes on serial no. 62.
337. In the aforesaid verse it has been said that at the end of his rule, outgoing Shankaracharya should install new Shankaracharya by way of consecration on concerned seat. In 'Vimarhs' written by 73rd Shankaracharya of Shardamath-Dwarka in the year 1896 AD, on page 25 to 28, an authoritative reproduction of 9th Century's list of Acharya along with chronology of Acharya Shankar's life has been published, wherein, it has been mentioned that on three respective dates each of 1st set of four Acharyas were consecrated on respective seats. Similar fact has been recorded in the Copper Plate of king Sudhanva dated back 475 B.C. Apart from this, 8th Century's narrative which has been reproduced in the book "Shankaracharya Charitram", on page 10 and 11, written by Pandit Venkatachal Sharma of Mysore in the year 1914, also supports the facts of handing over power of aforesaid four monasteries to 1st set of four Acharyas respectively by Acrharya Shankar himself by way of consecration.
338. Sri Manish Goel however submitted that Mahanushasan is not a work connected with books of command and the word 'Setu' has been wrongly interpreted by Sri Mishra, counsel appearing for plaintiff. He pointed out that there are 110 Upnishads but Adi Shankaracharya in his Shankar Bhasya has noted only 11 Upnishads. It is submitted that Adi Shakaracharya has simplified message of Vedas, Upnishads and propagated thereof also in a simplified manner. The words and phrases used in "Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan" must be understood in the light as to how Adi Shankaracharya understood the same at the relevant time. He referred to "Shankaracharya Sarvasnam" a compilation of texts written by Adi Shankaracharya. According to it one has to follow commands like Sadacharanushasan. Sri Goel referred to verses 16, 6, 17, 44, 45, 52 in reference to words 'Sanyasi', 'Suchi', 'Vairagya', 'Gyan' 'Vigyan' and Brahmchari respectively. He also submitted the term 'Sanyasi' must be understood in the manner used in Bhagwat Geeta, Chapter 18 Verse 1 i.e. 'Tyag' and further Verses 4,5,7,9,10 and 11. He also pointed out that Mathamnaya-Mahanushasan, Eng. Edn., which is a commentary of Sri Mishra, there is a description of more than 26 slokas of Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan than shown in original. He also raised objection that there is no reference of said books in the plaint and reference thereof in amendment was also rejected, hence contention with regard to those books of command cannot be looked into since pleadings are not in accordance with Order 6 Rule 9 CPC. Therefore, entire case built up by plaintiff on the basis of instructions/commands contained in Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan is of no substance.
339. This last contention is not correct. Reference of Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan, we find specifically in the plaint and there is also assertion positively that appellant lacks suitability in qualification, prescribed in the said books. With regard to details of disqualification, facts have been stated in replication and appellant had also filed an additional written statement after more than 10 years of filing replication which was accepted by Court below. Therein he has also submitted reply with regard to various disqualifications and thereafter both parties have led evidence thereto. Therefore contention that pleadings with regard to aforesaid books is lacking in the plaint is contrary to record.
340. Further whether Adi Shankaracharya actually wrote Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan or not is a question of fact and having antiquity of atleast more than 1200 years, we find no sufficient material to express any final opinion on this aspect but since even witnesses of appellants have admitted that they contains commands of Adi Shankaracharya (we will demonstrate evidence little later) it can be safely held these books of commands are continuing to hold field and followed for the last several centuries. It is also not in dispute that they contain instructions regarding appointment, removal and management of four Amnaya Peethas established by Adi Shankaracharya. Therefore, there is no reason but to hold that instructions contained in the aforesaid books are established customs or usages having force of law operating and applicable to Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and concerned religious denomination with which we are concerned. In this regard the own statement of appellant himself may be reproduced hereat. *eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu ds jpf;rk Jh ek/kkokpk;Z th gS tks 'kadj fnfXot; ds vUrxZr of.kZr gSA " Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan which is part of "Shankar Digvijay" is composed by Sri Madhwacharya."
341. Appellant DW-3 has further said in reply to a question as under:
iz'u&iwoZ esa dgs x;s ;ksX;rk vFkkZr tks eBkEuk; egkuq'kklue~ esa tks ;ksX;rk 'kadjkpk;Z in ds fy;s of.kZr gS ogh ;ksX;rk gksuk pkfg;s vFkok ugha\ Question: Whether or not one should have the qualification as stated earlier i.e. the ones given in Mathamanay Mahanushasan for being a Shanakaracharya?
mRrj&ns'k dky o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vuqlkj ogh ;ksX;rk gksuh pkfg;sA ¼isij ua0&661 d] ist&89½ Answer: Depending on place, time and circumstances, that very qualification is required. (Paper No. 661 Ka, Page 89) pkjksa ihBksa dh ijEijk ,d gh gSA vyx&vyx ugha gSA vkfnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z us vyx&vyx eBksa ds fy, vyx&vyx fu;e@ ijEijk cuk;k gSA fu;e egkE;kue~ egkuq'kklu~ esa fy[ks x;s gSaA (Paper no. 895 Ka, page 492) The tradition of the four peeths is same and not different. Aadiguru Shankaracharya has made separate rules/tradition for separate Maths. Rules are written in Mahamyanam Mahanushashan.(Paper no. 895 Ka, page 492) eBkeuk; egkuq'kklue~ ds vuqlkj ;k ihB dh ijEij ds vuqlkj ,slk O;fDr tks laLd`r u tkurk gksa] og ihB dk 'kadjkpk;Z @vkpk;Z ugha gks ldrkA (Paper no. -914 Ka, Page-628-629) As per Mathamnaye Mahanushasnam or in accordance with the traditions of Peeth, an individual who is not versed with Sanskrit cannot become Shankarachrya/ Acharya of the Peeth. (Paper no. -914 Ka, Page-628-629) bu ;ksX;rkvksa dk mYys[k eBkeuk; egkvuq'kklue~ ds vykok vU; xzUFkksa esa Hkh fy[kk gSA eBkeuk; lsrq ;rh'oj n.M fo|kue~ esa Hkh ;ksX;rk] fu;ekoyh dk fu:i.k fd;k x;k gS 'kadjkeB foe'kZ xzUFk esa Hkh fy[kk gSA ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&634½ These qualifications are laid down in Mathamnaye Mahanushasnam as well in other religious texts. The qualifications and regulations are also seen in Mathamnaye Setu Yatishwar Dand Vidhanam and also find mention in Shankara Math Vimarsh religious text. (Paper no.-914 Ka, Page-634)
342. In view of above discussion, we find it irrelevant 'whether instructions/commands contained in Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan are mandatory or recommendatory, for the reason that these instructions satisfy the nature of customs or usages having force of law operating to govern selection, appointment, removal of Shankaracharya of four Peethas established by Adi Shankaracharya and management/regulation thereof. That being so, it is a law which substantially need be observed. Any flagrant violation thereof would render particular act illegal having no consequences in law. One of the important condition in respect thereof, we find, that evidence adduced by both parties clearly prove, that in order to qualify for installation of Shankaracharya in the aforesaid four Peethas, one must be a 'Sanyasi' (Dandi Sanyasi) having knowledge of Sanskrit and well conversant in religious scriptures like Vedas, Puranas etc. Since this concept of 'Sanyasi' is one of the relevant issue with regard to qualification of appellant, we now propose to consider its meaning and also characteristics and ingredients of a 'Sanyasi'.
(e) Sanyasi i.e. Ascetic- what is
343. The concept of 'Sanyasi' is as old as the mankind and earliest one in this concept is said to be Lord Shiva.
344. A Sanyasi is a person who has crossed all worldly attachments. Mere wearing a saffron cloth or growing beard and moustaches or wandering here and there and staying in Temples or Mutts would not confer a Sanyashood upon an individual. A Sanyasi must take a conscious decision to give up all worldly affairs. A person gets sanyas when he sheds the 'I', 'me' and 'mine' consciousness and vows to selflessly strive for the betterment of society. A sanyasi is initiated into sanyasam at the initiative of Guru and through strict rituals, practised since Vedic times. Sanyasam is said as ancient as anything, but in the context of Sanatan Dharma, we find continuity at least from the time of Adi Shankaracharya. In our ancient historical epic 'Ramayana', we cannot forget changed Roop of Ravana as 'Sanyasi' to take away Seeta to Lanka. It cannot be said that in that Roop, Ravana actually depicted a true 'Sanyasi'. Traditionally, for the person living social life, he was defined to have four stages and fourth stage was 'Sanyas'.
345. A 'Sanyasi' is technically outside the social field. He is outside social divisions or categories, and its rules. He does not have any social bond as such, though he can raise his meal through accepting alms and by attending people's houses as a guest. A sanyasi is not supposed to stay long in any single place, he should be continuously moving so that he is not attached to any person or place. This is why a sanyasi is, in fact, called "parivrajaka", one that roams and is never settled in a place. The goal of a sanyasi is liberation, and nothing else. He should have no desires, temptations, ambitions, other than liberation. In different schools of Sanyas, there may be a few different traditions and practices, but basic concept of Sanyas is common.
346. Sri Manish Goel submitted that a Sanyasi need not be looked into the term of "Sanyasopnishad" since term "Sanyas" is also referred to in "Bhagvadgeeta" in different context. Chapter-5 verse-2, chapter-5 verse-4, chapter-6 verse-2 and chapter-18 verse-2 are the places where term "Sanyasi" or "Sanyas" has been used in terms of Tyag. We find that in the context, in totality of term, "Sanyasi", nothing is different but to renounce worldly desires, rewards of Karm etc.
347. So far as word "Sanyas" is concerned, we find that it is also referred in "Bhiksuka Upanishad" of Sukla Yajurveda, "Naradaparivrajaka Upanishad" of Atharvanaveda, and "Aruneyi Upanishad" of Atharva-veda.
348. In Vishnu Purana, Chapter 9, four stages of life are mentioned as Brahmacharya, Grihastha, Vanaprastha and Sanyasa. Vanaprastha is treated to be a stage of preparation of Sanyas. It says, when the householder, after performing the acts incumbent on his condition, arrives at the decline of life, let him consign his wife to the care of his sons, and go himself to the forests. Let him there subsist upon leaves, roots, and fruit; and suffer his hair and beard to grow, and braid the former upon his brows; and sleep upon the ground: his dress must be made of skin or of Káśa or Kuśa grasses; he must bathe thrice a day; he must offer oblations to the gods and to fire, treat all that come to him with hospitality: he must beg alms, and present food to all creatures: he must anoint himself with such unguents as the woods afford; and in his devotional exercises he must be endurant of heat and cold. The sage who diligently follows these rules, leads the life of hermit or Vánaprastha, consumes, like fire, all imperfections, and conquers for himself the mansions of eternity. Let the unimpassioned man, relinquishing all affection for wife, children, and possessions, enter the fourth order. Let him forego the three objects of human existence, pleasure, wealth, and virtue, whether secular or religious, and, indifferent to friends, be the friend of all living beings. Let him, occupied with devotion, abstain from wrong in act, word, or thought, to all creatures, human or brute; and equally avoid attachment to any. Let him reside but for one night in a village, and not more than five nights at a time in a city; and let him so abide, that good-will, and not animosity, may be engendered. Let him, for the support of existence, apply for alms at the houses of three first castes, at the time when fires have been extinguished, and people have eaten. Let the wandering mendicant call nothing his own, and suppress desire, anger, covetousness, pride, and folly. The sage who gives no cause for alarm to living beings need never apprehend any danger from them. Having deposited the sacrificial fire in his own person, the Brahman feeds the vital flame, with the butter that is collected as alms, through the altar of his mouth; and by means of his spiritual fire he proceeds to his own proper abode. But the twice-born man, who seeks for liberation, and is pure of heart, and whose mind is perfected by self-investigation, secures the sphere of Brahmá, which is tranquil, and is as a bright flame that emits not smoke.
349. In "Srimadabhagavata" also, we may look into certain characteristics of 'Sanyasi' in 7th Skandh, Chapter-13, Verses 2 to 10 as under:
fcHk`;k||lkS okl% dkSuhukPNknua ije~A R;Dra u naMfyxknsjU;r~ fdfpnukifnAA2AA "A person in the renounced order of life may try to avoid even a dress to cover himself. If he wears anything at all, it should be only a loincloth, and when there is no necessity, a sannyāsī should not even accept a daṇḍa. A sannyāsī should avoid carrying anything but a daṇḍa and kamaṇḍalu. (2)"
,d ,o pjsfn~Hk{kqjkRekjkeks·uikJ;%A loZHkwrlqg`PNkarks ukjk;.kijk;.k%AA3AA "The sannyāsī, completely satisfied in the self, should live on alms begged from door to door. Not being dependent on any person or any place, he should always be a friendly well-wisher to all living beings and be a peaceful, unalloyed devotee of Nārāyaṇa. In this way he should move from one place to another.(3)"
i';snkReU;nks fo'oa ijs lnlrks·O;;sA vkRekua p ija czg~e loZ= lnlU;e;sAA4AA "The sannyāsī should always try to see the Supreme pervading everything and see everything, including this universe, resting on the Supreme.(4)"
lqIrizcks/kk;ks% la?kkokReuks xfrRen`d~A i';Uca/ka p eks{ka p ek;kek=a% u oLrqr%AA5AA "During unconsciousness and consciousness, and between the two, he should try to understand the self and be fully situated in the self. In this way, he should realize that the conditional and liberated stages of life are only illusory and not actually factual. With such a higher understanding, he should see only the Absolute Truth pervading everyhing.(5)"
ukfHkuansn~ /kzqoa ok·L; thfore~A dkya ija izrh{ksr Hkwrkuka izHkokI;;e~AA6AA "Since the material body is sure to be vanquished and the duration of one's life is not fixed, neither death nor life is to be praised. Rather, one should observe the eternal time factor, in which the living entity manifests himself and disappears.(6)"
uklPNkL=s"kq lTtsr uksithosr thfodke~A oknoknkaLR;tsRrdkZUi{ka da p u laJ;srAA7AA "Literature that is a useless waste of time -- in other words, literature without spiritual benefit -- should be rejected. One should not become a professional teacher as a means of earning one's livelihood, nor should one indulge in arguments and counterarguments. Nor should one take shelter of any cause or faction.(7)"
u f'k";kuuqc/uhr xzaFkku~ uSokH;lsnCgwu~A u O;k[;keqi;qathr ukjaHkkukjHksRDrfpr~AA8AA "A sannyāsī must not present allurements of material beneits to gather many disciples, nor should he unnecessarily read many books or give discourses as a means of livelihood. He must never attempt to increase material opulences unnecessarily.(8)"
u ;rsjkJe% izk;ks /keZgsrqeZgkReu%A 'kkarL; lefpRrL; fcHk`;knqr ok R;tsr~AA9AA "A peaceful, equipoised person who is factually advanced in spiritual consciousness does not need to accept the symbols of a sanyāsī, such as the tridaṇḍa and kamaṇḍalu. According to necessity, he may sometimes accept those symbols and sometimes reject them.(9)"
vO;Drfyaxks O;DrkFkksZa euh";qUeRrckyor~A dfoewZdonkRekua l n`"V;k n'kZ;s=`.kke~AA10AA "Although a saintly person may not expose himself to the vision of human society, by his behavior his purpose is disclosed. To human society he should present himself like a restless child, and although he is the greatest thoughtful orator, he should present himself like a dumb man.(10)"
350. The meaning of the word "ascetic" in Oxford English-English-Hindi Dictionary (2008) on page 64 is as under:
"ascetic not allowing yourself physical pleasures, especially for religious reasons"
351. In New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of English Language, Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition, at page 53, the word "ascetic" has been described as under:
"as.cet.ic 1. adj. practicing self-discipline with a view to spiritual improvement, esp. by learning to do without things good in themselves (e.g. warmth, comfort) frugal, austere (of personal appearance) giving the impression of self-denial, gaunt, spare 2. n. a person who practices asceticism, a person who lives an austere life."
352. Learned counsel for plaintiff stated that the concept of 'Sanyas' is peculiar to Sanatan Dharma and has its antiquity as back as origin of Dharma itself. The three principal divine powers which are worshiped in Sanatan Dharma i.e Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh, look into Lord Mahesh as greatest Sanyasi who lives in exile, observing a life almost alone from society.
353. Importance of Sanyasis has been of so much significance that an entire Upnishad has been devoted to it i.e. commonly known as 'Sanyasopnishad'. He briefly submitted that kinds of Sanyas, the life which a particular kind of Sanyasi is supposed to observe, and other commands which a Sanyasi has to follow are contained in 'Sanyasopnishad. Certain verses thereof have been relied to support the point that a person claiming to become 'Shankaracharya' must be a 'Sanyasi', observing all kinds of commands mentioned in the aforesaid verses of 'Sanyasopnishad'.
354. This Upnishad is related to the tradition of Samaveda. There are two chapters in it. The contents of first chapter are an introduction of reclusion procedure for obtaining a behaviour as also pragmatic activities required for it. The second chapter is with prolix details. Its opening has been made with four means i.e. discretion, reluctance, six properties and desire for emancipation. A detailed description on the criterion for reclusion has been given. While describing kinds of recluse, classification in (i) reluctant recluse (ii) knowledge recluse (iii) the recluse enriched with the knowledge and dettachment and the recluse who observes it in his activities, have been explained. Later on six types of reclusion i.e. Kutika, Bahudaka, Hamsa, Paramahamsa, Turiyatita and Avadhuta have been described in an orderly manner. The position of knowledge on soul or self realization as also its nature has been described. The holiness in behaviour and a provision to satiate with lesser food obtained on alms has been described. It is suggested that one should engross himself on the soul daily and by putting a strict control on activities as also on diet.
355. 'Sanyasopnishad' Chapter 1 consists of only one verse-1. Chapter 2 contains from verses 2 to 123.
356. Verse contained in Chapter 1 is as under:
^vFkkr% laU;klksifu"kna O;k[;kL;keks ;ks·uqdzes.k laU;L;fr l laU;Lrks HkofrA dks·;a laU;kl mP;rsA dFka laU;Lrks HkofrA ; vkRekua fdz;kfHkxqZIra djksfr ekja firja Hkk;kZ iq=kUcU/kwuuqeknf;Rok ;s pkL;fRoZtLrkUlokZa'p iwoZon~o`.khRok oS'okujsf"Va fuoZisRloZLoa n|k|tekuL; xk _fRot% loSZ% ik=S% lekjksI; ;nkgouh;s xkgZiR;s okUokgk;Zipus lH;kolF;;ks'p ik.kkikuO;kuksnkulekukUlokZUlosZ"kq lekjksi;sr~A lf'k[kkUds'kkfUolT; ;Kksiohra fNRok iq=a n`"Vk Roa ;KLRoa loZfeR;uqeU=;sr~A ;|iq=ksa HkoR;kRekuesosea /;kRok·uos{kek.k% izpheqnhpha ok fn'ka izoztsPpA prq"kZq o.ksZ; fHkkp;Za pjsr~A ikf.kik=s.kk'kua dq;kZr~ vkS"k/kon'kuekpjsr~A vkS"k/kon'kua izJh;kr~A ;FkkykHkeJh;kRizk.kla/kkj.kkFkZa ;Fkk esnkso`f)uZ tk;rsA d`'kks HkwRok xzke ,djk=a uxjs i[;jk=a prqjks eklkUokf"kZdkUizkesa ok uxj okfi olsr~A i{kk oS eklks bfr }kS eklkS ok olsr~A fo'kh.kZoL=a oYdya ok izfrx`g~.kh;k=kU;Rizfrx`g~.kh;k||'kDrks Hkofr Dys'krLrI;rs ri bfrA ;ks ok ,oa dzes.k laU;L;kfr ;ks ok ,oa Ik';fr fdeL; ;Kksiohra dkL; f'k[kk uhjS% loZ=kofLFkrS% dk;Z fuoZrZ;=qnjik=s.k tyrhjs fudsrue~A czg~eokfnuh onUR;Lrfer vkfnR;s dFka okL;ksiLi'kZufefrA rkUgksokp ;Fkkgkfu rFkk jk=ks ukL; uDra u fnok rnI;srn`f"k.kksDre~A lld`fn~nok gSokLeS Hkofr ; ,oa fo}kusrsukReka la/kRrsAA1AA** vc lU;kl mifu"kn~ dk o.kZu djrs gSaA dzekuqlkj u'oj txr~ dk ifjR;kx dj nsus okyk fojDRk gh laU;klh gksrk gSA ¼iz'u½ laU;kl fdls dgrs gSa\ lU;klh fdl rjg dk gksrk gS\ ¼mRrj½ laU;klh og gS] tks vkRek ds mRFkku gsrq ekrk&firk] L=h&iq=] ckU/ko vkfn ds }kjk vuqeksfnr iwoZ esa dgh fdz;kvksa dk ifjR;kx dj nsrk gS] tks ges'kk dh rjg _fRotksa dk ueu&oanu djus ds i'pkr~ oS'okuj ;K lEiUUk djrk gSA bl iquhr volj ij ;teku viuk lHkh dqN nku dj ns rFkk _fRot~ lEiw.kZ lkexzh dks ik=ksa lesr gou dj nsA laU;klh }kjk vkgouh;] xkgZiR;] nf{k.kkfxz bu rhuksa vfXu;ksa rFkk lH; ¼oSfnd dkyhu vfXu½ ,oa vkolF; ¼Le`frdkyhu vfXu½ dks izk.k] viku] O;ku] mnku ,oa leku ikWapksa ok;qvksa esa vkjksfir djuk pkfg,A f'k[kk ¼pksVh½ lfgr lHkh ds'kksa dk eq.Mu djk nsuk pkfg,A ;Kksiohr dks R;kx ns ,oa iq= dks ns[kdj bl rjg dgs fd rqe ;K :i gks] loZLo:i gksA ;fn iq= u gks] rks og viuh vkRek dks gh y{; djds mins'k nsdj iwoZ vFkok mRrj fn'kk dh vksj xeu dj tk,A pkjksa o.kksZa ¼ czkge.k] {kf=;] oS'; ,oa 'kwnz½ ls fHk{kk Lohdkj djuh pkfg,A gkFk :ih ik= esa fHk{kk xzg.k dj Hkkstu djuk pkfg,A Hkkstu dks vkS"kf/k ds leku xzg.k djuk pkfg, vFkkZr~ ek= izk.k j{kk dh n`f"V ls vkgkj ysuk pkfg, vkSj tks dqN izkIr gks tk,] ogh xzg.k djuk pkfg,] ftlls pchZ dh o`f} u gksA bl izdkj {kh.kdk; gksdj xkao esa ,d jkf= ,oa uxj esa ik¡p jkf= rd fuokl djuk pkfg,A pkrqekZl ¼o"kkZ ds ekl½ esa ,d gh xkao vFkok uxj esa :d tkuk pkfg, ;k fQj i{k ¼i[kokjk½ dks gh ekl le>dj nks eghus rd fuokl djuk pkfg,A QVs oL= vFkok oYdy oL= gh /kkj.k djuk pkfg,] vU; oL=ksa dks xzg.k u djsaA bl rjg Dys'k lguk gh ri&frfr{kk gSA tks bl dze ls laU;kl /kkj.k djrk gS] mlds fy, ;Kksiohr D;k gS\ f'k[kk D;k gS\ vkpeu fdl rjg dk gS\ bu lHkh dk mRrj bl izdkj gS&vkRek dk /;ku gh laU;klh dk ;Kksiohr gSA fo|k gh mldh f'k[kk ¼pksVh½ gSA loZ= fLFkr ty ds fy, mnj ¼isV½ gh laU;klh dk ik= gS rFkk tyk'k; dk rV gh mldk vkJ;&LFky gSA blh izdkj dk czg~eoknh Hkh gksrk gSA mlds fy, lw;Z ds vLrkpy dh vksj xeu djus ij vkpeu fdl rjg dk gS\ bl iz'u dk mRrj bl izdkj gS&ml ¼laU;klh½ ds fy, jkf= ,oa fnu nksuksa gh ,d tSls gSA mlds fy, u jkf= gksrh gS] u fnu gksrk gSA tks ¼laU;klh vFkok lk/kd½ viuh vkRek ds vuqla/kku esa lrr yxk jgrk gS] fo}TTkuksa ds vuqlkj mlds fy, lnSo fnu gh gSAA1AA Sannyasopnishad is now the subject matter of our description. The person giving up this mortal world through his orderly manners is only the recluse. A question thus arises as to what is Sanyas? What is the nature of a recluse? Its answer is a person who for the upliftment of his soul abandons all the activities approved by the parents, wife, the sons, brothers, etc., who performs the offering of Vaisvanara subsequent to a salute to be conveyed to the ritvijs. It is advisable that the client at this auspicious occasion should donate everything and the Ritvij should be offered the material with the bodies in which it is kept. A recluse should impose in the five arirs-i.e. Prana, Apana, Vyana, Udana and Samana. The fire at the time of memory (Avasathya) and in Ahavantya, Garhapadya and Daksinagni fires, with the Vedic age fire. He should cut clear his all hair. He should further abandon the sacrificial thread and while observing his son he should say you are the offering and you are in the universal form. He should depart then towards East or North direction by addressing his own soul, when he has no son. He should accept alm from all the four Varnas i.e. Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. He should take food after getting it in the bowl of his hands(handful). The food should be taken under presumption as if it is a medicine. In other words, it can be said that a man should take food only to extent that he may survive/preserve breathing. This food should also be entertained like a medicine free from fat and all impurities that develops excitement. Thus, with feeble body, he should stay at night in a village and five nights in a city. During rainy season, he should stay either in a village or city up to the period of two months counting by one fortnight equal to a month. He should live on rags or clothes made of bark of trees. No other kinds of garments should be worn by him. Thus throwing oneself into penance to severe extent is the is Tap-Teetiksha. The person who accepts reclusion in this orderly manner, has answers to all questions relating to Yagyopavit, Shikha, Achmana are thus: concentration towards soul is Yagyopavit, knowledge of Supreme is his braid, his belly acts like a bowl to sip the water and his resort is bank of pool. Similar are the characteristics of the person who knows Brahma very well. What kind of Achmana is for them at the time when Lord Sun departs to the west. Answer to this question is that the night and the day both are equal to a recluse. He neither has a meaning for the night nor for day. He keeps himself indulged in the investigation of his soul and as per scholars, all night and days are like a day for such a recluse. (English translation by Court)(emphasis by Court)
357. Relevant verses of Chapter 2 are as under:
^^pRokfj'kRlaLdkjlaiUu%loZrks fojDrf'pRr'kqf)esR;k'kklw;s";kZgadkja nX/oka lk/kuprq"V;laiUu ,oa laU;qLrqegZfrAA1AA ^^pkyhl rjg ds laLdkjksa ls lEiUUk] lHkh ls iw.kZ :i ls fojDr] fpRRk dks ifj"d`r j[kus okyk] vk'kk] vlw;k] bZ";kZ] vgadkj dks HkLehHkwr djds pkjksa lk/kuksa ¼f½ foosd ¼fuR;kfuR; oLrq dk Kku½] ¼,,½ oSjkX; ¼ykSfdd ,oa ikjykSfdd Hkksxksa dh bPNk dk u gksuk½] ¼...½ "kM~lEifRRk ¼'ke] ne] mijfr] frfr{kk] lek/kku ,oa J}k½] ¼+½ eqeq{kqRo ¼eks{k ds izcy bPNk½ ls lEiUUk gh laU;kl xzg.k djus dk vf/kdkjh gksrk gSAA1AA^^ The criterion to be a recluse is that he should have performed in the past the forty kinds of ceremonies, reluctant to all, keeping the mind always refined, burning the hopes, expectations, envy, jealousy, ego and enriched with the four means, i.e. discretion, renunciation, six virtues, element of emancipation. The discretion refers to the day to day knowledge of the objective world, no desires for the material and metaphysical world, the six properties pertaining to the virtues like control, purification, reluctance, obeisance, detachment and the conclusion and a strong will for emancipation.(1) ^^laU;kls fu'p;a d`Rok iquuZ p djksfr ;%A l dq;kZRd`PN~ek=a rq iqu% laU;LrqegZfrAA2AA** tks ¼lk/kd½ laU;kl dk fu'p; dj ys vkSj fQj mls Lohdkj u djs] rks og d`PN~ ¼dBksj&ri½ ozr djus ij gh nqckjk laU;kl /keZ xzg.k dj ldrk gSAA2AA The ascetic determined to reclusion if doesn't implement the same, he may do a severe penance and can re-entertain the life of a recluse.(2) ...^^laU;klla ikr;s|Lrq ifrra U;kl;sRrq ;%A laU;klfo?kdrkZ p =husrkUifr&rkfUonq%AA3AA os rhuksa gh ¼egk½ ifrr dgs x;s gSaAA3AA ... these three are called severely befallen and trodden person.(3) ^^vFk "k.M% ifrrks·xafody% L=S.kks cf/kjks·HkZdks ewd% ik"k.M';dh fyaxh dq"Bh oS[kkulgjkf}tkS Hk`rdk/;kid% f'kfifo"Vks·ufxzdks ukfLrdks oSjkX;oUrks·I;srs u laU;klkgkZ%A laU;Lrk ;|fi egkokD;ksins'ks ukf/kdkjf.k%AA4AA osru Hkksxh v/;kid] gksrs gq, Hkh laU;kl&nh{kk ds mi;qDr ugha gksrsA ;fn dgha os laU;klh gks Hkh tk,¡] rc Hkh os egkokD; ds mins'k esa iw.kZ l{ke vf/kdkjh ugha gksrs gSAA4AA Salaried teacher, ... are not eligible to the consecration of reclusion inspite of their keen detachment to the worldly affairs. They do not become the authoritative while preaching the great sentence even if they accept reclusion.(4) ^^vk: ...{k;jksx xzLr] fodykax vkfn laU;kl&/keZ dh nh{kk xzg.k djus ;ksX; ugha gksrsAA5AA ... entrapped in T.B., handicapped etc. is not entitled to accept the consecration of reclusion.(5) ^^laizR;oflrkuka p egkikrfduka rFkkA ozkR;kukefHk'kLrkuka laU;kla uSo dkj;sr~AA6AA ftUgsa vdLekr~ oSjkX; gks x;k gks] egkikrdh] ozkR; ¼laLdkjghu½ ,oa yksd esa fuafnr O;fDr;ksa dks laU;kl dh nh{kk ugha nsuh pkfg,AA6AA The consecration of reclusion shouldn't be given to the person who have become detached from the worldly affairs suddenly, who are criminal, uncultured and criticized by the society.(6) ^^ÅW Hkw% Lokgsfr f'k[kkeqRikV~; ;Kksiohra cfguZ fuolsr~A ;'kkscya Kkua oSjkX;a es/kka iz;PNsfr ;Kksiohra fNRok ÅW Hkw% LokgssR;Ilq oL=a dfVlw=a p fol`T; laU;Lra e;sfr f=okjefHkeU=;sr~AA8AA ÅW Hkw% Lokgk* eU= i<+dj f'k[kk ¼pksVh½ dks nwj dj ns vFkkZr~ dkV nsa] fdUrq iKksiohr dks jgus nsA ^gs ;K! ¼vki gesa½ cy] Kku] oSjkX; ,oa es/kk dks iznku djsa] bl izdkj dgdj ;Kksiohr dh fNUu&fHkUu dj ns* ÅW Hkw% Lokgk* ea= i<+dj oL= ,oa dfV&lw= dks tyk'k; esa folftZr djds ^laU;Lra e;k* ¼eSaus laU;kl xzg.k dj fy;k½] bl ea= dk mPpkj.k rhu ckj djuk pkfg,AA8AA One should cut clean his braid by reciting Om Bhuh Svaha but the sacrificial thread shouldn't be abondoned. It is the second step when by reciting "O offering! Endow us with power, knowledge, renunciation and intelligence. The sacrificial thread is cut into pieces. Reciting "Om Bhuh Swah" it should be immersed into a pond and thereafter he should recite thrice "I have adopted Sanyas".(8) ^^l[kk ek xksik;sfr n.Ma ifjxzgsr~AA12AA gs l[kk ! vki gekjh j{kk djsa] bl izdkj dgdj n.M dks /kkj.k djuk pkfg,AA12AA O friend! Protect us, should be recited while accepting a stick.(12) n.Ma rq oS.koa lkSE;a lRopa leioZde~ ...+++++++AA13&14AA n.M mRre&Js"B ckWal dk lh/kk] ---
The stick should be of good and straight bamboo...... (13-14) n.MkReuksLrq la;ksx% loZFkk rq fo/kh;rsA u n.Msu fouk xPNsfn"kq{ksi=;a cq/k%AA15AA n.M ,oa vkRek dk la;ksx lnk gh Js;Ldj gSA bl dkj.k laU;klh dks n.M ds vHkko esa rhu ckj ck.k Qsadus dh nwjh ls ckgj u tkuk pkfg,AA15AA The combination of stick and the soul is always good. If a stick is not with a recluse, he should only move within the periphery crossed by a arrow thrice time.(15) ^^txTthoua thokuk/kkjHkwra ek rs ek eU=;Lo loZnk loZlkSE;sfr de.Myqa ifjxzgk ;ksxiV~VkfHkf"kDrks HkwRok ;Fkklq[ka fogjsr~AA16AA laU;klh de.My dks gkFk esa xzg.k dj ;ksx iê ls lq'kksfHkr gksdj lq[kkuqHkwfriwoZd ;=&r= Hkze.k djsAA16AA ... A recluse should hold a kamandala in hand, adorned with cloth worn by Yogi, should move with all pleasure everywhere.(16) ^^R;t /keZe/keZa p mHks lr;ku`rs R;tA mHks lR;ku`rs R;DRok ;su R;tfl rRR;tAA17AA ¼laU;klh½ dks lHkh rjg ds /keZ&v/keZ rFkk lR;&vlR; nksuksa dk gh ifjR;kx dj nsuk pkfg,A rnuUraj ftlds }kjk bl izdkj lR;&vlR; dk ifjR;kx fd;k tkrk gS] mldk Hkh R;kx dj nsuk pkfg,AA17AA A recluse should abandon all kinds of good and evil as false and truth. False and truth should also be left or abandoned ultimately. In the manner, false and the truth are abandoned, means thereof, should also be abandoned ultimately.(17) ^^oSjkX;laU;klh KkulaU;klh KkuoSjkX;laU;klhA deZlaU;klhfr pkrqfoZ/;eqikxr%AA18AA laU;klh ds pkj Hksn cryk;s x;s gS& ¼f½ oSjkX; laU;klh ¼,,½ Kku laU;klh ¼...½ Kku&oSjkX; laU;klh ¼+½ deZ laU;klhAA18AA There are four kinds of recluse the first reluctant recluse, second conscious recluse, the third a recluse full of a mixture of knowledge and reluctance both and the fourth a recluse by activities.(18) ^^r|FksfrA n`"VkuqJfodfo"k;oSr`".;esR;A izkDiq.;deZfo'ks"kkRlaU;Lr% l oSjkX;laU;klhAA n`"V ,oa vkuqJfod fo"k;ksa ds izfr r`".kk jfgr gksdj rFkk iwoZ&TkUe ds iq.;ksa ds QyLOk:i oSjkX; mRiUUk gksus ds dkj.k ftl euq"; us lU;kl&/keZ xzg.k fd;k gS] og ^ oSjkX; laU;klh ^ gSA ....oSjkX; laU;klh mDr nksuksa izdkj ds fo"k;ksa ls fojDr gksrk gSAA19AA A person who has accepted reclusion as a result of developing spirit of detachment from audio-video affairs of this world on account of fruits of the deeds performed earlier, is called Vairagya Sannyasi....The reluctant recluse remains unattached with the above two kinds of affairs.(19) ^^'kkL=KkukRikiiq.;yksdkuqGkoJo.kkRizi'pksijrks nsgokluka 'kkL=okluka yksdokluka R;DRok oeukUufeo izo`fRra loZa gs;a eRok lk/kuprq"V;laiUuks ;% laU;L;fr l ,o KkulaU;klhAA20AA 'kkL=ksa dk Kku ikdj] iki&iq.; vkSj lkalfjd vuqHkoksa dks lqudj] iziUp ls ijs ¼mijke½ gksdj] 'kjhj okluk ¼iq=S"k.kk] foRRkS"k.kk] yksdS"k.kk½] 'kkL= okluk ¼'kkL=ksa ij vR;f/kd fuHkZj djuk½] yksd okluk ¼ykSfdd O;ogkjksa dh izeq[krk½ dk ifjR;kx djds] leLr izdkj dh lkalfjd izo`fRRk;ksa dks oeu fd;s gq, vUu dh Hkk¡fr eku djds] lk/ku prq"V; ¼foosd] oSjkX;] "kV~lEifRRk vkSj eqeq{kqRo½ ls lEiUu gksdj tks laU;kl /keZ dks Lohdkj djrk gS] ^mls Kku laU;klh^ dgk x;k gSAA20AA A person who as a result of knowledge with the holy books, the study of good and evil as also worldly experiences, keeping always awake, who abandons physical luxuries (passion for a son, wealth, prestige), passion for the holy book, passion for worldly affairs, and considers all other glamours of material world as vomited food, accepts the element of Sanyas adopting four means of renunciation i.e. discretion, reluctance, six properties and the element of emancipation is called a Gyan Sanyasi (Sanyasi with knowledge).(20) ^^dzes.k loZeH;L; loZeuqHkw; KkuoSjkX;kH;ka Lo:ikuqla/kkusu nsgek=kof'k"V% laU;L; tkr:i/kjks Hkofr l KkuoSjkX;laU;klhAA21AA dzekuqlkj lHkh dk vH;kl djds] lHkh vuqHko ysdj] Kku ,oa oSjkX; ds RkRo dks vPNh rjg ls tku djds] nsg ek= vof'k"V ekudj tks laU;kl&/keZ dks xzg.k djrk gS] ^og Kku oSjkX; laU;klh^ dgykrk gSaAA21AA A recluse enriched with the knowledge and reluctance accepts the reclusion through a prolong practise in orderly manner by observing all experiences, under the knowledge to know properly the element of detachment and who treats the body as a residual.(21) ^^czg~ep;Z lekI; x`gh HkwRok okuizLFkkJeesR; oSjkX;kHkkos·I;kJedzekuqlkjs.k ;% laU;L;fr l deZlaU;klhAA22AA czgekp;Z] x`gLFk ,oa okuizLFk&bu rhuksa vkJeksa dk ikyu djus ds i'pkr~ oSjkX; ¼dh n`<+ fLFkfr½ u gksus ij Hkh fu;ekuqlkj laU;kl xzg.k djuk pkfg, ;g y{k.k ^deZ&laU;klh^ ds dgs x;s gSAA22AA After following and passing through three Ashrams, namely, Brhamcharya, Grahasth and Vanprasth, though, there may exist no firm state of seclusion, still Sanyas should be accepted according to Rules; This is called characterstics of a Karma Sanyasi. (22) ^^l laU;kl% "kfM~o/kks Hkofr dqVhpdcgwndgalA ijegalrqjh;krhrko/kwrkJ~psfrAA23AA bl laU;kl ds N% Hksn gS& dqVhpd] cgwnd] gal] ijegal] rqjh;krhr rFkk vo/kwrAA23AA There are six kinds of reclusion. These are Kuticaka, Buhudaka, Hansa, Paramhansa, Turiyatita and Avadhuta.(23) ^^dqVhpdz% f'k[kk;Kksiohrh n.Mde.Myq/kj% dkSihu'kkVhdUFkk/kj% fir`ekr`xqokZjk/kuij% fiBj[kfu=f'kD;kfnek=lk/kuij ,d=knuij% J~osrks/oZiq.Mª/kkjh f=n.M%AA24AA dqVhpd laU;klh f'k[kk] n.M] de.Myq] dkSihu ¼y¡xksVh½] pknj] daFkk ¼dFkjh½ dks xzg.k djus okyk] ekrk&firk rFkk xq: dh vkjk/kuk djus okyk( cVyksbZ] dqnkyh vkSj Nhdk ek= vius ikl j[kus okyk rFkk ,d gh txg ij Hkkstu djus okyk] Åij dh vksj 'osr f=iq.Mª eLrd esa /kkj.k djus okyk vkSj f=n.M Hkh /kkj.k djus okyk gksrk gSAA24AA The Kutichak Sanyasi is holder of braid, a stick, Kamandala, Kaupina, (nicker), bed sheet, a Kantha/Kathari (a unique bag/bedsheet made of many layers of cloth stitched together densely). He is obedient to his parents and the teacher. He holds a kettle, a spade and cinks with him. He takes food at the uniform place. He smears a white Tripundra on his forehead and he holds a trident also.(24) ^^cgwnd% f'k[kkfnDUFkk/kjfL=iq.Mª/kkjhA dqVhpdoRloZleks b e/kqdjo`R;k"Vdoyk'khAA25AA** cgwnd laU;klh f'k[kk vkfn] daFkk dFkjh f=iq.Mª dks /kkj.k djus okyk rFkk lHkh rjg ls dqVh&pd dh Hkk¡fr e/kqdjh ¼fHk{kk½ dh o`fRRk okyk gksrk gS] og dsoy vkB xzkl Hkkstu xzg.k djrk gSAA25AA The recluse Badudaka holds the braid etc. a bag and smears up Tripundra. He alike Kuticaka lives on alms and only takes eight morsels of food at a time.(25) ^^galks tVk/kkjh f=iq.Mªks/oZiq.Mª/kkjhA vlaDy`Irek/kqdjk=k'kh dkSihu[k.Mrq.M/kkjhAA26AA** ^gal^ uked laU;klh tVk/kkjh ¼yEcs ds'kksa okyk]½ f=iq.Mª ,oa Å/oZ iq.Mª dks /kkj.k djus okyk] vutku LFkku ij ekaxdj Hkkstu djus okyk rFkk dkSihu ¼y¡xksVh½ ek= /kkj.k djus okyk gksrk gSAA26AA A recluse namely Hansa holds large matted hair, Tripundra and Urdhvapundra, asks for food from alien places and puts on a Kaupina (nicker) on his body.(26) ^^ijegal% f'k[kk;Kksiohrjfgr% iapx`gs"kq djik=h ,ddkSihu/kkjhA 'kkVhesdkesda oS.koa n.Mesd'kkVh/kjks ok HkLeks)wtuij% loZR;kxhAA27AA** ^ijegal^ laU;klh f'k[kk&;Kksiohr ls foghu ik¡p ?kjksa ls gkFk :ih ik= esa fHk{kk izkIr djus okyk] ,d y¡xkSVh] ,d pknj rFkk ,d ck¡l dk n.M vius ikl esa j[kus okyk gksrk gS vFkok 'kjhj ij HkLe /kkj.k dj ,d pknj gh vius ikl j[krk gS vkSj lHkh dqN dk ifjR;kx dj nsrk gSAA27AA A Paramahamsa recluse abandons the braid and sacrificial thread, survives on alm, accepted in hand from five houses, holds a nicker, a bedsheet and a bamboo stick with him or having applied ashes on his body, he abandons everything except a bedsheet. (27) ^^rqjh;krhrks xkseq[ko`R;k Qykgkjh vUukgkjhA psn~x`g=;s nsgek=kof'k"Vks fnxEcj% dq.kioPNjhjo`fRrd%AA28AA** ^rqjh;krhr^ laU;klh lc dqN R;kx nsus okyk] xkseq[k o`fRRk okyk] rhu x`gksa ls Qy vFkok vUu dh fHk{kk ysus okyk] viuk 'kjhj uxz j[kus okyk vFkkZr~ fcuk oL=kfn ds 'kjhj dks j[kus okyk gksrk gSA og vius 'kjhj dks ejs gq, dh Hkk¡fr tku djds fdlh rjg thou fuokZg djrk gSAA28AA The recluse Turiyatita abandons everything, lives like a cow, accepts alm of fruits or cereal from three houses, keeps his body naked and thus he survives considering his body as corpse.(28) ^^vo/kwrLRofu;e% ifrrkfHk'kLrotZuZuiwoZda loZo.ksa"otxjo`R;kgkjij% Lo:ikuala/kkuij%AA29AA txRrkofnna ukga lo`{kr`.kioZre~A ;}kg~;a tMeR;Ura rRL;ka dFkega foHkq%A dkysukYisu foy;h nsgks ukgepsru%AA30AA ^vo/kwr^ uked laU;klh fdlh Hkh rjg dk fu;e ugha ekurkA ifrr vkSj fufUnr ds vfrfjDRk leLr tkfr;ksa esa vtxj o`fRRk ls vkgkj izkIr djus okyk gksrk gSA og vius Lo:i dh [kkst esa gh lrr yxk jgrk gSA ;g tks o`{k] ?kkl&ikr] ioZr vkfn lEiw.kZ fo'o gS] og esjs ls vyx gSA tks dqN cká txr~ esa n`f"Vxkspj gks jgk gS] og vR;Ur tM+ gSA eSa fdl rjg mlesa fLFkr jg ldrk gw¡( D;ksafd eSa fojkV~ g¡w] dky ds }kjk dfYir ,oa tYnh gh foy; gksus okyk Hkh eSa ugh gw¡AA29&30AA "The recluse namely Avadhuta does not observe any kind of rule. He obtains his food, like a python, from all castes barring evil doers and condemned persons. He always keeps himself busy in investigation of his self real form. He discriminates entire universe consisting of tree, grass and vegetation as also the mountains from himself. Whatever is happening in materialistic/outer world is wholly inert. He considers how he can exist/situate in the outer mateirlistic world inasmuch as he is gigantic and is beyond the resolution of time nor liable to be lost/engulfed into the passage of time.( 29-30) ^^vkrqjks thofr psRdzelaU;kl% drZO;%A u 'kwnzL=hifrrksnD;k laHkk"k.ke~A u ;rsnsZoiwtuksRlon'kZue~A rLekUu laU;kflu ,"k yksd%A vkrqjdqVhpd;ksHkwZyksZdHkqoyksZdkSA cgwndL; LoxZyksd%A galL; riksyksd%A ijgalL; lR;yksd%A iqjh;krhrko/kwr;ks% LokReU;so dSoY;a Lo:ikuqla/kkusu HkzejdhVu;k;or~AA74AA** oS ykSfdd dk;Z laU;klh ds fy, ugha gSA vkrqj vkSj dqVhpd dk Hkw% ,oa Hkqo% yksd gksrk gS] cgwnd dk LoxZyksd gksrk gS] gal dk riksyksd ,oa ijegal dk LFkku lR;yksd gksrk gSA rqjh;krhr rFkk vo/kwr Js.kh ds yksx Hkzej&dhV ds ln`'k vius Lo:i dk vUos"k.k djrs gq, dSoY; ¼dsoy vkReoRo½ :i esa izfrf"Br gks tkrs gSaAA74AA These worldly affairs, aren't for recluse. The Bhuh and Bhuvah are worlds of prompt and Kutichak recluse, the heaven for Bahudaka, the world of penance is for Hansa and the world of truth is for Paramahansa. The people under category of Avadhuta and Turiyatita are enshrined in the element of their soul by investigating their real form analogous to a black beetle-insect.(74) ^^Lo:ikuqla/kkuO;frfjDrkU;'kkL=kH;kl m"VªdqdqaeHkkjo};FkZ%A u ;ksx'kkL= izo`fRr%A u lka[;k'kkL=kH;kl%A u eU=rU=O;kikj%A usr'kkL=izo`fRr;ZrsjfLrA vfLr psPNokyadkjoRdekZpkjfo|knwj%A u ifjozk.ukeladhrZuijks ;|RdeZ djksfr rRRQyeuqHkofrA ,j.MrSyQsuoRloZa ifjR;tsr~A u nsorkizlknxzg.ke~A u ckg~;nsokH;pZua dq;kZr~AA75AA** lU;klh ds fy, vius Lo:i ds vuqla/kku ds vykok vU; fofHkUu 'kkL=ksa dk fujrUrj vH;kl djuk] ÅWV ds Åij ds'kj yknus ds ln`'k csdkj gSA laU;klh ds fy, ;ksx dh izo`fRr vFkok lak[; 'kkL= dk ea=&ra= dk O;kikj vkfn rFkk fdlh Hkh 'kkL= dh izo`fRr otZuh; gSA ;fn dksbZ laU;klh ,slk djrk gS] rks og e`rd 'ko ds Åij vkHkw"k.kksa ds leku gS rFkk laU;klh ds deZ ,oa fo|k ds vuqdwy ugha gSA laU;klh dks fdlh Hkh nsork ds uke rFkk dhrZu vkfn esa Hkkx ugha ysuk pkfg,A dkj.k ;g gS fd dksbZ Hkh dk;Z djus ds ckn mldk Qy rks Hkksxuk gh iM+sxkA blfy, ,j.M ¼jsM+h½ rsy ds Qsu ds ln`'k lHkh dk ifjR;kx dj nsuk pfg,A laU;klh dks u rks fdlh nsoh&nsork dk izlkn xzg.k djuk pkfg, vkSj u gh fdlh cká nsork vkfn dh iwtk gh djuh pkfg,AA75AA Except investigation of his Real Form, practice and study of a number of scriptures is redundant for a recluse since it is like loading saffron on the back of a camel. A recluse is prohibited to profess the trend of yoga, or utter hymns of Samkhya Sastra or observe the trend of any holy book. In case, any recluse engages himself in such affairs, it is like ornaments on a dead body and it is prejudicial to the function and learning of a recluse. A recluse shouldn't participate in the functions organized for summoning the gods and deities. He should think that he is compelled to bear consequences of whatever action is done by him. He therefore should abandon these all activities as the froth has disappeared from caster oil. Recluse neither should accept any Prasada offered to any god and goddesses nor worship any exterior god.(75) ^^LoO;frfjDra loZR;DRok e/kqdjo`Rr;kgkjekgjUd`'khHkwRok esnkso`f)edqoZfUogjsr~A ek/kqdjs.k djik=s.kkL;ik=s.k ok dkya u;sr~A vkRelaferekgkjekgjsnkReokU;fr%AA76AA lU;klh dks pkfg, fd og vius vfrfjDr lHkh dk R;kx djds vius gkFk :ih ik= ls e/kqdjh o`fRr ij thou;kiu djsA ftlls fd mlds 'kjhj esa pchZ dh o`f) u gks rFkk mldks lrr fopj.k djrs jguk pkfg,A og gkFk :ih ik= ds }kjk ;k eq[k :ih ik= ds }kjk fHk{kk xzg.k djrs gq, thou O;rhr djsAA The recluse should abandon everything except his soul, should live on alm, confined to the hand like a bee so that fat may not get accumulated in his body. He should move regularly and pass his life on alms in hand or mouth, as if it were bowl." (76) ^^HkS{ks.k orZ;sfUuR;a uSdk=k'kh HkosRdfpr~A fujh{kUrs Rouqf}xzkLrn~x`ga ;Rurks oztsr~A** ¼lU;klh½ lrr fHk{kko`fRRk ij gh vkfJr jgsA ges'kk ,d gh ?kj ls Hkkstu ugha xzg.k djuk pkfg,A tks 'kkUr&Hkko ls mldh jkg ns[krs gksa] mUgha ds ;gka iz;kliwoZd Hkkstu ds fy, tkuk pkfg,AA78AA A recluse should always remain dependent on alms. He shuldn't accept food from one home only. His efforts should be to visit the persons who watch his path patiently and request for taking food." (78) iaplIrx`gk.kka rq fHk{kkfePNsfRdz;korke~A xksnksgek=ekdkM~{ksfUu"dzkUrks u iquozZtsrAA79AA** lU;klh dks Js"B vkpj.k okys ikap ;k lkr ?kjksa esa fHk{kk ds fy, tkuk pkfg, rFkk xkS ds nksgu esa ftruk le; yxrk gS] mruh gh nsj rd izrh{kk djuh pkfg,A og tgka ls ,d ckj fHk{kk xzg.k dj ys] ogka iqu% ugha tkuk pkfg,AA79AA A recluse should go for alm only at five or seven houses who are cultured. He should only wait there to the extent a cow takes time in milking. He shouldn't re-visit the same place wherefrom he once has accepted alm. (79) ^^uDrk}j'pksiokl miokn;kfpr%A v;kfprk}ja Hks{ka rLekRHkS{ks.k orZ;sr~AA80AA jkf= ds vkgkj ¼Hkkstu½ ls miokl vf/kd Js"B gS] miokl dh vis{kk v;kfpr vFkkZr~ fcuk ekaxh gqbZ fHk{kk vf/kd Js"B gSA v;kfpr fHk{kk dh vis{kk ekaxdj [kkuk dgha vf/kd Js"B gSA vr% ;Fkk lEHko fHk{kk dk gh vkJ; ysuk pkfg,AA80AA Fast is better than dinner and alm received without demand, is better than the fast. Begging is better than things obtained without begging. One should therefore take resort to alm as far as it is possible. (80) ^^ek/kwdjelaDy`Ira izkD;iz.khre;kfpre~A rkRdkfyda pksiiUua HkS{ka iapfo/ka Ld`re~AA83AA ¼lU;kfl;ksa dh½ fHk{kk ikap rjg dh dgh x;h gS & vladfYir ek/kwdj] izkd~iz.khr] v;kfpr] rkRdkfyd rFkk miiéAA83AA The alm for recluse is of five kinds. These are unresolved, Madhukara, words used for begging, unexpected, immediate and casual. (83) ^^eu% ladYijfgrkaL=hUx`gkUiap lIr okA e/kqef{kdoRd`Rok ek/kwdjfefr Le`re~AA84AA** eu esa fdlh Hkh rjg dk ladYi fd;s fcuk fdUgha rhu] ikap vFkok lkr ?kjksa esa ls e/kqeD[kh ds ln`'k FkksM+h&FkksM+h fHk{kk xzg.k djuk vladfYir ek/kwdj gSAA84AA The unresolved Madhukara is the kind of alm which is accepted in small quantum like a bee's collection from any three, five or seven houses without having any resolution in the mind. (84) ^^izkr%dkys p iwosZ|q;Zn~HDrS% izkfFkZra eqgq%A rn~HkS{ka izkDiz.khra L;kfRLFkfra dq;kZRrFkkfir okAA85AA** izkr%dky vFkok fiNys fnu dksbZ Hkh euq"; HkfDriwoZd fHk{kk ds fy, fuosnu djs] rks mlds ;gka tks fHk{kk xzg.k dh tkrh gS] mls izkd~iz.khr fHk{kk dgrs gSaAA85AA The alm, accepted under request made by a person with devotion in the morning or previous day, is called Prakpraneet alm.(85) fHkkVuleq|ksxk|su dsu fuefU=re~A v;kfpra rq rn~HkS{ka HkksDrO;a p eqeq{kqfHk%AA86AA** fHk{kk ds fy, fopj.k djrs le; lU;klh dks ;fn dksbZ ¼O;fDr½ fueaf=r djs] rks ml ¼O;fDr½ ds ;gka ¼v;kfpr½ fHk{kk xzg.k dj ysuk pkfg,AA86AA In case, any person invites the recluse while he is on move for alm, the recluse should accept that unbegged alm from his house. (86) ^^miLFkkusu ;RizksDra fHk{kkFkZ czkg~e.ksu rr~AA rkRdkfydfefr [;kra HkksDrO;a ;frfHk% lnkAA fl)e=a ;nk uhra czkg~e.ksu eBa izfrA miiUufefr izkgqeqZu;ks eks{kdkfM~{k.k%AA88AA fHk{kk ds fy, fudyrs le; ¼laU;klh dks½ ;fn dksbZ czkã.k mlds lehi esa vkdj Hkkstu djus dks dgs] rks ml ^rkRdkfyd^ fHk{kk dks lnk gh Lohdkj dj ldrk gSA ;fn dksbZ czkã.k eB ¼vkJe½ esa fl) ¼rS;kj½ djds Hkkstu ys vk;s] rks mls lk/kq ^miiUu^ fHk{kk dgrs gSaAA 88AA If any Brahmin reaching close to a recluse who is on move for alm, makes a request to accept food at his home, it is called Tatkalik Bhiksha (immediate alm) and the recluse should always accept such alm. In case, any Brahmin cooks food for a recluse in his hermitage, it is called Uppanna alm. (88) ^^pjsUek/kqdja HkS{ka ;frEysZPNdqyknfiA ,dkUua urq Hkqathr c`gLifrleknfiA ;kfprk;kfprkH;ka p fHk{kkH;ka dYi;sfRLFkre~AA89AA ;fn laU;klh dks fHk{kk dh fo'ks"k vko';drk iM tk;s] rks mls EysPN ds ;gka ls Hkh fHk{kk ekax ysuh pkfg,( ijUrq dHkh Hkh ,d gh LFkku ls vkgkj Lohdkj ugha djuk pkfg,A pkgs og c`gLifr ds ln`'k iwT; dk gh ?kj D;ksa u gks\ laU;klh dks loZnk *;kfpr* vFkok *v;kfpr* fHk{kk ds }kjk fuokZg djuk loZFkk mfpr gSAA89AA A recluse shouldn't hesitate to ask for alm even from a Mleccha (an-uncultured and belonging to lower rank of society) in the event of a dire need is felt: however, he shouldn't accept the food continuously from one and same house, even though that house may be so cultured as that of Brihaspati (Mater/Teacher of God). It is prohibited for a recluse to visit daily there. A recluse should live either on the alm for which words are used or casual alm. (89) ^^fo/kwes lUueqlys O;xakjs HkqDroTtusA dkys·ijkg~;s Hkwf;"Bs fHkk{kkpj.kekpjsr~AA91AA** vfXu&/kwez ,oa ewly ds 'kCn ls jfgr] ftl txg ij vfXu cq>dj lEkkIr gks pqdh gks rFkk mifLFkr lHkh yksx Hkkstu dj pqds gksa] ogka ij gh ;ksxh dks e/;kUg dky ds i'pkr~ fHk{kk xzg.k djuh pkfg,AA91AA A yogi should accept alm afternoon where cooking fire has extinguished, it is smokeless and soundless i.e. it is fully extinct and all other people present there have taken their food. (91) ^^?k`ra Jew=ln`'ka e/kq L;kRlqj;k lee~A rSya lwdjew=a L;kRlwia y'kqulafere~AA ek"kkiwikfn xksekala {khja ew=lea Hkosr~A rLekRloZiz;Rusu ?k`rknhUotZ;s|fr%AA93&94AA laU;klh ds fy, ?k`Rk dqRrs ds ew= ds ln`'k gS] 'kgn efnjk iku ds leku gS] rsy 'kwdj ds ew= ds lerqY; gS] yglqu ;qDr inkFkZ ,oa mMn] viwi ¼ekyiqvk½ vkfn ds inkFkZ xksekal ds ln`'k gSa] nw/k ew= ds ln`'k gS] vr% laU;klh dks loZnk ?k`r vkfn ls foghu fHk{kk gh iz;RuiwoZd Lohdkj djuh pkfg,AA Ghee is like a dog's urine for recluse, honey is like liquor, oil is like the pork's urine, commodities mixed with garlic, pulse of Urad, sweeten bread etc. are like the beef and milk is like urine. Hence, recluse should always accept an alm with effort without ghee etc. (93-94) ^^?k`rlwikfnla;qDreUua uk|kRdnkpuA ik=eL; HkosRikf.kLrsus fuR;a fLFkfra u;sr~A ikf.kik='pjU;ksxh ukld`n~HkS{kekpjsr~AA95AA vkL;su rq ;nkgkja xksoUe`x;rs eqfu%A rnk le% L;kRlosZ"kq lks·e`rRok; dYirsAA96AA** ?k`r ,oa lwikfn ¼pVuh] fepZ&elkyk vkfn½ ls ;qDr idoku dks dHkh xzg.k ugha djuk pkfg,A laU;klh ds fy, mldk gkFk Hkkstu xzg.k djus dk ik= gSA ml gkFk :ih ik= esa loZnk fHk{kk xzg.k djuh pkfg,A bl izdkj laU;klh dks fnu esa ,d gh ckj Hkkstu xzg.k djuk pkfg,A nks ckj Hkkstu dnkfi u djsA tks eqfu xkS dh HkkWfr dsoy eq[k ls vkgkj xzg.k djrk gS] ¼lafpr ugha djrk½ og lHkh esa leHkko izkIr djds ve`rRo dks izkIr dj ysrk gSAA 95&96AA A recluse should never accept the spicy and firy food blended with ghee and juice. Only his hand is the vessel (bowl) to accept the food for a recluse. He should always accept alm in that bowl only. A single time food in a day should be taken. He should never take food twice a day. The recluse who accepts food only to the extent of his mouth capacity like a cow, viz., who doesn't accumulate it, attains immortality by virtue of his spirit of equity.(95-96) ^^vkT;a :f/kfeo R;atsnsd=kUua iyyfeo xU/kysiue'kq)ysiufeo {kkjeUR;tfeo oL=eqfPN"Vik=feokH;xa Lohlxafeo fe=kg~yknda ew=feo Li`gka xksekalfeo Kkrpjns'ka p.MkyokfVdkfe0 fL=;efgfeo lqo.kZ dkydwVfeo lHkkLFkya 'e'kkuLFkyfeo jkt/kkuh dqEHkhikdfeo 'kofi.Monsd=kUua u nsorkpZue~A izi'po`fRra ifjR;T; thoUeqDrks Hkosr~AA97AA** ?k`r ¼vkT;½ dks :f/kj ds leku rFkk bDV~Bk fd;s gq, vUu dks ekal dh HkkWfr R;kx nsuk pkfg,A xU/k ,oa ysiu dks xUnh oLrq ds leku] ued dks vUR;t ds leku] oL= dks twWBs ik= ds ln`'k] rsy ekfy'k dks L=h izlax dh HkkWfr] fe=ksa dh gWlh&etkd dks ew= ds leku] ?ke.M dks xkS&ekal ds leku] ifjfpr&fe=ksa ds ?kj dh fHk{kk dks p.Mky ds ln`'k] L=h dks lfiZ.kh ds leku] lqo.kZ ¼lksus½ dks dkydwV ds leku] lHkk vkfn dks 'e'kkuor~] jkt/kkuh dks dqEHkhikd ujd ds leku] ,d gh ?kj ds Hkkstu dks e`rd&fi.M ds leku tkudj budk ifjR;kx dj nsuk pkfg,A nsorkvksa dk iwtu&vtZu dHkh u djsA laklkfjd izi´~pksa dks R;kxdj mls thoueqDr cuuk pkfg,AA 97AA One should abandon ghee etc. like food accumulated treating it like blood and flesh respectively. The recluse should abandon the odour and a cosmetics treating it rubbish, salt consideing it a snatcher, garments as unpious vessels, massage like copulation, jokes and irony of friends like urine, proud like beef, alm from the house of friends and acquaintances like Chandala, women like snakes, gold like poision, assemblies like cremation ground, capital like Kumbhipaka hell, food from a single home like corpse. He should never worship and make recital for gods. He should try to be a free soul after giving up all worldly illusions.(97) ^^vklua ik=yksi'p lap;% f'k";lap;%A fnokLiks o`Fkkykiks ;rscZU/kdjkf.k "kV~AA98AA vklu] ik=yksi ¼crZu dh pkg½] l¥~p;] f'k"; cukuk] fnu eas 'k;u djuk rFkk csdkj dh ckrsa djuk bR;kfn ;s N% izdkj ds dk;Z laU;klh dks cU/ku esa Mkyus okys gSaAA 98AA The Asana, desire for vessel, passion for accumulation of money, making of disciples, sleeping during day time and involving the mind in trivial matters are the six things that put a recluse in the bondages/shackles. (98) ^^o"kkZH;ks·U;= ;RLFkkueklua rnqnkg`re~A mDrkykCokfnik=k.kkesdL;kihg laxzg%AA99AA ;rs% laO;ogkjk; ik=yksi% l mP;rsA x`ghrL; rq n.Mknsf}Zrh;L; ifjxzg%AA100AA o"kkZ ¼ikuh½ ds vykok tks LFkku gS] mls vklu dgk tkrk gSA dgs gq, ik=ksa ds laxzg esa ls ,d gh rqEch vkfn ik= dks xzg.k djuk pkfg,A laU;klh ds O;ogkj ds fy, tks rqEch vkfn ik= dgs x;s gSa] muds [kks tkus ij nwljs ds ik=ksa dks ys ysuk gh ik=&yksi gSA viuk n.M [kks tkus ij nwljs dk n.M xzg.k dj ysuk gh ifjxzg gSAA99&100AA A place unwet of water is called Asana. Only a patra (vessel) should be kept with recluse. When a recluse adopts other vessel, it is called Patra-Lop. To accept stick of other in the event of losing one is called Parigraha. (99-100) ^^dkykUrjksiHkksxkFkZa lap;% ifjdhfrZr%AA 'kqJw"kkykHkiwtkFkZ ;'kks·FkZa ok ifjxzgAA101AA dkykUrj ¼Hkfo";½ esa HkksxkFkZ ds fy, laxzg djds j[kuk gh l¥~p; dgk tkrk gSA 'kqJw"kk ykHk] iwtk ,oa ;'k ds fy, ps"Vk djuk Hkh ifjxzg gSAA 101AA To collect worldly luxuries with an intention to enjoy in future is called Sanchaya (accumulation). To accept service from any person, make efforts for being worshipped and famed is also Parigraha.(101) ^^f'k";k.kka urq dk:.;kfPN";laxzg bZfjr%A fo|k fnok izdk'kRoknfo|kjkf=:P;rsAA102AA ¼tks f'k";½ vkRedY;k.k ds fy, d:.kk ls ;qDr gksdj vk;s] mls gh f'k"; cuk;sA mlds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh dks f'k"; cukuk gh f'k"; laxzg dgk tkrk gSA laU;kl esa fo|k dks fnu vkSj vfo|k dks jkf= tkuk tkrk gSAA 102AA One should make disciple only a person who has come with heart full of compassion and with the aim of self welfare. Except such persons, making disciples of any other persons is called Sangrah (accumulation). Learning is known as the Day and ignorance is as Night in reclusion. (102) ,dkUua enekRl;Za xU/kiq"ifoHkkw"k.kke~A rkEcwykH;Ttus dzhMk HkksxkdkM~{kk jlk;ue~AA104AA dRFkua dqRlua LofLr T;ksfr'p dz;fodz;e~A dz;k deZfookn'p xq:dokD;&foyMaue~AA105AA laf/k'p foxzgks ;kua eTtda 'kqDyoL=de~A 'kqdzksRlxksZ fnokLokiks fHk{kk/kkjLrq rStle~AA106AA fo"ka pSok;q/ka chta fglka rS{.;a p eSFkque~A R;Dra laU;kl;ksxsu x`g/kekZfnda ozre~AA107AA xks=kfnpj.ka loZa fir`ekr`dqya /kue~A izfrf"k)kfu pSrkfu lsekuks oztsn'k%AA108AA ^^,dké] ?ke.M vkSj eRljrk] xU/k] iq"i] vkHkw"k.k] iku [kkuk] rsy yxkuk] ØhM+k] Hkksx dh vkdka{kk] jlk;u] [kq'kken djuk] fuUnk] dq'ky] iz'u] [kjhnus&cspus dh ckrsa] fØ;kdeZ] okn&fookn] xq: ds okD; dk mYya?ku] lfU/k foxzg dh ckrsa] iyax] lQsn oL=] oh;Z R;kx] fnu esa 'k;u djuk] fHk{kk ik=] Lo.kZ] fo"k] 'kL=] tho] fgalk] Øks/k rFkk eSFkqu&bu lHkh dk lU;klh iw.kZ:i ls ifjR;kx dj nsA tks x`gfLFk;ksa ds /keZ] ozr] xks=kfn ds vkpj.k] firk rFkk ekrk ds dqy dh lEifRr vkfn fuf"k) dgs x;s gS] bu lHkh dk lsou djus ls uhp xfr dh izkfIr gksrh gSAA104&108AA "A recluse should abandon taking one and same cereal (foodstuff), proud and vanity, odour, flower, ornaments, eating betel leaves, massage, involvement in playing games, ambition for enjoyment, chemicalisation, flattery, criticism, discussuions on barganing of commodity, deliberation of routine affairs, debate and dispute, violation of the principle laid down by teacher, matters pertaining to dispute and harmony, cot, white garments, discharge of semen, sleeping in the day, begging bowl, gold, poison, weapon, living creatures, violence, anger and copulation. The things prohibited to recluse are the activities prescribed for Grihasth, like observance of dharma, fast, functions concerning Gotras, enjoying the inherited properties of parents etc. Enjoying these things pulls down the recluse to trap into wordily affairs.(104-108) ^^iziapef[kya ;Lrq KkukxzkS tqgq;k|fr%A vkReU;xzhUlekjhI; lksfxzgks=h egk;fr%AA119AA** lU;klh dks lHkh rjg ds izi´~p vFkkZr~ ek;k dks KkukfXUk eas HkLe dj nsuk pkfg,A tks lU;klh viuh vUrjkRek esa Kku:ih vfXu dks lekjksfir dj ysrk gS] ogh egku~ Kkuh&vfXugks=h dgykrk gSA A recluse should burn into ashes in the fire of knowledge all kinds of worldly illusions. A recluse who can embed the fire of knowledge in his inner most soul, only he is said a great scholar and agnihotri.(119) ^^izo`fRrf}Zfo/kk izksDrk ektkZjh pSo okujhA Kkuk;klorkeksrqokZujhHkkDreso pAA120AA lU;kfl;ksa dh nks izdkj dh izo`fRRk gksrh gS& 1- ektkZjh vkSj 2- okujhA tks lU;klh Kku dk vH;kl djrs gSa] muesa eq[; :i ls ektkZjh izo`fRr gksrh gS vkSj xkS.k :i ls okujh izo`fRr gksrh gSAA120AA There are two kinds of propensities among recluse. The first is Marjari and the second is Vanari. The recluse practicing knowledge has mainly Marjari propensities and with lesser quantity of Vanari propensities. (120) ^^uki`"V% dL;fpn~czw;kUu pkU;k;su i`PNr%A tkuUufi fg es/kkoh tMokYyksd vkpjsr~AA121AA ¼fdlh O;fDr ds½ fcuk iwNs gh lU;klh dks ugha cksyuk pkfg, rFkk vuhfr ,oa vU;k;iwoZd iz'u djs] rc Hkh mls ugha cksyuk pkfg,A Kkuoku~ gksdj Hkh lU;klh dks ¼tu lkekU; ds le{k½ ew<+ ds ln`'k vkpj.k djuk pkfg,AA121AA Unless asked, a recluse should not speak with anybody. He should also keep silence if someone raises any unjustriciable query. Despite being a scholar, a recluse should pose as a stupid. (121)
358. The relevant verses from Sanyasopnishad show that a Sanyasi is a person who after following the procedure of adopting celibacy has gone in reclusion and abandoned all his worldly relations and has to follow regulated life in respect whereto broad instructions are contained in 'Sanyasopnishad'. Some relevant verses in relations thereof we have already quoted above.
359. Broadly, even witnesses of both the parties have also deposed similarly. Who can be a ''Sanyasi' and how he should regulate his life, in this regard, plaintiff's witnesses who have deposed are PW-3, Sri Kameshwar Nath Mishra, PW-10 Swami Sri Ishwaranand Tirth, PW-17 Swami Sri Vishuddhanand Saraswati, PW-20 Sri C.V. Giridhar Shastri, PW-21 Sri Balram Pandey and PW-35 Sri Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi Shastri. The relevant deposition of aforesaid plaintiff witnesses is as under:
PW-3 Sri Kameshwar Nath Mishra (XX):
^^eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu iqLrd esa ifjozkt rFkk lU;klh 'kCn ifjHkkf"kr ugha gSA lU;klh 'kCn ifjHkk"kk le>us ds fy, ukjn ifjozktdksifu"kn ;fr/keZ leqPp; rFkk euq vkfn dh Le`fr;ksa egkHkkjr dk 'kkUrioZ rFkk fofHkUu iqjk.kksa o.kkZJe /keZ dk fu:i.k djrs le; lU;klh vFkok lU;klJe /keZ ls lEc) fooj.k feyrs gSaA eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu esa vk|xq: 'kadjkpk;Z vius fy, lU;klh dh ifjHkk"kk lqjf{kr ugha j[kk gSA lU;klh 'kCn czg~elw= 'kadj Hkk"; esa ifjHkkf"kr gSA --- esjs fopkj ls x`gLFk dks 'kadjkpk;Z ugha cuuk pkfg,A pkjksa {ks= ds 'kadjkpk;ksZ ds {ks= eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu ds vuqlkj lhfer gSA --- izos'k 'kCn eBkEuk; esa tks mfYyf[kr gS ifjHkkf"kd gS ogkWa mldk vFkZ /keZLo xzg.k djuk gS fdUrq lkekU; 'kCnkoyh esa iz;qDr izos'k 'kCn dsoy vkus tkus dk okpd gSA ,d 'kadjkpk;Z nwljs 'kadjkpk;Z ds {ks=h; ekeyksa esa glr{ksi ugha djuk pkfg, fo'ks"kdj vkfFkZd ekeyksa esaA** ¼isij ua0428d] ist&83½ "In the book 'Mathamanay Mahanushasan', 'Parivraj' and 'Sanyasi' are not defined. The definition of 'Sanyasi' can be understood through the study of 'Narad Parivrajkopnishad, Yatidharm Samuchhay and Manu Smriti, etc, Mahabharata's Shantiparva and different Puranas wherein descriptions of 'Sanyasi' or 'Sanyasashram' dharm are found amidst the description of Varnashram Dharm. Adya Guru Shankaracharya has not retained the definition of 'Sanyasi' for him. The word 'Sanyasi' is defined in 'Brahmsutra Shankar Bhasya'.... In my opinion grahastha should not be enthroned as Shankaracharya. According to 'Mathamanay Mahanushasan', the domains of Shankaracharyas of all four seats are limited. ..The meaning of word 'Pravesh' mentioned and defined in 'Mathamanay' is to adopt dharmashva (religious mindedness) but 'Pravesh' used in ordinary parlance stands only for just coming and going. One Shankaracharya should not interfere with the affairs of the other Shankaracharya, especially in financial affairs." (English Translation by Court) PW-10 Swami Sri Ishwaranand Tirth (X):
**pkjksa ihBksa esa ;g ijEijk gS fd lU;klksifu"kn esa ftu O;fDr;ksa dks lU;kl ysus ls oftZr fd;k x;k gS] mudks lU;kl ugha fn;k tkrk] vkSj ;fn oftZr O;fDr lU;kl ys ysrk gS] rks og n.Mh lU;klh ugha gS] u mldks n.Mh lU;klh ekuk tkrk gSA --- lU;klksifu"kn ds vuqlkj tks O;fDr vax&Hkaxh] peZjksxh] yEiV] osruHkksxh] v/;kid] uiqald] L=h ds o'k esa jgus okyk] cgjk] xwWaxk] <+ksaxh] pdzksfuaxh] /ku ds fy, ri djus okyk tknw Vksuk vkfn ds }kjk /ku dekus okyk ukfLrd] lU;kl ds ckn iqu% x`gLFk esa pys tkus ls mRiUu cPpk] u[k esa jksx okyk] ihys dkys nkar okyk engks'k] ejus dh bPNk j[kus okyk] egkikrdh] le; ij ftldk miu;u u gqvk gks] ykaNu ;k vkjksi yxs O;fDr dks lU;kl nh{kk ugha fn;k tkrk gSA --- 'kjhj ds fdlh Hkh vax esa lQsn nkx gksuk] dkyk dkyk /kCckgksuk 'kjhj dk vax iddj fxjuk vkfn peZjksx o dksM+ gSA --- ukjn ifjozktdksifu"kn esa Hkh lU;kl ds lEcU/k esa mYys[k gS fd ukjn th us firkeg Hkxoku czg~ek th ls iwNk fd dkSu dkSu lU;kl ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSa\ vkSj dkSu&dkSu gS\ czg~ek th us dgk ^^uiqald] ifrr vaxfody] L=.k ¼L=h ds o'k esa jgus okyk½ dkeh] cf/kj] vHkZd ¼cPpk½ ewd ik[k.Mh] pdzh ¼oS".ko lEiznk; esa pdz xksnok pqdk½] fyaxh ¼'kSo lEiznk; esa fyax xksnus dh izFkk½ oSjokul ¼tks /ku ds fy, ri djs½ gfjr /ku ¼tknw Vksuk gksuk vkfn }kjk yksxksa ls /ku ysus okyk½ Hk`rdk/;kid ¼osru Hkksxh v/;kid½] f'kfifo"V ¼peZjksxh½ ftlds fyax dh ef.k LokHkkfod :i ls vuko`Rr gks vuXuksd ¼tks czkg~e.k vfXugks= u djrk gks] ,sls yksx lU;kl ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSa½ --- lU;klksifu"kn o ukjn ifjozktddksifu"kn esa oftZr fd;s x;s mDr izdkj ds yksxksa dk t;ksfr"ihB ] }kfjdk ihB] Ja`xsjh ihB vFkok xkso/kZu ihB esa lU;kl u fn, tkus dh ijEijk gSA "It is the tradition of all the four Peeths that Sanyas will not be given to those who are prohibited to become Sanyasi in Sanyasopnishad and if prohibited person obtains Sanyas then neither he is Dandi Sanyasi nor he is presumed as Dandi Sanyasi. As per Sanyasopnishad, if a man is handicapped, suffering from skin disease, rakish, wage-earner teacher, impotent, who is in the control of women, dumb, mute, impostor, chakroningi, who is doing penance for money, who is earning money by sorcery etc., atheist, a child who is born from a person who had left Sanyas and has entered in worldly life, whose nails are infected, whose teeth are yellow and black, intoxicated, one who is willing to die, sinner, one whose Thread ceremony has not been done at the proper time, an accused person can not be provided Sanyas Diksha. Presence of white spots or black spots on any part of body or falling of body parts due to skin disease or leprosy.... In Narad Parivrakopnishad, it is mentioned about Sanyas that Naradji had asked Pitahmah God Brahma, "Who are not entitled for Sanyas? and who are they." Brahma said, "Impotent, downtrodden, handicapped, womanizer(one who is in control of women), amorous, dumb, Arbhak(child), mute, impostor, Chakri(one who has tattooed his body in Vaishnav sect), Lingi(tattooing genital organ as per custom of Shaiv sect), Vairvanas (who is doing penance for money), Harit Dhan (who earn money from people by sorcery), Bhritkadhyapak (wage earner teacher), Shipiristh (person suffering from psoriasis disease), whose front part of genital organ got uncovered by natural way, Anagnok (Brahmin who does not perform Agnihotra (ritual) are not entitled for Sanyas. There is custom in Jyotishpeeth, Dwarikapeeth, Shringeripeeth and Goverdhanpeeth for not giving Sanyas to those above mentioned people who are prohibited by Sanyasopnishad and Narad Parivrajkopnishad." (English Translation by Court) ^^lU;kl nh{kk o n.M nsus okyk lU;klh] lU;kl ysus dh bPNk okys O;fDr ds ckjs esa igys ;g tkudkjh djrk gS fd og lU;klksifu"kn o ukjn ifjczktdksifu"kn esa mfYyf[kr v;ksX;rkvksa dk /kkjd rks ugha gSA ;fn og O;fDr osru Hkksxh v/;kid gS] vFkok peZjksxh o dq"Vjksxh gS] mlds Åij Ny] diV] xcu gR;k vkfn dk vkjksi gS] rks lU;kl gsrq mldk euksu;u ugha fd;ktkrk gS] mldks lU;kl nh{kk o lU;kl n.M ugha fn;k tkrk gSA** "The Sanyasi who gives initiation of Sanyas and Sanyas Dand used to take information about the person willing to become Sanyasi that whether he is bearer of disqualification mentioned in Sanyasopnishad and Narad Parivrajakopnishad or not. If he is salaried earner teacher, if he is suffering from skin disease or leprosy, if charges of cheating, treachery, fraudulent misappropriation, murder are imposed on him then he shall not be nominated as Sanyasi. Sanyas initiation and Sanyas Dand are not given to him." (English Translation by Court) PW-10 Swami Sri Ishwaranand Tirth (XX):
^^lU;kl dh ifjHkk"kk 35 mifu"knksa esa gh x;h gSA eSaus eq[; :i ls ckjg mifu"kn i "The definition of Sanyas is given in the 35 Upanishads. I have chiefly studied 12 Upnishads. Some of them I can recall are: Chhandogya Upanishad, Nardparivrajko Upnishad, Styaashopanishad, Brihadkarnopanishad etc."
(English Translation by Court) ^^lU;klh ds fy, dk'kh ds vfrfjDr ifjczktd fo/kku gSA rhu fnu ls vf/kd ,d LFkku ij Nr ds uhps dk'kh esa ojlksa rd jg ldrk gSA lU;klh ds y{k.k iqLrdksa esa fn;s x;s gSaA rhu fnu ls vf/kd dk'kh esa jg ldrk gSA dk'kh esa gh ugha gj txg Hkh ns'kdky ds vUrxZr lU;klh nw/k vkSj vkS"kf/k lsou djrs gSaA pk; esa nw/k] phuh] pk; dh iRrh iM+rh gSA dk'kh ls ckgj tkus ds fy, lU;klh dks tkuoj dh lokjh ls ugha tkuk pkfg,] eksVj xkM+h esa cSB ldrk gSA lU;klh dks [kM+kÅWa iguuk vfuok;Z ugha gSA ;fn igus rks vPNk gSA Åauh diM+k fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa lU;klh igurs gSA flyk gqvk oL= izlUUk ugha gSA lU;k"kksifu"kn vkSj ukjnkifjozktdksifu"kn esa fn;s x;s y{k.k ;qDr lU;klh gSA** ¼isij ua0&485d] ist&159&160½ "Except at Kashi, there is parivrajak vidhan (provision for being an itinerant) for a sanyasi. It means he can stay under a roof more than three days or for years at Kashi. The Lakshan (traits) of a sanyasi are enumerated in books. He can stay more than three days at Kashi. Not only at Kashi but also at every place and time, the sanyasi consume milk and aushadhi (medicinal herbs). In making tea, milk, sugar and tea leaves are used. For going out of Kashi, a sanyasi should not use vehicle driven by animals, but motor vehicles. It is not necessary for a sanyasi to wear Khadaun (wooden slippers). If he wears, it is better. Only in some special circumstances, the sanyasi use woollen clothes. Stitched clothes are not allowed. There are sanyasis who have lakshans (traits) as given in Sanyashopanishad and Naradaparivrajkopanishad.." (English Translation by Court) PW-17 Swami Sri Vishuddhanand Saraswati (X):
^^lU;klksifu"kn o ukjn ifjozktddksifu"kn esa oftZr fd;s x;s mDr izdkj ds yksxksa dk T;ksfr"ihB] }kfjdk ihB] Ja`xsjh ihB vFkok xkso/kZu ihB esa lU;kl u fn, tkus dh ijEijk gSA** ¼isij ua0&493 d] ist& 2899&2900½ "The aforesaid people who are prohibited in Sanyasopnishad and Narad Parivrajakopnishad can not be given sanyas in Jyotishpeeth, Dwarikapeeth, Shrengeri Peeth or Govardhan Peeth." (English Translation by Court) PW-17 Swami Sri Vishuddhanand Saraswati (XX):
^^lU;klksifu"kn] ukjn ifjozktdksifu"kn esa fufl) f'k"; cukus dk fu"ks?k gSA^^ ¼isij ua0&493 d] ist&221½ "In Sanyasopanishad and Narad Parivrajkopnishad, making of prohibited persons as disciple is forbidden." (English Translation by Court) PW-20 Sri C.V. Giridhar Shastri (X):
^^czkg~e.k gh naMh lU;klh gks ldrk gSA vkSj] uSf"Vd czg~epkjh vFkkZr ,slk naMh lU;klh] tks vkthou vfookfgr gksrk gS]** ¼isij ua0&496d] ist&2915½ "Only a Brahmin can be Dandi Sanyasi, and a Naishtik Brahmachari i.e. such Dandi Sanyasi who performs Brahamcharya throughout the life," (English Translation by Court) PW-21, Sri Balram Pandey (X):
**tks O;fDr laU;kl ysuk pkgrk gS og O;fDr xq: ds 'kj.k esa jgdj 'kq: ds }kjk funsZf'kr lk/kuk dks djrk gS] xq: mlds fdz;k dykiksa dks] lU;kl ysus ds ladYi dks rFkk mlds pfj= o LoHkko vkfn dks ns[kdj tc xq: larq"V gks tkrk gS fd lU;kl ysus dh bPNk djus okyk O;fDr nEHkh] yksHkh] diVh] vaxHkaxh] peZjksxh] yEiV] osruHkksxh] v/;kid] /keZifrr uiaqld] L=h ds o'k esa jgus okyk] cgjk] xwWaxk] <+ksaxh] /ku ds fy, ri djus okyk] tknw Vksuk vkfn ds }kjk /ku dekus okyk] ukfLrd] u[kjksxh] ihys dkys nkar okyk] xtoehZ] dkyk /kCck okyk] engks'k] ejus dh bPNk j[kus okyk] egkikrdh] ykaNu ls vkjksfir ugha gS rFkk fons'k ;k=k ugha fd;s gS rc xq: ds larq"V gks tkus ij gh] lU;kl dh bPNk djus okys O;fDr dks] xq: lU;kl nh{kk o laU;kl n.M nsrk gSA^^ ¼isij ua0&498 d] ist&2926&2927½ "An individual who wants to attain Sanyasa( severing worldly ties) submits himself to the Guru and performs Sadhna (mode of Ritualistic Praying) under the direction of his Guru who observes his daily activities, his determination to attain Sanyas, his character and nature and satisfies himself that individual who wishes to attain Sanyas, is not an egoist, greedy, crafty,physically deformed, suffering from skin diseases, debauchee, salaried teacher, pagan, Impotent, submissive to woman, deaf, dumb, imposter, money minded, practitioner of black magical arts for monetary purposes , atheist, suffering from nail diseases,having yellowish black stained teeth, Gajvarmi ? (black skinned), having black spots, intoxicated, suffering from suicidal tendencies, sinner of extreme degree, having any allegation against him and has not travelled overseas, only then provides Sanyasa Deeksha (knowledge for obtaining Sanyasa) and Sanyasa Danda (ceremonial Staff) to the individual who wishes to attain Sanyasa."
(English Translation by Court) ^^vkfn xq: 'kadjkpk;Z }kjk LFkkfir fd;s x;s ihBksa dk vkpk;Z czkg~e.k n.Mh lU;klh gh gksrk gS** ¼isij ua0&498 d] ist&2926&2927½ "Acharya of the Peeths established by Adi Guru Shnkaracharya can only be Brahmin Dandi Sanyasi," (English Translation by Court) PW-35 Sri Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi Shastri (XX):
**czg~epkjh nks izdkj ds gksrs gSaA uSf"Vd czg~epkjh tks fd cpiu ls gh vfookfgr jgdj czg~epkjh dk ikyu djrs gSaA og uSf"Vd czg~epkjh gksrs gSaA nwljs czg~epkjh mi iqokZ.k gksrs gaS tks fookg ds ckn czg~epkjh dk nh{kk ysrs gSaA og miiqokZ.k dgykrs gSaA** ¼isij ua0&586d] ist&485½ "Brahmcharis are of two types. One of them is Naistik Brahmchari who being unmarried since childhood follows brahmcharya (celibacy). He is called Naistik Brahmchari. Second type of Brahmchari is Up-purvana who takes deeksha (initiation) as Brahmchari after being married. Such person is called Up-purvana." (English Translation by Court)
360. Similarly, on the question of characteristics and also the meaning of word 'Sanyasi', oral evidence deposed by appellant's own witnesses is also relevant. The relevant extract thereof may be produced from the statements of DW 1, DW 3 i.e. appellant himself, DW 6, DW 16, DW 22, DW 25, DW 31, DW 32, DW 35, DW 36 and DW 37. DW-1 Swami Sri Vimaldevashram "vkfnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z cky czg~epkjh FksA lU;kl ysus ds mijkUr lU;klh dk iwoZ vkJe ls lEcU/k lekIr gks tkrk gS mldk x`gLFk okyk uke lekIr gks tkrk gSA lU;kl ds mijkUr mldh lkalfjd e`R;qeku yh tkrh gSA lU;kl ds mijkUr mls xq: ds }kjk tks uke feyrk gSA mlh ds }kjk tkuk tkrk gSA lkalfjd e`R;q ;k gks tkus ds dkj.k lU;klh Hkh iSr`d lEcU/kh esa lU;klh dk ekfydkuk gd lekIr gks tkrk gSA ,oa mldh lEifRr dk ekfyd mlds iq= vkfn lU;klh dk 'kjhj gks tkus ij Hkh gks tkrs gSaA lU;kl ysus ds ckn lU;klh vius x`gLFk okys uke ls osru okyh ukSdjh ugha dj ldrk gSA --- lU;kl ds ckn lU;klh L=h laHkksx ugha dj ldrk gS lU;klh fons'k ;k=k ugha dj ldrk gSA --- ,slk O;fDr tks lU;klh ghu gks mldk vfHk"ksd 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA" ¼isij ua0&644 d] ist&3½ Aadiguru Shankaracharya was a Brahmachari since childhood (Baal Brahmachari). After taking Sanyaas (renunciation), a Sanyaasi ceases to have connection with his previous ashram and his Grihasth name comes to an end. After taking Sanyaas, he is considered to be dead from the worldly point of view. After taking Sanyaas, he is known by the name which is given by his Guru. He is then known by the same name only. After the Sanyaasi being dead from the worldly point of view, his ownership right to his ancestral property ceases. His sons and others become owner of his property after Sanyaas being taken by him. After taking Sanyaas, a Sanyaasi can't do any salaried job with his social name. After taking Sanyaas, a Sanyaasi can't have intercourse with any woman. A Sanyaasi can't travel abroad. Abhishek as Shankaracharya can't be performed of a person who is not a Sanyaasi. (Paper No. 644 Ka, Page 3) ^^lU;klh ds fy, lknk Hkkstu ds vykok lc oftZr gSA lkns Hkkstu esa nw/k ngh Hkh oftZr gSA lU;klh flQZ idk gqvk Hkkstu [kk ldrk gSA** ¼isij ua0&644 d] ist&7½ "Everything is prohibited for a Sanyaasi except simple meals. Even milk and curd are also prohibited in simple meals. A Sanyaasi can eat cooked meals only." (Paper No. 644 Ka, Page 7) DW-3 Swami Sri Vasudevanand Saraswati (Appellant) XXX ^^mRrj&vkt rd fdlh dk;Zjr 'kadjkpk;Z us fdlh xSj lU;klh dks ihB ij vf/k"Bkfir ugha fd;k gS vkSj ;g ijaijk ugha gSA** ¼isij ua0&661 d] ist&71½ Answer: No presiding Shankaracharya has consecrated any person other than a sanyasi (renunciate) on the seat of Shankaracharya, and it is not a tradition." (Paper No. 661 Ka, Page 71) ^mRrj&Hkxoku 'kadjkpk;Z th }kjk laLFkkfir prq"ihB ijaijk esa vkt rd fdlh dk;Zjr 'kadjkpk;Z }kjk fdlh ,sls O;fDr dk vf/k"Bkiu ugha gqvk gS tks lU;klh u gksA** ¼isij ua0&661 d] ist&76&77½ Answer: In the traditions of Chatushpeetha established by Lord (Bhagwan) Shankaracharya, none but a sanyasi has been installed by any presiding Shankaracharya up to now." (Paper No. 661 Ka, Page 76-77) **egkjkt th us fdlh x`gLFk dks ihB ij vf/k"Bkfir ugha fd;k gS tks lU;klh u gksA** ¼isij ua0&661 d] ist&78½ "Maharaj Ji has not installed any person who is not a sanyasi on the Peetha." (Paper No. 661 Ka, Page 78) *Jh Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe th egkjkt laLd`r ds fo}ku] R;kxh] riLoh ,oa ljy lar FksA Jh Lokeh czg~ekuan ljLorh th egjkt }kjk fyf[kr bPNk esa ua- 2 ds mRrjkf/kdkjh ds fy;s lU;klh gksus dk 'krZ FkkA Lokeh 'kkarkuan th egjkt ;fn 'kadjkpk;Z in Lohdkj u fd;s gksrs rc ua- 2 ij of.kZr O;fDr dks l'krZ mRrjkf/kdkj dk vf/kdkj FkkA Shri Krishnabodharam was a scholar of Sanskrit, a saint, having observed austerities and having simplicity of nature. In the written will of Swami Brahmanand Sarswati Ji Maharaj, there was a condition for the person at number 2 in the list for being a sanyasi (renunciate). If Swami Shanatanand had not accepted the seat of Shankaracharya, the person mentioned at the number 2 in the list would have the right of succession with conditions. iz'u&tks O;fDr laLd`r u tkurk gks] osn osnkax o 'kkL=ksa dk tkudkj u gks D;k og 'kadjkpk;Z dh xn~nh ij vf/k"Bkfir fd;k tk ldrk gS\ Question: Can a person who does not know Sanskrit, have no knowledge of Veda, Vedang and religious scriptures be consecrated at the seat of Shankaracharya? mRrj&th ughaA Answer: No, sir.
iz'u&'kadjkpk;Z in ds fy;s czkg~e.k lU;klh gksuk] laLd`r dk tkudkj gksuk] osn osnkax o 'kkL=ksa dk tkudkj gksuk vko';d gS\ Question: Whether it is necessary to be a Bhrahman sanaysi to have knowledge of Sanskrit, Ved Vedang and scriptures for the seat of Shankaracharya. mRrj&'kadjkpk;Z in ds fy;s iwoZ esa dgs x;s ;ksX;rk visf{kr gSA Answer: The qualifications told earlier for the Shankaracharya is desired.
DW-4 Sri Rang Nath Dubey XXX eSa fiNys 50 lky esa Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh dk vUrjax jgk gWwA eSa mudk xq:HkkbZ Hkh gWwA --- eSa Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh ds lU;kl ds le; mifLFkr ugha jgkA ¼isij ua0&645 d] ist&226½ I have been close to Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati for last 50 years. I am also his guru bhai (son of his guru).... I was not present at the time of adopting sanyas by Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati. (Paper No 645 ka, Page 226 DW-6 Arun Kumar Tripathi XXX iz'u&T;ksfr"ihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds in ds fy, lU;klh gksuk vko';d gksrk gS ;k ugha\ Question- Is it necessary for one to be a Sanyasi to become the Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth? mRrj& lU;klh gksuk vko';d gksrk gSA ¼isij ua0&743 d] ist&289½ Ans- Yes, it is necessary to be a Sanyasi. (Paper no.-743Ka, Page-289) DW-16 Sri Pandit Radhey Raman Pandey XXX 'kadjkpk;Z ds fy, lU;klh gksuk vko';d gSA ¼isij ua0&811d] ist&429½ It is necessary to be a Sanyasi for becoming Shankaracharya. (Paper no.-811Ka, Page-429) DW-22 Indu Prakash Upadhya XXX lU;klh leqnz dk mYys[k djds fons'k dh ;k=k ugha dj ldrk gS fdUrq fons'k dh ifjHkk"kk fuf'pr ugha gSA T;ksfr"ihB dk ,slk dksbZ Hkh 'kadjkpk;Z ugha gS tks lU;kl ysus ds ckn Hkh dbZ o"kksZa rd osru ys djds ukSdjh fd;k gksA ¼isij ua0&895 d] ist&492½ Sanyasi can not travel to foreign by crossing Sea but the definition of Foreign is not definite. There is no Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth who has done job by taking salary for several years after taking Sanyas. (Paper no. 895 Ka, page no. 492) DW-25 Satya Narayan Tripathi XXX 'kadjkpk;Z gksus ds fy, ihB dk f'k"; gksuk t:jh gSA ckdh vkSj fu;e gS mudh tkudkjh eq>s ugh gSA ¼isij ua0&899d] ist&513½ It is mandatory to be disciple of the Peeth to be a Shankaracharya. There are several other rules also but I do not know about those.
(Paper no.-899Ka, page- 513) DW-31 Swami Narendranand Saraswati 'kkL= ds vuqlkj enfu"BkJ;h oSjkX; dh /kkjk esa lnk fueaTtu djus okyk gh laU;Lr gks ldrk gS ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&599½ As per the scriptures only a person who is engulfed all the times, in the stream of renunciation, reposing complete faith and dependence in Me, can be a sanyasi. (Paper no. 914 Ka, Page-599)"
czg~epkjh gh lU;klh gksrk gS bldk rkRi;Z ;g ugha gS fd x`gLFkkJ;h oSjkX;oku gksdj lU;kl ugha ys ldrkA vfirq dksbZ Hkh lU;klh ;fn czg~e fpUru ugha djrk rks og czg~epkjh ugha gks ldrk czg~epkjh ogh gS tks tM+psrukRed leLr l`f"V esa ,d czg~e lRrk dks cks/kdj ml lRrk dks lc esa ns[krk gSA og czg~epkjh ds fy, Hkxoku vk| 'kadjkpk;Z us czg~epkjh gksus dk funsZ'k fd;k gSA loZ czg~eksfr ;ks osn czg~epkjh l mPprsA 'yksd ua- 52 dk lnkpkjuqla/kkue Hkxoku vkfn 'kadjkpk;Z us Li"V funsZ'k fd;k gS lU;Lr gksdj lrr nsgkH;kl djus okyk gh lU;klh gksrk gS dsoy yky diM+k iguus ls lU;klh ugha gksrk eSa 'kjhj ugha gwWa eSa vkRek gwWa] ,slk ftldk fu'p; gS ogh lU;klh gS ;gh lU;klh dk y{k.k gSA ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&603½ A Brahmachari (celibate) is Sanyasi but that doesn't mean a Grihasth (householder) can not attain Sanyas after renunciating the world. Rather a Sanyasi who does not introspect about Brahma, is not a Brahmachari. A Brahmachari is one who in this world full of living and non-living entities recognizes the authority of one Brahma and sees that authority in all. For being Brahmchari, Bhagwan Shanker has commented:
One who knows that all is the Brahm, is called Brahman. (Shloka no. 52 Sadacharanusandhanam.) Bhagwan Adi Shankaracharya has clearly laid down that one who after attaining Sanyas is continuously practicing penance is a Sanyasi in true sense and not the one who just wraps himself with red cloth. The one who realizes that he is not a body rather a soul is a Sanyasi and this is the characteristic of a Sanyasi. (Paper no.-914 ka, Page-603) XXX ^^nlfonz czkg~e.k gh lU;klh gksxk vkSj ogh 'kkadjeB dk vkpk;Z ;k 'kadjkpk;Z gksxkA tks lU;klh ugha og vkpk;Z ugha gks ldrkA tks czkg~e.k ugha gS og vkfnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z ds }kjk LFkkfir fd;s x;s ihBksa dk vkpk;Z ;k 'kadjkpk;Z ugha gks ldrkA L=h ds vkpk;Z ;k 'kadjkpk;Z gksus dh ijEijk ugha gSA osru Hkksxh Hkh ;fn oSjkX; gS rks lU;klh gks ldrk gSA lU;kl gksus ds ckn ;fn dksbZ peZ ;k dq"B jksxh gks tkrk gS rks ;g vyx ckr gS fdUrq peZjksxh ;k dq"B jksxh lU;klh ugha gks ldrsA rhu Luk;wvksa ls oSjkX; gksus ij lU;klh gksuk pkfg;s vkSj gks ldrk gSA og rhuksa Luk;wvksa esa yksds"kkS] foRrs"k.kk] iqRrs"k.kk gSaA lU;kl ysus ds ckn gj rjg dk oSjkX; lU;kl dk ewy vk/kkj gSA lU;kl ds ckn ukSdjh djuk fu"ks/k gSA rks osru dk iz'u gh ugha mBrkA vkpk;Z 'kadj ihBksa ij igyh izekf.kdrk xq: vkSj f'k"; dh gSA xq: f'k"; vkpk;Z 'kadj us gh vius f'k";ksa dks ihB ij LFkkfir fd;kA gekjs ;gkWa dh ijEijk 'kkL=h ijEijk gSA 'kkL=h ijEijk es ihB dk vkpk;Z viuk mRrjkf/kdkjh fu;qDr djrk gSA** ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&624½ "Dasvidra Brahmin shall be the Sanyasi and he would be the Acharya or Shankaracharya of Shaankarmath. He, who is not Sanyasi, can not be the Acharya. He, who is not Brahmin, can not be the Acharya or Shankaracharya of the Peeths established by Adi Guru Shankaracharya. There is no tradition for a woman to be Acharya or Shankaracharya. If, a salaried person too, has renunciated the world, can be Sanyasi. If anyone suffers with skin disease or leprosy after attaining Sanyas, it is a different thing but a person suffering from skin disease or leprosy can not be Sanyasi. A Sanyasi should renunciate the three sniew, it may be that these three desires are Lokeshana(Lust for reputation), Vitteshana (Lust for money), Putreshana (Lust for progeny). After attaining Sanyas, the complete renunciation is the fundamental need of Sanyas. After attaining Sanyas, to do job is prohibited then there is no question of salary. The first authenticity in Acharya Shankar Peeths is of Teacher (Guru) and disciple. Guru Shishya, Acharya Shankar himself installed his disciples in Peeths. Shashtri tradition is our tradition. In Shashtri tradition, the Acharya of Peeth nominates his successor. (Paper no. 914Ka, Page-624) vlq[kn dgk fd 'kadjkpk;Z in dh ;ksX;rk ds fy;s de ls de osn osnkUr esa fo'kkjn eryc vkpk;Z gksuk pkfg;s U;wure izLFkkuk=; ij Hkk"; djus dh leFkZ gksuh pkfg, vkSj ;fn vkpk;Z ugh rks 'kadjkpk;Z ugha gks ldrkA ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&628&629½ Then himself stated that the minimum qualification required for the seat of Shankarachrya is Visharad (Scholar) in Veda Vedanta that is he should be an acharya and must atleast be capable of commenting on Prasthanatrya, he cannot be a Shankarachrya if he is not an Acharya. (Paper no. -914 Ka, Page-628-629) 'kadjkpk;Z ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk;sa tSls laLd`r dk tkudkj gksuk pkfg;s] n.Mh lU;klh gksuk pkfg;s] osn&osnkUr fo"kkjn ,oa 'kkL=ksa dk leUo; djus dh {kerk gksuk pkfg;sA ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&634½ The requisite qualifications for a Shankaracharya are knowledge of Sanskrit, he shall be a Dandi Sanyasi and scholar of Veda Vedanta and must be capable of harmoniously construing the scriptures. (Paper no.-914 Ka, Page-634) mi;qZDr fu;eksa vkfn ds rgr lU;kl ysus mijkUr T;ksfr"ihB esa iwoZ uke ls dk;Z djuk fu"ksf/kr gSA ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&635½ In accordance with above mentioned and other rules, after attaining Sanyas it is prohibited to use earlier name while functioning at Jyotish Peeth. (Paper No.-914 Ka, Page-635) DW-32 Swami Yogeswaranand Giri XXX pkjks ihBksa dk 'kadjkpk;Z n.Mh Lokeh gSA gks ldrk gSA n.Mh Lokeh dsoy czkg~e.k gh gks ldrk gSA ¼isij ua0&967d] ist&656&657½ Shankaracharya of four Peeths is Daandi Swami. It may be. Only a Brahmin can be Daandi Swami. (Paper no.-967Ka, Paper-656-657) lU;kl dh ijEijk;sa lc ,d gSaA --- tks dks<+h ;k vlk/; jksxh gks mls n.M ugha fn;k tk ldrkA tks osru ysdj ukSdjh djrk jgs] ml Hkh n.M ugha fn;k tk ldrkA ¼isij ua0&967d] ist&658½ Traditions of Sanyas are same. The religious staff (dand) can not be given to the man suffering from leprosy or incurable disease. The religious staff (dand) can not be given to salaried person too.(Paper no.-967Ka, Paper-658) DW-35 Sri Mahendra Narayan Dwivedi XXX T;ksfr"kihB n.Mh lU;kfl;ksa dh ihB gSA n.Mh lU;klh czkg~e.k gh gksrk gS tks eq>s tkudkjh gSA viax] dks<+h o peZjksxh n.Mh lU;klh ugha gks ldrk gSA ¼isij ua0&970d] ist&702½ Jyotish Peeth is Peeth of Dandi Sanyasis. Only a Brahmin can be a Dandi Danyasi as far as my knowledge goes. Anyone who is disabled, leper or suffering from skin diseases cannot become a Dandi Sanyasi.
(Paper no.-970 Ka, Page-702) DW-36 SriRavishankar Ji Maharaj XXX T;ksfr"kihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds fy;s D;k&D;k ;ksX;rk;sa gksuh pkfg;s bl lEca/k esa eq>s dksbZ fo'ks"k tkudkjh ugha gS eSa dsoy bruk tkurk gWw fd T;ksfr"kihB ijEijk ds vuqlkj n.Mh lU;klh gksuk pkfg;s ¼isij ua0&977d] ist&716½ I have no specific knowledge about the eligibility required to be Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth and all I know is that (One) should be Dandi Sanyasi as per the tradition of the Jyotishpeeth. (Paper no. 977 Ka, page-716) DW-37 Sri Brahmachari Atmanand XXX tks czkg~e.k ugha gS og n.M /kkj.k ugha dj ldrkA lU;kl ysus dk vf/kdkj 'kkL=ksa ds vuqlkj czkg~e.k dks gSA tks O;fDr peZjksxh gS] dks<+h gS] yxM+k gS vikfgt gS og lU;kl ugha ys ldrk vkSj tks O;fDr ifjokj ls lEca/k j[krk gS og Hkh lU;kl ysus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA tks O;fDRk ukSdjh dj jgk gks] osruHkksxh gks og Hkh lU;kl ys ldrk gSA --- lU;klh lU;kl ysus ds ckn osru ysdj ukSdjh ugha dj ldrkA tks lU;klh lU;kl ysus ds ckn Hkh osru ysdj ukSdjh djs og ifrr lU;klh gksxkA vkfn 'kadjkpk;Z us Hkkjr esa pkj ihBksa ds vkpk;Z fu;qDr fd;sA os pkjksa ihB n.Mh lU;kfl;ksa ds ihB gSaA ¼isij ua0&981d] ist&742½ One can not adopt 'Dand' who is not Brahmin. According to Shastra (scriptures), Brahmins are entitled to adopt Sanyaas. One who is suffering from skin disease, leprosy, is lame and handicapped, cannot adopt Sanyaas and the one who keeps connection with family is also not entitled to adopt Sanyaas. A person who is in job and salaried, can also adopt Sanyaas. ... A Sanyaasi cannot do a job for salary after adopting Sanyaas. ... a Sanyasi who does job for salary even after adopting Sanyaas, will be a degenerate Sanyaasi. Aadi Shankaracharya appointed Aacharyas of the four Peeths in India. All those four Peeths are Peeths of Dandi Sanyaasis. (Paper no.981, page no.742) ifrr lU;klh T;ksfrjeB gh ugh cfYd pkjks ihBksa esa ls fdlh Hkh ihB dk 'kadjkpk;Z ugha gks ldrk gSA pkjks ihBksa ds tks Hkh dk;Zjr 'kadjkpk;Z gksrs gSa og ,sls O;fDr dks tks 'kadjkpk;Z dh ;ksX;rk uk j[krs gksa mldks 'kadjkpk;Z fu;qDr ugha dj ldrkA ¼isij ua0&981d] ist&747½ The degenerate Sanyasi can not be Shankaracharya of not only Jyotirmath but any of the four peeths. The acting Shankaracharyas of the four peeths can not appoint Shankaracharya a person who does not possess qualifications of Shankaracharya. (Paper No. 981Ka, page-747
361. Thus one of the conditions, necessary for installation as Shankaracharya is that one must be Sanyasi. There are some more witnesses appearing on behalf of both parties who have also deposed with respect to necessary conditions applicable for installation of a Shankaracharya in Amnay Peeths, established by Adi Shankaracharya, the authenticity and obligatory nature of text of religious scriptures like Mathamnay, Mahanushashan, Sanyasopnishad etc. which according to them constitute a well established customs, usages and traditions having force of law governing Regulations of aforesaid Peeth including selection and appointment of a person as Shankaracharya on such Peeth. The relevant extract of deposition of plaintiff's witnesses, PW-1 Sri Shyam Sundar Vajpai, PW-2 Challa Laxman Shastri Purohit, PW-3, Sri Kameshwar Nath Mishra, PW-11, Sri Ashwin Bhai Purohit, PW-14, Sri Janny Pellegreeni and PW-17 Swami Sri Vishuddhanand Saraswati are as under:
PW-1 Sri Shyam Sundar Vajpai (XX):
^^Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe th ds f'k"; ugha FksA Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe th ds uke ds i'pkr vkJe fy[kk gqvk gSA blfy, ljLorh gksus dk iz'u gh ugha gSA^^ ¼isij ua0 455d@6] ist&60&62½ "Swami Swaroopnand Sarswati was not a disciple of Swami Krishnabodhashram. After the name of Swami Krishnabodharsham, the word 'Ashram' is written. Hence, there is no question of being a 'Sarswati'." (English Translation by Court) PW-2 Challa Laxman Shastri Purohit (XX):
^^Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh d`".kcks/kkJe ds f'k"; ugha Fks cfYd czg~ekuUn ljLorh th ds f'k"; gSaA** ¼isij ua0 424] ist&71½ "Swami Swaroopnanad Sarswati was not a disciple of Krishnabodhashram; rather, he is a disciple of Brahmanand Sarswati." (English Translation by Court) PW-3 Sri Kameshwar Nath Mishra (X):
^^ihB ds vkpk;Z ds fy, lfyax laU;klh gksuk vko';d gSA --- ;g vgZrk,Wa dsoy lU;klh esa gh lEHko gSA blfy, osnkUr&lk/kuk dk vf/kdkjh lU;klh gh gS] muesa Hkh lfyax laU;klh gh Js"B gksrk gSA vr% lfyax laU;klh ihBkf/kjksg.k ds fy, vgZ gksxk A^^ ¼isij ua0&428 d] ist&2798½ "This is mandatory for an Aacharya of the Peeth to be a Saling Sanyasi. ... These eligibilities are possible to be possessed by a Sanyasi only. Therefore only Sanyasi is entitled for Vedanta-Shadhna and Saling Sanyasi only is superior among them also. Hence, Saling Sanyasi will be eligible for enthronement of the Peeth."
^^laU;kfl;ksa ds fy, leqnz ;k fons'k ;k=k otZuh; deZ blfy, gS fd fons'k ;k=k ;k leqnz ;k=k ls og 'kkSp fof/k;ksa dk iw.kZr% ikyu ugha dj ikrk] ftlls 'kkjhfjd vkSj ekufld ifo=rk Hkax gksrh gSA ihB ds vkpk;Z ds fy, ^osnosnkaxfnfo'kkjn* gksuk Hkh ,d vgZrk gSA vkpk;Z dk {ks= vkSj nkf;Ro fo'kky gksrk gSA lukru /keZ ds fofHkUu :fp vkSj lEiznk; okys yksxska dks Hkh fn'kkfunsZ'k dk nkf;Ro ihB ds vkpk;Z ij gksrk gSA vr% osn&osnkax vkfn dk ^lkaxksikax* Kku vkpk;Z ds fy, vko';d gSA blfy, laLd`r dk Kku vko';d gSA --- ^;ksxK% loZ'kkL=k.kke~* dk vFkZ gS] vkpk;Z esa lHkh 'kkL=ksa esa leUo;&LFkkiuk dh {kerk gksuk pkfg,A ;fn mlus osnksa] osnkaxksa] /keZ'kkL=ksa] n'kZuksa vkSj fofo/k 'kkL+=ksa dk v/;;u ugha fd;k rks leUo; LFkkfir djus esa og vleFkZ jgsxkA --- HkxoRikn Lo;a gh ^"k.erLFkkidkpk;Z* ds uke ls fo[;kr gSaA vr% lk{kkr~ HkxoRikn vkfn xq: gksus ds fy, ^;ksxK% loZ'kkL=k.kke~* ihB ds vkpk;Z ds fy, vko';d vgZrk gSA --- lkaxksikax Kku ds fy, laLd`r Kku vko';d gSA --- eBkEuk; esa mfYyf[kr vgZrkvksa ls lEiUu gksus ij gh laU;klh 'kadjihB ij vklhu gks] mldk vf/kdkjh cus] ;g O;oLFkk Hkh HkxoRikn vkfnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z us ^^mDry{k.klEiUuJsUeRihB&HkkXHkosr~** vkfn }kjk iznku dh gSA^^ ¼isij ua0&428 d] ist&2799½ "Voyage or foreign travel is prohibited for Sanyasies because they cannot completely follow methods of cleanliness (Shauch) while voyage or foreign travel due to which his physical and mental purity is breached.
Being 'Vedvedangdivisharad' is also an eligibility for an Aacharya of the Peeth. Jurisdiction and responsibilities of an Aacharya is broad. Directing the people of various interests and community of Sanatan religion are also a responsibility of Aacharya of Peeth. Therefore 'Sangopang' (thorough) knowledge of Ved -Vedang etc is essential for an Aacharya. That's why it is mandatory to have knowledge of Sanskrit. ... Meaning of 'Yogagyah Sarvshastranam' is that an Aacharya must have capability to coordinate all the Scriptures. If he hasn't studied Veds, Vedangs, Dharmshastras, Darshans and various Shastrs, he will be unable to establish coordination. ... Bhagwatpaad himself is famous as 'Khasmatsthapkacharya'. Thus, 'Yogagyah Sarvshastranam' is an essential qualification for an Aacharya of a Peeth to be a Sakshatt Bhagavtpad Aadi Guru. ... To have complete knowledge, knowledge of Sanskrit is mandatory. ... Only on holding aforesaid qualification mentioned in Matanmaay, a Sanyasi may become entitled for Sankaerpeeth being installed on, such provision also has been given by Bhagvatpad Aadiguru Shankaracharya through his command "Uktalakshanasampannshrenmt -peeth-Bhagbhvet" etc."
(English Translation by Court) PW-11 Sri Ashwin Bhai Purohit (XX):
**vk|xq: 'kadjkpk;Z vfookfgr Fks o uSf"Vd czg~epkjh Fks blhfy, ijEijkxr uSf"Vd czg~epkjh dks mRre czg~epkjh ekuk tkrk gSA** ¼isij ua0&486d] ist&181½ "Adyaguru Shankaracharya was unmarried and a Naistik (vowing all life celibacy), that's why traditional Naistik Brahmchari is taken to be exalted brahmchari." (English Translation by Court) PW-14 Sri Janny Pellegreeni (X):
**mu lHkh txn~xq:vksa us ogh dgk] **fd Hkkjro"kZ txn~xq: gS] vkSj ihBksa dk vkpk;Z txn~xq: dgykrk gSA xq: f'k"; ds ikl ugh tkrk gS] f'k"; gh xq: ds ikl vkrk gSA ;gh mifu"kn dk ea= gSA ihB ijEijk ds vuqlkj ihB dk dksbZ Hkh txn~xq: fons'k ;k=k ugh dj ldrk gSA fons'k ;k=k ds ckjs esa lksp Hkh ugh ldrkA ijEijk ds vuqlkj fons'k ;k=k djuk iki gSA** ¼isij ua0&489,] ist&2884½ "All those Jagadgurus said that " India is Jagadguru and the Aacharya of Peeths is known as Jagadguru. Guru does not go to student, student comes to Guru. This is the mantra of Upnishad. According to the tradition of Peeth, no Jagadguru is allowed traveling to foreign. He can not think of journey to foreign. As per the tradition, journey to foreign country is a sin." (English Translation by Court) **n.Mh Lokfe;ksa us ;g dgk fd lU;kl ijEijk ds vuqlkj fons'k ;k=k djuk iki gS vkSj tks n.Mh lU;klh fons'k ;k=k djsxk og ifrr lU;klh gks tk;sxk] mldk n.M fNu tk;sxk] vkSj mldks lU;kl lekt ls cfg"d`r dj fn;k tk;sxkA --- lHkh us bVyh tkus ls bUdkj dj fn;kA** ¼isij ua0&489,] ist&2885½ "The Dandi Swamis said that according to tradition of Sanyaas, journey to foreign is a sin and the Dandi Sanyaasi, who travels to foreign will be a degraded Sanyaasi and his Danda will be forfeited, and that he will be boycotted from the society. ... everybody refused to go to Italy." (English Translation by Court) PW-17 Swami Sri Vishuddhanand Saraswati (X):
**pkjks ihBksa esa ;g ijEijk gS fd lU;klksifu"kn esa ftu O;fDr;ksa dks lU;kl ysus ls oftZr fd;k x;k gS] mudks lU;kl ugha fn;k tkrk] vkSj ;fn oftZr O;fDr lU;kl ys ysrk gS rks og n.Mh lU;klh ugha gS] u mldks n.Mh lU;klh ekuk tkrk gSA --- lU;klksifu"kn ds vuqlkj tks O;fDr vax&Hkaxh] peZjksxh] yEiV] osruHkksxh] v/;kid] uiqald] L=h ds o'k esa jgus okyk] cgjk] xwWaxk <+ksaxh] pdzh] /ku ds fy, ri djus okyk tknw Vksuk vkfn ds }kjk /ku dekus okyk ukfLrd] lU;kl ds ckn iqu% x`gLFk esa pys tkus ls mRiUu cPpk] u[k esa jksx okyk] ihys dkys nkar okyk] engks'k] ejus dh bPNk j[kus okyk] egkikrdh] le; ij ftldk miu;u u gqvk gks] ykaNu ;k vkjksi yxs O;fDr dks lU;kl nh{kk ugha fn;k tkrk gSA^^ "It is the tradition in four peeths that the people who are prohibited from taking Sanyas in Sanyasopnishad, they cannot be given Sanyas. And if the prohibited person takes Sanyas then he is not a Dandi Sanyasi nor he would be considered a Dandi Sanyasi. ... According to Sanyasopnishad, Sanyas Deeksha could not be given to those persons who are handicapped, suffering from skin diseases, crafty, salaried, impotent, submissive to women, deaf & dumb, impostor, Chakri (one who has tattooed chakra in Vaishnav community) one who runs after money, one who earns money through black magic etc, atheist, child who is born after a person returns to family life from sanyas, one who has disease in nails, one who has yellow and black stained teeth, one who is intoxicant, one who has suicidal tendency, sinner of extreme degree, one who has not undergone upnayan ritual on time, one who faces blame or charge." (English Translation by Court) ^^;fn og O;fDr osru Hkksxh v/;kid gS] vFkok peZjksxh o dq"Vjksxh gS] mlds Åij Ny] diV] xBu gR;k vkfn dk vkjksi gS] rks lU;kl gsrq mldk euksu;u ugha fd;k tkrk gS] mldks lU;kl nh{kk o lU;kl n.M ugha fn;k tkrk gSA** ¼isij ua0&493 d] ist&2901½ "If that person is a salaried teacher, skin-disease patient, leprosy patient and there are charges of fraud, wrong intention, embezzled and murder etc., then he could not be nominated for sanyas. He can not be given Sanyas Deeksha or Danda." (English Translation by Court)
362. Similar deposition has been made by witnesses appeared on behalf of appellant including appellant himself who deposed as PW-3 and other witnesses are, DW 12, Sri Roy Vishwanath Singh, DW 22, Sri Indu Prakash Upadhya, DW 31, Urdhwramnaya Sri Kashi Sumeru Peethadeeshwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Narendranand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, DW 32, Sri Swami Yogeswaranand Giri, DW 36, Anant Vibhushit Sri Takshak Tirthpeeth- adishwar Ravishankar Ji Maharajand and DW 37, Sri Bhramchari Atmanand, have deposed as under:
Dw-3 Swami Sri Vasudevanand Saraswati (Appellant) XX **vkfn xq: 'kadjkpk;Z laLd`r ds egku o izdkaM fo}ku FksA muds }kjk jfpr lHkh Hkk"; o xzUFk laLd`r esa gh gSA osn] osnkax] iqjk.k] egkHkkjr o okYehdh jkek;.k laLd`r esa gh gSA iz'u&vkfnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z th us fdu&fdu mifu"knksaa dk Hkk";
fd;k gS\ mRrj&bZ"kkn ukS mifu"kn] NkUnksifu"kn] c`gnkj.;dksifu"kn vkfn X;kjg mifu"knksa ij Hkk"; fd;k gSA --- eq[; :i ls mifu"knksa dh la[;k ,d lkS ckjg ugha gS cfYd rhu lkS ds vklikl gS ftlesa izeq[k X;kjg mifu"kn gSa tks pkjks ihB esa ekU; gSA izdkf'kr mifu"knksa esa fdlh izdk'ku esa NRrhl mifUk"kn gSa fdlh izdk'ku esa cgRrj gSa fdlh esa ,d lkS vkB mifUk"kn gSaA dqN vizdkf'kr mifu"kn djds dqN vyx ls izdk'ku gSA mifu"kn lukruh fgUnqvksa ds izkekf.kd xzUFk gSaA eSaus lU;klksifu"kn i<+k gSA ukjn ifjozktdksifu"kn dk Hkh v/;;u fd;k gSA o`gnkj.;dksifu"kn dks Hkh eSaus i<+k gS vkSj f'k";ksa dks i<+krk Hkh gWwA ¼isij ua0&661 d] ist&68&69½ Adya Guru Shankaracharya was a very learned seer and scholar of Sanskrit. The annotation and religious scriptures composed by him are in Sanskrit language. Ved, Vedang, Puranas, Mahabharat and Valmiki Ramayana are in Sanskrit.
Question: Which are the Upnishads on which Adya Guru Shankaracharya had written annotations?
Answer: He has written annotations on eleven Upnishads including Ishad Nau Upanishad, Chhandogyapanishad and Brihadaranyakopanishad. The number of upnishads are not chiefly 112; rather, there are around 350 upnishads, wherein eleven are main upnishads which are recognised by all four peethas. Among the upnishads published, some publications have published 36 of them, other publications have published 72, and some publications, 108 upnishads. There are certain unpublished upnishads. The upnishads are the authoritative religious scriptures of Sanatan Hinduism. I have studied Sanyasopanishad. I have also studied Naradoparivrajkopanishad. I have read Brihadaranykopanishad and teach it to my disciples as well. (Paper No. 661 Ka, Page 68-69) DW 12 Sri Roy Vishwanath Singh Rai Bareli XXX xq: 'kadjkpk;Z }kjk LFkkfir pkjks ihB dk uke tkurk gWw ;s 'kkjnkihB T;ksfr"ihB }kfjdk ,oa iqjh gSA ¼isij ua0&768d] ist&386½ I am aware of the names of four regional Peeths established by Guru Shankaracharya which are Sharda Peeth, Jyotish Peeth, Dwarika and Puri. (Paper no-768 Ka, Page-386) DW-22 Sri Indu Prakash Upadhya XXX fyf[kr esa ;g dgha ugha fy[kk gS fd 'kadjkpk;Z gksus ds fy, laLd`r dh tkudkjh gksuk vko';d gS fdUrq 'kadjkpk;Z dk lkjk lkfgR; laLd`r esa gSA blfy, laLd`r tkuuk vko';d ekuk tkrk gSA 'kadjkpk;Z gksus ds fy, n.Mh lU;klh gksuk vfuok;Z gSA 'kadjkpk;Z gksus ds fy, czkg~e.k gksuk Hkh vfuok;Z gSA D;kksafd n.Mh la;klh czkg~e.k gh gksrs gSaA dksbZ vax&Hkaxh dks It is written no where that in order to become a Shankaracharya the knowledge of Sanskrit is mandatory but all the literature of Shankaracharya is in Sanskrit. That's why the knowledge of Sanskrit is deemed necessary. In order to become a Shankaracharya, it is necessary to be a Dandi Sanyasi. It is necessary to be a brahmin for becoming a Shankaracharya. Because Dandi Sanyasis are only brahimin. Any one who is physically deformed, suffers from leprosy or skin disease can not become a Shankaracharya and also can not sit on throne. Till now, no woman has ever sat on the seat of Shankaracharya and there is no tradition of her sitting on the seat of Shankracharya. (Paper no. 895 Ka, page no. 494) T;ksfr"ihB vkpk;ksZa dks cSBkus o gVkus dh viuh ijEijk gS N=] flagklu o pcj vkpk;ksZa ds fpUg gSa budks /kkj.k djus dk vf/kdkj tks ijEijkxr 'kadjkpk;Z gSa mUgsa gh gSA ;g c;ku eSaus eBksa ls lEcfU/kr iqLrdksa dks i<+us ds ckn fn;k gSA ¼isij ua0&895 d] ist&496½ There is a tradition of its own for installing and removing the Acharyas of Jyotishpeeth. Chattra (umbrella), throne, chanwar are the insignia of acharyas. Only those who are Shankaracharya as per the tradition has the right to bear these. I have got recorded this statement after reading the books related to the Maths. (Paper no. 895 Ka, page no. 496) DW-31 Swami Narendranand Saraswati lHkh ihBksa dh ijEijk xq: f'k"; ijEijk gh gS ;|fi ihB esa f'k"; vusd gksrs gSa xq: vius vkRe 'kfDr ds }kjk igpku dj ihBks;qDr f'k"; dh fu;qfDr djrs gSa] ogha loZekU; gksrk gS vkSj ogh fu;qfDr lU;klh vfHkf"kDr gksdj 'kadjkpk;Z in okP; gksrk gSA ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&599½ All the Peeths observe the tradition of Guru-Shishya (Guru-disciple) tradition. Even though there are several disciples at the Peeth but only the suitable disciple for the Peeth is identified by the guru by the strength of his soul and the same is seated there. It is accepted by all. That particular sanyasi after installation is called Shankaracharya. (Paper no. 914 Ka, Page-599)^ nsgkH;klks fg laU;kl% uSo dk"kk; okll% ukga nsgks·gekResfr fu'p;ks U;kLo y{k.ke~A 'yksd ua- 16 lnkpkjuqla/kkue~ vkpk;Z ijEijk ukjk;.k ls izkjEHk gksrh gS vkSj f'k"z; ijEijk ;g Kku vkpk;ZRosu igys tU; tud Hkko ls Fkk fQj vkxs pydj xq: f'k"; ijEijk vkpk;Z izfrf"br gksus yxs tSls ukjk;.k ls czg~ek] czg~ek ls of'k"V] of'k"V ls 'kfDr] 'kfDr ls ijk'kj] ijk'kj ls O;kl] O;kl ls 'kqdznso] 'kqdznso ls xkSM+iknkpk;Z] xkSM+iknkpk;Z ls xksfoUniknkpk;Z] xksfoUniknkpk;Z ls Hkxoku vkfn 'kadjkpk;Z mud f'k"; gLreydkpk;Z] lqjs'ojkpk;Z] =ksVdkpk;Z] in~eiknkpk;ZA bUgh pkj f'k";ksa ls pkjks ihBksa dh ijEijk izkjEHk gksrh gS tks xq: f'k"; ijEijk;k Jh t;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj txnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z Jh Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh th egkjkt 46 os 'kadjkpk;Z gSaA ukjk;.ka i|Hkoa ofl"Ba] 'kfDra p rRiq= ijk'kjapA O;kla 'kqda xkSmina egkUra] xksfoUn ;ksxhUnzeFkkL; f'k";eAA Jh 'kadjkpk;Z eFkkL; i|&ikn~ap gLrkeyda p f'k";aA ra =ksVda okfrZd dkj eU;ku~ vLenz xq:u~ lUrr eku rksfLeAA ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&604½ Dehabhyaso hi Sanyasah Naiv Kashay Vaasasah Naaham Dehoahamatmeti Nishchaya Nyaaswa Lakshanam.
(Shloka no. 16 Sadacharanusandhanam). Acharya tradition has its origin in Narayan and dissemination of knowledge to the disciple was akin to the relationship of Creator with creation for an Acharya which was later on transformed into Guru Shishya tradition like from Narayan to Brahma, from Brahma to Vashishtha, from Vashishtha to Shakti, from Shakti to Parashar, from Parashar to Vyas, from Vyas to Shukradev, from Shukradev to Gaurpadacharya, from Gaurpadacharya to Govindapadacharya, from Govindapadacharya to Bhagwan Adi Shankaracharya and thereafter to his disciples namely Hastamalkacharya, Sureshwaracharya, Trutkacharya and Padampadacharya. The tradition of four Peeths originated from these four disciples of which Sri Jyotishpeedhadheeshwar Jagad Guru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswatiji Maharaj is the 46th Shankaracharya in observance of Guru Shishya tradition.
Narayanam Padmabhavam Vashishtham, Shakti Cha Tatputra Parasharanch.
Vyasam Shukam Gaupadam Mahaantam, Govind Yogindramathasya Shishyam.
Shri Shankaracharya Mathasya Padhya-Padanch Hastaamlakam cha Shishyam.
Tram Trotakam Vaartik Kar Manyaan Asmadra Gurun Santat Maan Toshmi. (Paper no.-914 ka, Page-604) XXX ;g izfroknh Lokeh oklqnsokuUn gh crk;saxs fd os pkj ihB ekurs gSa ;k lkr ihB ekurs gSA vkeuk; dk eryc LFkkuksa ls gSA fn'kkvksa ls Hkh gSA ioZ Hksn ds vk/kkj ij tks n.M eSaus fy;k gS og ukjk;.k n.M gSA --- fons'k ;k=k dk fu"ks/k Le`fr;ksa esa fy[kk x;k gSA --- tgkW rd esjh tkudkjh esa T;ksfr"kihB dk dksbZ Hkh vkpk;Z fons'k ;k=k ugha fd;k gSA ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&644½ Only respondent Swami Vasudevanand can tell whether he believes in four Peeths or seven Peeths. Amnaye connotes places. It also means directions. The Danda which I have received is Narayan Danda based on the distinction of 'Parva'. The prohibition of overseas journey is written in Smritis. ... As far as I know, no Acharya of Jyotish Peeth has undertaken overseas journey. (Paper no-914 Ka, Page-644) lU;kl fo/kku ds vuqlkj 'kadjihBksa esa iapxkSM+ mRrj Hkkjr ds czkg~e.k vkSj iapnzkfo.k nf{k.k Hkkjr ds czkg~e.k n.M lU;kl ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSA 'kadjihBksa ij bUgh nl czkg~e.kksa dks cSBus dk vf/kdkj gSA blds vfrfjDr brj yksxksa dks 'kadjihBksa ij cSBus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&650½ As per Sanyas Vidhan (regulation) Panch Gaur Brahmins of North India and Panchdravin Brahmin of South India are not authorized for Dand Sanyas in Shankar Peeths. Only these ten Brahmins can preside over Shankar Peeths. Apart from them other people are not allowed to preside on Shankar Peeths.(Paper no.-914 Ka, Page-650) DW-32 Swami Yogeswaranand Giri XXX ;fn dk;Zjr 'kadjkpk;Z fdlh dks mRrjkf/kdkjh fu;qDr ugha fd;s gS rc ml fLFkfr esa ogkW ds U;klh vkSj tks laj{kd gSa] ihB esa jgus okys fdlh ;ksX; n.Mh lU;klh dks tks ihB ds fu;eksa ls] ogkW ds la'kk/kuksa ls] ogkW dh O;oLFkkvksa ls] py&vpy lEifRr;ksa ls iw.kZ :is.k ifjfpr gks] mudh tkudkjh laj{k.k vkSj fu;a=.k j[krk gks] laLd`r Hkk"kk dk ckaxe; fo}ku gks] lukru oSfnd /keZ dk izpkj&izlkj djus esa l{ke gks] mlh dks ml ijEijk ds /keZ flagklu esa cSBkdj vfHkflDr dj ns vkSj leLr v[kkM+ksa ds inkf/kdkjh lEeku djrs gks vkSj /keZ flagklu esa fojkteku djrs gksA esjh tkudkjh esa T;ksfr"ihB dh ;gh mijksDRk ijEijk gSA ¼isij ua0&967d] ist&663½ If the acting Shankaracharya has not appointed anyone as heir, in this situation, the trustee and the patron should install by seating on religious throne a worthy Daandi Sanyasi who is residing in the Peeth, is well aware with the rules and regulations of the Peeth, its resources, its managements, movable-immovable properties, having knowledge, looking after, control over them, is a well versed Scholar, is competent to propagate Sanatan Vaidik Dharma and the office bearers (Padadhikari) of all the Akhadas respect and enthrone him on the religious throne. In my knowledge, this is the tradition of Jyotishpeeth. (Paper No. 967Ka, Page 663) DW-36 Sri Ravishankar Ji Maharaj XXX ^^osn] mifu"kn] jkek;.k] egkHkkjr] iqjk.k o Le`fr;kW] xhrk] lukru fgUnw /keZ ds ijEijk ds izek.k gSA ¼isij ua0&977d] ist&713½ "Vedas, Upnishads Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas and Smritis, Geeta are the testimonies of the traditions of the Sanatan Hindu Dharma. (Paper no. 977 Ka, Page-713) T;ksfr"kihB dh ijEijk esa eq>s xq# f'k"; dh ijEijk dk eq>s Kku gS ¼isij ua0&977d] ist&714&715½ I do have knowledge of the guru-shishya (teacher-disciple) traditions under the Jyotishpeeth traditions. (Paper no. 977 Ka, Page-714-715) DW-37 Sri Bhramchari Atmanand vkfnxq# 'kadjkpk;Z us pkjihBksa dh LFkkiuk dh vkSj vius iV~V f'k";ksa ¼;ksX;re f'k";ksa½ dks mu ihBksa ij vkpk;Z cukdj ;g mn~?kksf"kr fd;k fd vkt ls ;s pkjks vkpk;Z gekjs gh Lo:i ekus tk;saxsA ftl izdkj izFkekpk;Z cuk;k vkSj mlh ijEijk dk ikyu djrs gq, vkpk;ksZa dks viuk mRrjkf/kdkjh fu;qDr djus dk vf/kdkj feyk vkSj ;g ijEijk vkt rd vck/k xfr ls pyh vk jgh gSA ¼isij ua0&981d] ist&721½ Aadi Shankaracharya established all the four Peeths and announced installing his patt disciples (the most eligible disciples) on those Peeths that since then all these Acharayas would be considered as my epitome. The way the first Acharya was installed, following the same tradition, Acharayas got the right to appoint his successor, and this tradition is being uninterruptedly followed till today. (Paper no-981ka, page-721) XXX eq>s T;ksfr"kihB ijEijk ds ckjs esa tkudkjh gSA T;ksfr"kihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z vius mRrjkf/kdkjh ds fu;qDr djus ds vius vf/kdkjh dks fdlh vkSj dks ugha ns ldrk gSA --- T;ksfr"ihB dh ijEijk esa T;ksfr"kihBk/kh'oj vxj nsoxfr ls fnoaxr@ czg~eyhu gks tkrs gSa rks ihB ds yksx] riLoh] fo}ku ---- vius ihB esa vkpk;Z dh fu;qDr dj ldrs gSaA ¼isij ua0&981d] ist&743½ I know about the custom of Jyotishpeeth. Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth cannot pass on his powers of appointing his own successor. ... According to the custom of Jyotishpeeth, if Jyotishpeethadheeshwar expires, people of the Peeth and scholars can appoint Aacharya of their Peeth. (Paper no.981, page no.743) vkfnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z LOk;a pkjksa ihBksa ds 'kadjkpk;Z FksA --- xq# ijEijk ds vuqlkj T;ksfr"kihB ds orZeku 'kadjkpk;Z vius mRrjkf/kdkjh dh fu;qfDr djrs gSaA ml le; leLr n'kuke v[kkM+ksa ds lU;klh] Jhegar] lHkkifr mldk vuqeksnu] leiZ.k djrs gSA vuqeksnu fy;k tkuk vko';d ugha gSA ¼isij ua0&981d] ist&751½ Adi Guru Shankaracharya himself was Shankaracharya of the four peeths. ...As per the Guru Parampara, the present Shankaracharya of the Jyotishpeeth makes his successor. At that time, all the sanyasis of the Dashnam Akhadas, Shrimahant, Sabhapati endorse him and become devoted to him. Approval is not required to be taken. (Paper No. 981Ka, page-751)
363. On the status and authority of "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan", DW 1, DW 3 i.e. appellant himself, DW 4, DW 22, DW 31 and DW 37 have deposed as under:
DW 1 Swami Sri Vimaldevashram osn mifu"kn Hkkxor xhrk czg~e lw= Hkk"kk Jqfr ,oa Le`fr dks lukru /keZ izek.k ekurs gSaA vkfn 'kadj ds erkyEch Hkh mDr xzUFkksa dks izek.k ekurs gSaA dqy 112 mifu"kn gSaA lU;klksa mifu"kn o`gnkj.;iksa mi fu"kn mDr 112 mifu"knksa esa ls gh gS vkfnxq:'kadjkpk;Z ds thou ds lEcU/k esa ek/kokpk;Z fyf[kr 'kadj fnfXot; dks 'kadj er ds yksx izek.k ekurs gSaA ¼isij ua0&644 d] ist&3½ We consider Vedas, Upnishadas, Bhagwat Geeta, Brahma Sutra, Bhasha Shruti and Smriti to be proofs of the Sanatan Dharm. Even the followers of the Aadi Shankara consider the said scriptures to be the proofs. There are a total of 112 Upnishadas. Sanyasopnishada and Vrihadaranyopanishad are definitely included in the said 112 Upnishadas. The followers of the Shankar school regard "Shankar Digvijay" written by Madhwacharya as a proof as regards the life of Aadi Guru Shankaracharya. (Paper No. 644 Ka, Page 3) vkfn xq:'kadjkpk;Z --- lEcfU/kr fu;e eBeuk; egkuq'kklue~ ds fu;e vkfn xq: us gh cuk, Fks gSA ;g iqLrd vkfnxq: dh gh fy[kh gqbZ gS mijksDr iqLrd esa tks fu;e fy[ks x, gSa mudk ikyu djuk vko';d gSA ¼isij ua0&645 d] ist&4½ Aadi Gurushankaracharya ... concerned rules of Mathamanay and Mahanushasan were framed by Aadi Guru only. This book was authored by Aadi Guru himself. It is necessary to abide by the rules written in the aforesaid book. (Paper No. 644 Ka, Page 4) DW 3 Swami Sri Vasudevanand Saraswati XXX esjs }kjk nkf[ky 'kiFk i= ds iSjk 1 ls iSjk 4 rd esa fy[ks x;s rF;ksa dh tkudkjh xzUFkksa o i=ktkrksa ds vk/kkj ij futh tkudkjh gSA os xzUFk eBkeuk; egkuq'kklu 'kadj fnfXot; xzUFk ds vUrxZr gSA eS iSjk 1 ls iSjk pkj esa tks dFku fd;k gS og 'kadj fnfXot; T;ksfreB n'kZu] Jh T;ksfr"ihB vkfn ds vk/kkj ij fd;k gSA blesa eBkeuk; egkuq'kklu Hkh 'kkfey gS fQj dgk fd ;g xzUFk Lora= xzUFk ugha gS cfYd 'kadj fnfXot; esa 'kkfey gSA ;s lHkh xzUFk izekf.kd xzUFk gSA --- vkfn xq: 'kadjkpk;Z }kjk LFkkfir eBksa dk o.kZu eBkeuk; egkuq'kklu xzUFk esa gSA mlesa ihBksa dks lapkfyr djus dk fu;eksa dk Hkh o.kZu gSA --- vkfn xq: 'kadjkpk;Z Lo;a }kjk LFkkfir ihBksa esa ls fdlh Hkh ihB ds Lo;a vkpk;Z ugha FksA vkfn xq: 'kadjkpk;Z us ihBksa ds vkpk;ksZ dks ihBksa ds laLFkkid ds vf/kdkj ls fu;qDr fd;k FkkA --- Hkxoku vk| 'kadjkpk;Z us dHkh dksbZ fu;e cuk;k Fkk dgha mYysf[kr ugha gSA 'kadj fnfXot; esa of.kZr eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu dks lHkh ekU;rk nsrs gSaA lHkh yksxksa ls rkRi;Z v}Sr n'kZu dks ekuus okys yksxksa ls gSA eBkeuk; egkuq'kklu dh ekU;rk pkjks ihBksa esa gSA ¼isij ua0&661 d] ist&65&67½ In the paras 1 to 4 of the affidavit submitted by me, the facts mentioned therein are based on my personal knowledge and on the basis of religious scriptures and documents. These religious scriptures come under the Mathamanay Mahanushasan Digvijay Granth (religious scriptures). The statements which I have given in para 1 to 4 are based on the Shanker Digvijay Jyotirmath Darshan, Shri Jytoshishpeetha etc. Mathamanay Mahanushasan is included therein. Later, he said that this religious scripture is not independent; rather, it is a part of Shanker Digvijay. All these granthas (religious scriptures) are authentic religious scriptures. ... The mathas established by Adya Guru Shankaracharya are mentioned in the books Mathamanay Mahanushasan, wherein the rules for the conduction of peethas are also mentioned. ... Adya Guru Shankaracharya was not the Acharaya of any peethas established by himself. Adya Guru Shankaracharya by virtue of being the founder of the peethas had appointed Acharyas of the Peethas. ... Bhagwan Adya Guru Shankaracharya had never made a rule, and it is not mentioned anywhere. The 'Mathamanay Mahanushasan' described in Shanker Digvijay is recognised by all. With the word 'all', I mean those who believe in Advait Philosophy. 'Mathamanay Mahanushasan' is recognised by all four peethas. (Paper No. 661 Ka, Page 65-67) ;g iqLrd eBkekuk; vkSj egkuq'kklu gS tks cgqr iqjkuh gS vkSj cM+s egjkt Jh Lokeh czzg~ekuan ljLorh th egjkt T;ksfr"ihBks)kjd ds le; dh Nih gSA ¼isij ua0&661 d] ist&87½ This book ''Mathamanay Mahanushasan' is very old, and it was published at the time of Bade Maharaj Shri Swami Brahmanand Sarswati Ji Maharaj Jyotishpeethouddharak. (Paper No. 661 Ka, Page 87) eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu ds jpf;rk Jh ek/kkokpk;Z th gS tks 'kadj fnfXot; ds vUrxZr of.kZr gSA Mathamanay Mahanushasan' which is a part of Shankar Dgivijay is composed by Shri Madhawacharya.
iz'u&tks O;fDr laLd`r u tkurk gks] osn osnkax o 'kkL=ksa dk tkudkj u gks D;k og 'kadjkpk;Z dh xn~nh ij vf/k"Bkfir fd;k tk ldrk gS\ Question: Can a person who does not know Sanskrit, have no knowledge of Veda, Vedang and religious scriptures be installed at the seat of Shankaracharya?
mRrj&th ughaA Answer: No, sir.
iz'u&'kadjkpk;Z in ds fy;s czkg~e.k lU;klh gksuk] laLd`r dk tkudkj gksuk] osn osnkax o 'kkL=ksa dk tkudkj gksuk vko';d gS\ Question: For seat of Shankaracharya whether it is essential to be a Bhrahman sanaysi, to have knowledge of Sanskrit and Ved, Vedang and scriptures.
mRrj&'kadjkpk;Z in ds fy;s iwoZ esa dgs x;s ;ksX;rk visf{kr gSA Answer: The qualifications mentioned earlier for the seat of Shankaracharya is required.
iz'u&iwoZ esa dgs x;s ;ksX;rk vFkkZr tks eBkEuk; egkuq'kklue~ esa tks ;ksX;rk 'kadjkpk;Z in ds fy;s of.kZr gS ogh ;ksX;rk gksuk pkfg;s vFkok ugha\ Question: Whether or not one should have the qualification as stated earlier i.e. the ones given in Mathamanay Mahanushasan for being a Shanakaracharya?
mRrj&ns'k dky o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vuqlkj ogh ;ksX;rk gksuh pkfg;sA ¼isij ua0&661 d] ist&89½ Answer: Depending on place, time and circumstances, that very qualification is required. (Paper No. 661 Ka, Page 89) lq>ko& esjk ;g dguk gS fd eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu esa tks fu;e gS og vkfn xq: ds cuk;s gq;s gS vkSj ml iqLrd esas fyf[kr fu;e vkfn xq: ds vkns'k i= gSa\ Suggestion: It is my statement that the rules provided in Mathamanay Mahanushasan are made by Adya Guru Shankaracharya and the rules written in the book are the orders of the Adya Guru.
mRrj& ;|fi bl iz'u dk mRrj gks pqdk gS fd eBkUuk; egkuq'kklu ds jpbrk Hkxoku vk|kxq: 'kadjkpk;Z ugha gS muds }kjk jfpr fdlh Hkh jpuk esa bl xzUFk dk mYys[k ugha gS fQj Hkh bl iqLrd dh ekU;rk pkjks ihBks esa gSA ¼isij ua0&661 d] ist&98½ Answer: Although the reply to this question has already been given that Mathamanay Mahanushasan was not composed by Shri Bhagwan Shankaracharya, nor has it been mentioned in any of the books written by him, this book is recognised in all four peethas (Paper No. 661 Ka, Page 98) eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu ds i`"B la- 28 ij Nis 'yksd la- 7 dk iwokZ/kZ vkSj mRrjk/kZ nksuksa dk vFkZ vkilh fojks/k mRiUu djrk gSA iwokZ/kZ dgrk gS ^^ijLij foHkkxsrq izns'kksa u dnkpu~ vFkkZr prq"ihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z dks ,d nwljs ds foHkkx ¼+{ks=½ esa dHkh izos'k ugha djuk pkfg;sA mRrjk/kZ dgrk gS ^^ijLijs.k drZO;k] vkpk;sZ.k O;ofLFkfr%** ijLij fey djds vkpk;Z ds }kjk O;oLFkk cukuh pkfg, vkSj ml le; ,slk le; Fkk tcfd vkpk;Z iSny o ikydh ij pyk djrs Fks rc vkil esa feyus dk iz'u ugha mBrk gS D;ksafd ,d nwljs ds {ks= esa izos'k ugha dj ldrs FksA J`axsjh egjkt Hkh vius {ks= esa ges'kk Hkze.k ugha djrs gSaA }kfjdk ds vkpk;Z Hkh vius iwjs {ks= esa Hkze.k ugha djrs gSa D;ksafd mudk dqN {ks= dk fgLlk ikfFkZ Luku esa gS] xkso/kZu ihBk/kh'oj Hkh vius iwjs {ks= esa Hkze.k ugha dj ikrs og Hkh izk;% blh {ks= esa jgrs gSaA eSa Hkh iwjs {ks= esa Hkze.k ugha dj ikrk D;ksafd esjk cM+k fo'kky {ks= gSA ¼isij ua0&661 d] ist&129½ The first and latter part of the shlok (verse) number 7 printed at the page number 28 of 'Mathamanay Mahanushasan' gives contradictory meaning. The first part of the shlok says: Paraspar Vibhagetu Parvesho Na Kadachan; which means the Shankaracharya of the Chatushpeetha should not enter the area of other Shankaracharya. But the latter part of the shlok says: Parasparen Kartavya, Acharyen Vyavasthitih; which means the Acharyas should make an arrangement together, and that was the time when people used to travel on foot or in palanquin, and then, there was no question of meeting together, because one cannot enter the area of other. Sringeri Maharaj also do not visit his area always. The Acharya of Dwarka also does not visit to all places of his area, because some part of his area is under the parthi snan. Govardhan Peethadhishwar could not visit all places of his area, because he mostly remained in this area. I can also not visit all places which is in my area, because it is a very big region. (Paper No. 661 Ka, Page 129) DW 4 Sri Rang Nath Dubey XXX egkuq'kklue~ iqLrd dk ,d Hkkx gSA eBkeuk; nwljh pht gS egkuq'kklu nwljh pht gS egkuq'kklue~ esa vkfn xq: 'kadjkpk;Z }kjk crk, x;s fu;e gSaA bu fu;eksa dk ikyu djuk gh T;ksfr"ihB dh ijEijk gSA Lo;a dgk fd orZeku T;ksfr"ihB ihBks)kjd txnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh ls ysdj orZeku txrxq: 'kadjkpk;Z Jh Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh i;ZUr mldk ikyu gks jgk gSA ¼isij ua0&645 d] ist&207]208½ The 'Mahanushasan' is a part of the book. 'Mathamanay' is one thing and 'Mahanushasan' is another thing. The 'Mahanushasan' contains rules prescribed by the Aadi Guru Shankaracharya. To follow these rules is the tradition of the Jyotispeeth. Volunteered to say: Since the regime of Jyotispeeth Peethodharak Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati upto that of present Jagatguru Shankaracharya Shri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati, these traditions have been followed. (Paper No 645 ka, Page 207,208) mRrj& 'kadj fnfXot; uked iqLrd Hkxoku vkfn 'kadjkpk;Z }kjk ugha fy[kh x;h ;g iqLrd rsjgoha 'krkCnh esa vkfn 'kadjkpk;Z ds izknqHkkZo ds 1800 o"kZ ckn fy[kh x;hA blds jpf;rk Lokeh fo|kvj.; iwoZ uke ek/kokJe rRdkyhu J`aaxsjh eB ds vkpk;Z in ij vfHkf'kDr FksA vkSj 'kadjkpk;Z mudh LokHkkfod title FkhA Jh Lokeh fo|kj.; Lokeh ,d fo}ku 'kadj 'kkL= ds vuq;k;h FksA vLrq muds }kjk fy[kk x;k ;g egkuq'kklu vknj.kh; ,oa loZekU; gqvkA ¼isij ua0&645 d] ist&231]232½ Ans: The book 'Shankar Digvijay' is not written by Bhagwan Aadi Shankaracharya. This book was written in the 13th century after 1800 years of emergence of Aadi Shankaracharya. Its writer Swami Vidyaranya, formerly known as Madhwashram was anointed as Acharya of the then Shrengeri Math and 'Shankaracharya' was his natural title. Shri Swami Vidyaranya Swami was a Scholar and follower of Shankar Shastra. Hence, this 'Mahanushasan' written by him became respectable and acceptable by all.(Paper No 645 ka, Page -231, 232) egkuq'kklu dh xfjek dks ekurs gq, ,d ihB dk 'kadjkpk;Z nwljs dh e;kZnk esa izos'k ugha dj ldrkA** ¼isij ua0&645 d] ist&254½ Honouring the dignity of the 'Mahanushasan', the Shankaracharya of one peeth cannot enter the territory of other. (Paper No 645 ka, Page 254) DW 22 Sri Indu Prakash Upadhya XXX lU;klh leqnz dk mYys[k djds fons'k dh ;k=k ugha dj ldrk gS fdUrq fons'k dh ifjHkk"kk fuf'pr ugha gSA pkjksa ihBksa dh ijEijk ,d gh gSA vyx&vyx ugha gSA vkfnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z us vyx&vyx eBksa ds fy, vyx&vyx fu;e@ ijEijk cuk;k gSA fu;e egkE;kue~ egkuq'kklu~ esa fy[ks x;s gSaA --- T;ksfr"ihB dk ,slk dksbZ Hkh 'kadjkpk;Z ugha gS tks lU;kl ysus ds ckn Hkh dbZ o"kksZa rd osru ys djds ukSdjh fd;k gksA ¼isij ua0&895 d] ist&492½ Sanyasi can not travel to foreign by crossing Sea but the definition of Foreign is not definite. The tradition of the four peeths is same and not different. Aadiguru Shankaracharya has made separate rules/tradition for separate Maths. Rules are written in Mahamyanam Mahanushashan....There is no Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth who has done job by taking salary for several years after taking Sanyas. (Paper no. 895 Ka, page no. 492) DW-31 Swami Narendranand Saraswati eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu Hkxoku vk| 'kadjkpk;Z }kjk fyf[kr ugha gSA ;g fof/k dk tks funsZ'k feyrk gS og 'kadjkpk;Z dh ijEijk esa fdlh 'kadjkpk;Z ds }kjk fyf[kr eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu gSaA eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu gh ;s dgrk gS fd ^^ijLijfoHkkxs rq izos'kksa u dnkpuA** blds vk/kkj ij Hkh Hkw&Hkkx vkoafVr gks tkrk gSA ijLij foHkkxs rq izos'kks u dnkpuA ijLijs.k drZO;k vkpk;sZ.k O;ofLFkfr%AA ikjLijs.k drZO;k dk Hkko gksrk gS Hkxoku vkfn 'kadjkpk;Z dh cuk;h gqbZ e;kZnk ,oa muds v}Sr fl)kUr lHkh 'kadjkpk;Z Lohdkj dj mlh dk izpkj izlkj djsaA ijLij oSeR; u gks vkSj viuh e;kZnk es jgdj vius {ks= es Hkxoku vkfn 'kadjkpk;Z ds fl)kUrksa dk izpkj&izlkj djs ,oa ,d nwljs dk [k.Mu u djsaA ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&601&602½ Mathamanya Mahanushasan is not written by Adi Shankaracharya. This stipulation of rule in the Mathamanay Mahanushasan is written by certain Shankaracharya in the line of Shankaracharyas.
Mathamanaya Mahanushasna says, " Parasparvibhage tu praveshon na kadachan." No one should interfere with other territory. Portions of land are allotted on the basis of this as well.
Paraspar vibhage tu pravesho na kadachan.
Parasparen kartavya acharyern Vyavsthiti.
By Parasparen Kartavya is meant that the rules formulated by Adi Shankaracharya and the tenets of his Adwait be accepted by all the Shanakracharyas and should propagate and spread in the like manner. There should be no mutually discordant views and should work for the propagation of tenets of Bhagwan Adi Shankaracharya in their respective fields in a dignified manner. (They) should not contradict each other.(Paper no. 914 Ka, Page-601-602) XXX 'kkL=h; ijEijkvksa ds vuqlkj xq: f'k"; ijEijk gh jgh gSA ftlesa eBkEuk; egkvuq'kklu ds vk/kkj ij rhFkZ vkSj vkJe uke dk vkpk;Z }kfjdk esa gh gksuk pkfg;sA ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&615½ As per the Shashtriya traditions there has been Guru Shishya tradition only in which there must be Acharya bearing the name Teerth and Ashram in Dwarika itself on the basis of Mathamnay Mahanushashan. (Paper no.-914 ka, Page-615) vkfnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z }kjk LFkkfir ihBksa esa eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu ds fu;eks ds ikyu dh fo/kk gSA fo/kk dk rkRi;Z fo/kku ls gSA --- lU;klh dks 'kkL= n`f"V vkSj lU;kl i)fr brs'oj n.M fo/kkue~ ds fu;eksa ds rgr ifo= ,oa 'kq) gksuk pkfg;sA gj ;qxksa ds fy;s fofHkUu Le`fr;ksa esa fof/k ,oa fo/kku fuf'pr fd;k x;k gSA eBkeuk; egkuq'kklue~ eSaus i<+k gSA iz'u& D;k eBkeuk; egkuq'kklue~ esa mYysf[kr 'kCn lqfpg dk rkRi;Z ;g gS fd lU;klh dks u dsoy 'kkjhfjd :i ls cfYd eu] deZ] ,oa opu ls ifo= gksuk pkfg;s vFkok vU; dksbZ rkRi;Z gSA mRrj& okg~; ,oa vH;kUrj eu] cqf)] fpRr vkfn n`f"v ls 'kq) vkSj ifo= gksuk pkfg,A ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&626½ There is a provision of observing the rules of Mathamnaye Mahanushasan in Peeths established by Adi Guru Shankaracharya. Here Vidha connotes provision ... ... A Sanyasi should be pious and pure as per scriptures and rules laid down in system for Sanyas and Dand. The customs and rules for every Yug (Epoch) are determined in different Smritis. I have read Mathamnaye Mahanushasnam.
Ques- Whether word Suchih mentioned in Mathamnaye Mahanushasnam means that a Sanyasi shall not only be pious physically but his soul, deeds and words should also be pious or does it connotes something different?
Ans- He should be pious and pure in his outer and inner senses as well as in his conscience. (Paper no.-914 Ka, page -626) vkfnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z }kjk LFkkfir ,d ihB esa ,d gh lkFk nks vkpk;Z ;k 'kadjkpk;Z jgus dk fo/kku ugha gSA ,d ihB ij ,d gh vkpk;Z dh fu;qfDr dh tkuh pkfg;s --- egk vuq'kklu dgrk gS fd ,d ,okfHk"ksd vFkkZr ,d ihB ij ,d dk gh vfHk"ksd fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&627½ There is no tradition of existence of two Acharyas or two Shankarachryas simultaneously in a Peeth established by Adi Guru Shankaracharya. Only one Acharya should be anointed in a peeth. .... Mahanushasan lays down that only one installation be performed for one Peeth. (Paper no.-914 Ka, Page-627) DW 37 Sri Bhramchari Atmanand XXX egkuq'kklu** uked iqLrd esa mYys[k gS fd pkjks ihBksa ds vkpk;Z vkfn xq# 'kadjkpk;Z ds gh Lo:i ekus tk;saxsA egkuq'kklu uked iqLrd esa ihBksa ds lapkyu ds fu;eksa dk mYys[k gSA egkuq'kklu esa tks fu;e gS mudk T;ksfr"kihB esa ijEijk ls ikyu gksrk pyk vk;k gSA ¼isij ua0&981d] ist&744½ It is mentioned in a book titled "Mahanushasan" that Acharyas of the four peeths shall be regarded as Adi Guru Shankaracharya. In the book titled Mahanushasan, the rules for the operation of the peeths are mentioned. The rules prescribed in Mahanushasan have been followed by tradition in the Jyotishpeeth. (Paper No. 981Ka, page-744)
364. With regard to "Amnay Peeth", relevant verses contained in "Mathamanya" and "Mahanushasan" which have been placed before us are verses 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 47 to 54, 56 to 60 and 65 which read as under:
e;kZnS"kk lqfoKs;k prqeZBfo/kkf;uhA rkesrka leqikfJR; vkpk;Z% LFkkfirk% dzekr~AA38AA These distinct definition and injunctions with regard to the four Peethas on the basis of which Acharyas are installed in hereditary descent must be properly known. (38) vkEuk;k% dfFkrk g~;srs ;rhuk'p i`Fkd~&i`Fkd~A rS% losZJ~prqjkpk;SZfuZ;ksxsu ;Fkkdzee~AA39AA Aforesaid Revelation receptacles, for the complete renouncers of the extreme stages i.e. who have crossed all four stages of life have been severally stated, all those four Acharyas have been appointed according to their seizure of prescribed qualifications for ascending on the aforesaid Monasteries. (39) Lo&Lojk"Vªizfrf"VR;S lapkj% lqfof/kh;rke~A eBs rq fu;rks okl vkpk;ZL; u ;qT;rsAA42AA Peeth should not be fixed as permanent residence of the Acharya. For stability of their own respective empires, they should facilitate transmission. (42) o.kkZJelnkpkjk vLekfHk;sZ izlkf/krk%A j{k.kh;k% lnSoSrs Lo&Lo Hkkxs ;kFkkfof/kAA43AA Righteous-conduct of Varnashram accomplished by us (i.e. Myself and other Predecessor omniscient Lords) should be always protected in their respective apportionments according to our commandments. (43) ijLijfoHkkxs rq u izos'k% dnkpuA ijLijs.k drZO;kg~;kpk;sZ.k O;ofLFkfr%AA45AA Acharyas should never interfere in the apportionments of each other, they should settle their obligations mutually. (45) ifjozkMk;Ze;kZnks ekedhuka ;Fkkfof/kA prq"ihBkf/kxka lRrka iz;qT;kPp i`Fkd&i`Fkd~AA47AA A highly esteemed sanyasi may acquire power of four seats but he should utilize them separately in accordance with distinct law made by me, the omniscient Lord. (47) 'kqfpftZrsfUnz;ks osn & osnkaxkfnfof'kkjn%A ;ksxK% loZ'kkL=k.kka l enkLFkkuekIuq;kr~AA48AA [A complete renouncer of extreme stage] who is endowed with external and internal purity, conqueror of all organs, proficient in Vedas [i.e. Sam-Ved, Rig-Ved, Atharv-Ved, Yajur-Ved] its subsidiaries [i.e. Euphony, Rites, Etymology, grammar, Metre, Astrology] in all scriptures, knower of the Supreme Self and is ever established in his own self, may occupy the seat. (48) mDry{k.klEiUu% L;kPpsUeRihBHkkx~Hkosr~A vU;Fkk: [Excellent Compete renouncer] enriched with aforesaid supreme konowledge and qualifications may inherit my seat otherwise inspite of being ascended, he is liable to be removed by the Omniscient Lords.(49) utkrq eBeqfPNU|knf/kdkfj.;qifLFkrsA fo?ukukefi ckgqY;kns"k /keZ% lukru% AA50AA Inspite of being manifoldness of impediment Acharya should never extirpate the monastery, this is eternal law. (50) vLeRihBlek:<% ifjozkM`Dry{k.k%A vgesosfr foKs;ks ;L; nso bfr Jqrs%AA51AA Exellent renouncer endowed with aforesaid Supreme knowledge ascended on my Seat should be fully known as 'He is I' i.e. Shankar (in this respect)' Yasya Dev' Shruit is testimony. (51) ,d ,okfHk"ksP;% L;knUrs y{k.lEer%A rRoRihBs dzes.kSo u cgq ;qT;rs Dofpr~AA52AA At last according to Supreme knowledge, one should be consecrated on concerned Peeth in succession, on no occasion more than one should be appointed. (52) lq/kUou% lekSRlqD;fuo`R;S /keZ&gsrosA nsojktksipkjk'op ;Fkkonuqikypsr~AA53AA For Dharma and Perdition of Sudhanva's exertions (Acharya) should maintain figurative applications of Sovereign of Gods, as they are. (53) dsoya /keZeqfn~n'; foHkoksa czg~epsrlke~A fofgrJ~pksidkjk; i|i=u;a oztsr~AA54AA This Majesty has been bestowed upon reigning omniscient only for the purpose of Dharma and (they should) act like lotus leaf in water for the purpose of benevolence. (54) pkrqo.;Z ;Fkk;ksX;a okM~eu% dk;deZfHk%A xqjks% ihBa lepsZr foHkkxkuqdzes.k oSAA56AA People of four Varnas should undoubtedly duly worship their Gurupeeth i.e. Seat of Acharya Shankar according to apportionment. (56) /kjkekyEC; jktku% iztkH;% djHkkfxu%A d`rkf/kdkjk vkpk;kZ /keZrLrn~onso fgAA57AA As for the sake of land, kings are entitled to tax from the people, similarly for the sake of Dharma, the Acharyas, who have been duly installed and conferred with power in accordance with prescribed law, are entitled for the same. (57) /keksZ ewya euq";k.kka l pkpk;kZoyEcu%A rLeknkpk;Zlqe.ks% 'kklua loZrks·f/kde~AA58AA Foundation of Human-beings is Dharma and it depends on Acharya, therefore, rule of excellent Self luminous i.e. Acharya, the follower of Acharya Shankar or Shankaracharya is above all. (58) rLekr~ loZiz;Rusu 'kklua loZlEere~A vkpk;ZL; fo'ks"ks.k g~;kSnk;ZHkjHkkfxu%AA59AA Therefore with all efforts and exhilaration Rule of the Acharya blessed with magnanimity should be obeyed specifically. (59) vkpk;kZf{kIr n.MkLrq d`Rok ikikfu ekuok%A fueZyk% LoxZek;kfUr lUr% lqd`fruks ;FkkAA60AA Human beings after committing sins become pure on suffering the punishment awarded by Acharya and attain heaven like virtuous men. (60) eBk'pRokj vkpk;ZpRokj'p/kqjU/kjk%A lEiznk;k'p pRokj ,"kk /keZO;ofLFkfr%AA65AA Distinction of Four Peethas and Four yoked Acharyas as well as Four denominations, is desired Dharma. (65)
365. With regard to "Mahanushasan", at page 171 of Sri Shankaracharya (Sri Shankaracharya ke jeevan charit tatha updesho ka pramanik vivran, by Acharya Baldeo Upadhayay) (supra) it has been commented:
^^¼1½ egkuq'kklu ¼10osa 'yksd½ esa 'kadj us vius ihBk/;{kksa ds vusd xq.kksa dk o.kZu fd;k gSA ;fn ihB dk uk;d 'kqfp] ftrsUnz;] osn vkSj osnkax esa fo'kkjn] ;ksxK rFkk 'kkL=osRrk gks] rks og ihB dh v/;{k inoh dks vyad`r djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA ;fn ,sls ln~xq.kksa ls og fooftZr gks] rks og euhf"k;ksa ds }kjk fuxzg djus ;ksX; gS&^fuxzkgkgksa euhf"k.kke~* ¼'yksd 11½A egkuq'kklu dh ,d izkphu fVIi.kh ds vuqlkj ¼tks vHkh rd vizdkf'kr gS½ ^euh"kh* 'kCn dk vFkZ gS&vkpk;Z dk x`gLFk&f'k";A izkphu O;oLFkk ;g Fkh fd 'kadj dk laU;klh f'k"; rks ihB dk vf/kifr curk Fkk vkSj mudk x`gLFk f'k"; ogkWa dk nhoku curk FkkA fojDr laU;klh rks ihB dh vk/;kfRed mUufr esa yxk jgrk Fkk ij ihB dh ykSfdd rFkk O;ogkfjd fLFkfr dks ns[k&js[k blh x`gLFk f'k"; ds v/khu gksrh FkhA og nhoku dk dke djrk FkkA og mlds vf/kdkj dh ckr Fkh fd ;fn ihBk/;{k laU;klh esa ihBdk;Z ds lapkyu dh ;ksX;rk u gks] rks og mUgsa ml in ls gVkdj nwljs f'k"; dks ml in ij cSBkosA vkpk;Z dh ,d O;oLFkk cM+h lqUnj FkhA ihBksa esa ;gh O;oLFkk izpfyr Fkh &v/;{k dk in laU;klh f'k"; ds gkFk esa Fkk vkSj nhoku dk dk;Z x`gLFk f'k"; pykrk FkkA izkphu dky esa ;gh O;oLFkk lqpk: :i ls izpfyr FkhA voufr dky vkrs gh ;g O;oLFkk mfPNUu gks x;hA** (page 171) "Shankar has described various characteristics of Peethadhyakshas (Head of Seats)in 10th verse of Mahanushasan. If holder of a Peeth (Peethadhyaksh) is pure, conqueror of senses, well versed in Vedas and Vedangas, knower of Yog and Shastras, he has authority to adorn the title of Adhyaksh (President) of Peetha. If he lacks all these virtues, he is liable to be abandoned/restricted by scholars (Nigrahahon Manishinam) (Verse-11). According to an ancient note of Mahanushasan (which still remained unpublished) the word "Manishi" denotes -Grihasth disciple of Acharya. Ancient system was that Sanyasi Disciple of Shanker would become holder of Peetha (Seat) and its Grihasth disciple would become Deewan (Minister) thereof. Renuncitated Sanyasi remained engaged in spiritual uplift/pomotion of Peetha but worldly and practical affairs were assigned to this Grihasth Sanyasi. He discharged functions of Minister. It was within his authority to remove an existing Peethadhyaksh from his Seat and cause to be seated another disciple on that seat in case, existing Peethadhyaksh Sanyasi was not capable enough to carry out the functions of Peeth. There was a very fine provision/system stipulated by Acharya. This system was famous and prevalent-Seat of Adhyaksh was in the hands of Sanyasi Disciple and functions of Deewan were discharged by Grihasth disciple. In ancient times, this very system was suitably prevalent. By passage of deterioration, this system extinguished."(Page 171)(English translation by Court)
366. Sri Goel submitted that it is true that Amnaya Peetham established by Adi Shankaracharya has a significance of special nature yet they satisfy the concept of 'Math' and looking to the nature of Math, it is a "Maurusi Math" as described by Sri B.K. Mukherjee in "Law of Endowment" and also V.K. Varadhachari's "Law of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments", revised by Dr. R. Prakash published by Easterm Book Company and therein Maths are generally divided in three classes according to ways in which Heads or superiors are appointed. These three classes are (a) Mourusi Math (b) Panchayati Math and (c) Hakimi Math which are detailed as under:
(a) Mourusi Math: In a Mourusi Math the Guru-Shishya Parampara is followed and a Chela succeeds to the office, which is usually nominated as successor by the reigning Guru (Head). Senior Chela by virtue of seniority does not automatically become entitled to the seat of Headship but it is that Chela who stands nominated by the Head who becomes entitled for appointment and succeed to the office. This nomination can be done during the life time or by a written declaration or by some sort of testamentary documents. At the time of installation, he is granted recognition by the Members of the particular sect and when funeral ceremony of the last Head is performed. It is worth quoting the following extract from B.K. Mukherjea (Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust 5th Edition). The following extract from Paragraph 7.41 is quoted herein below:
"7.41 . . . In a hereditary Mutt the succession goes in the first place according to the test of Yajnavalkya to (lr~f'k";) or virtuous pupil. So, in order to entitle a person to succeed to the office of a Mohant, it is not enough to show that he is a Chela or disciple of the latter. He must be a "lr~f'k";" or disciple endowed with good qualities. The question arises as to how it is to be determined whether a Chela fulfills this requirement or not? The way of determination must depend either upon the express directions of the founder of the endowment, if any, or upon the custom in each foundation. The custom in certain institutions may be that the senior most Chela is entitled to succeed as he is presumed to be virtuous; or a "lr~f'k";" may be only that Chela who is nominated or appointed by the Guru during his lifetime, or accepted as such by the members of the fraternity after his death. In such cases also a Mutt may be called a Mourusi Mutt as the succession goes to the Chela and the appointment by the Guru or recognition by the other ascetics of the order might furnish the evidence of his being a virtuous disciple ...."
(b) Panchayati Math: In a Panchayati Math the mode of appointment of a Mohunt is by election. It depends upon the custom of a particular institution as to who would be competent to exercise the power of election. Generally Mohunt of the same sect (here to be understand as the 'Head') having common origin assemble on the 13th day after the death of the last Mohunt and proceed to elect his successor. Name given to the electoral body is Vhek or Punch, constitution of which is regulated entirely by custom. Here also the tradition is that none but a disciple of last Mohunt could be elected by the Panch as a successor. Preference is given to Chelas of deceased but if they are not considered to be qualified, the Panch can elect either a Guru Bhai of late Mohunt or somebody else connected with the institution or a Chela of another Mohunt belonging to the same sect.
(c) Hakimi Math: In a case of Hakimi Math the appointment of Head is made by the ruling power (The Raja and Maharaja) or by the party who has endowed the Temple. However, after coming into force of Act No. 20 of 1863, the ruling powers in India divested itself of the right of nominating any Mohunt. However, the tradition of Hakimi Math continues where the families who originally endowed the temple or the institutions is exercising the right as of custom to appoint the Head of a Math.
367. Sri Goel further said and we find him right that since the time of establishment of Math, it has followed Guru-Shishiya Parampara. Head of Maths have been appointed from time to time as per the aforesaid tradition/Parampara. It has been followed by all Maths/Peethas, set up by Adi Shankaracharya himself, who nominated four disciples at each Peeth set up by him, whereafter tradition of passing Headship from Guru to Chela has been constantly followed till date. There has been nomination through testamentary instruments as well. All the ingredients relating to a "Mourusi Math" stands satisfied in the case of succession to Headship of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Essential character being that of a "Mourusi Math", the entire controversy is to be judged on the aforesaid genesis, otherwise it will result in deviation to the very basis of existence of Math. He also placed reliance on V.K.Varadhachari's Law of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, revised by Dr. R. Prakash published by Easterm Book Company (Chapter 8 page 466 to 470).
368. On the contrary, learned counsel for plaintiff argued that in case of aforesaid Four Monasteries (Maths) of Acharya Shanker, successor cannot be appointed by way of mere executing a will, because those monasteris are brother monasteries, established by a single person i.e. Acharya Shankar under single instrument i.e. 'Mathamnayasetu' or ' Mahanushasan' and in these commandments it has been clearly laid down that 1st set of four Shankaracharyas were appointed by Acharya Shankar himself. In this commandment Acharya Shankar has commanded that descending successors shall be appointed by consecrating him on concerned seat by the outgoing Shankaracharya at the end of his rule (verse 52 of MM Eng. Edn) and said tradition is duly being followed till date. Since all four Peethas have been established by a single person vide single Great Commandment, verse 47 of Mathamanaya-Mahanushasan authorizes even a single Shankaracharya to hold power of all four seats to avoid their extinction as also verse 49 of this Great Commandment authorizes Shankaracharya of other three monasteries to remove a person who has ascended on any one of the aforesaid seats, without having prescribed qualification. Thus it is beyond doubt that in that event, concerned monastery for all practical purpose shall be deemed to be in the joint custody of other three Shankaracharyas for discharging their obligation to appoint new Shankaracharya out of the natural successors of deceased Shankaracharya. Otherwise, without Acharya, such monasteries shall be deemed to be extirpated which is strictly prohibited vide verse 50 supra. In that event it will be obligatory on the part of other three Shankaracharyas to select a worthy Renouncer having requisite qualification unanimously and consecrate him on the concerned seat.
369. Our discussion justify us to hold that four Peethas established by Adi Shankaracharya cannot be equated with ordinary Mutts, Ashrams or other religious endowments since they have a special significance, reverence and followership in Sanatan Dharma. The commands of Mathamnay/ Mahanushasan whether mandatory or recommendatory, or advisory, but the fact remains that these are the instructions governing matters relating to selection of a person for installation in Amnay Peethas and mode and manner of further administration thereof and has got the status of established custom and tradition having force of law. It is the own evidence of even appellant that these commands are to be observed in words and spirit strictly and, therefore, we have no manner of doubt to observe that these commands lay down eligibility and qualification of a person for installation of Shankaracharya and the manner in which four Amnay Peethas have to be regulated and governed by those who are installed.
370. For our purposes and for the purpose of present case even if we do not go into much details, yet this is evident that for installing a person as Shankaracharya, the most important mandatory conditions which must exist and the person selected and installed must possess, so as to become suitable, eligible and qualify to hold position of 'Shankaracharya' are:
(i) He must be well versed in Vedas, Upnishads, Puranas and other scriptures etc.
(ii) He must be a Dandi Sanyasi.
(iii) He must be a Manishi.
371. From the above discussion we have no manner of doubt that Adi Shankaracharya has a great reverence among Sanatan Dharma followers/devotees who place him on the pedestal of incarnation of Lord Shiva. There are only four Peethas called 'Amanya Peeth' established by Adi Shankaracharya which have authority to have title and status of "Jagat Guru Shankaracharya" and the person who holds that position and this title/office, got recognition from several centuries by customs and traditions laid down in religious scriptures some sources of which are referred above, and followed by Sanatan Dharma devotees and followers, hence it cannot be allowed to be usurped by anyone else. Such an attempt would be nothing but an act of Imposter/ Trespasser and nothing but a fraud on religious denomination of Hindu Sanatan Dharma. We also find that the term ''Sanyas' as such is recognized in Sanatan Dharma where a person who has completed formalities to become a 'Sanyasi' while in other religions and faiths a similar concept is given a different meaning, for example, Bhikchuk (Monk) in Budhism, 'Muni' in Jainism, etc.
372. Our observations are confined to the concept of "Jagat Guru Shankaracharya" who has a well recognized description, meaning, status and reverence in Sanatan Dharma and therefore, except principal authority installed at such Peethas established by Adi Shankaracharya i.e. (i) Jyotirmath, (ii) Shardamath, (iii) Sringeri Matha and (iv) Govardhan Matha, no other person can usurp or call himself as "Jagat Guru Shankaracharya".
373. Further, as we have seen that under commands of Adi Shankaracharya one 'Amanya Peetha' can have only one Head as Shankaracharya, two persons claiming themselves as 'Shankaracharya' of same Peeth is also patently illegal, unauthorized and nothing but an attempt of usurpation of that status. In fact this act or attempt on the part of a person who claimed to stand parallel 'Shankaracharya' of a Peeth itself would render him ineligible to be called or treated as Shankaracharya.
374. The two books of commands, Vedas, Upnishads and other relevant religious scriptures, some of which we have already referred to, make it very clear that in the four Amanya Peeths of Adi Shankaracharya, Guru-Shishya Parampara has been followed since very beginning after initial installation by Adi Shankaracharya. The commands also contemplate a situation where a sitting Shankaracharya could not nominate his successor, or nominated or installed successor is not suitable and eligible. In such circumstances Manishigan, i.e., people of great learning which may include Shankaracharyas of other Peethas will have authority to select and install an appropriate suitable person as Shankaracharya of such Peeth or to remove and appoint another one. But this condition will be attracted only when successor is not nominated by outgoing Shankaracharya These constitute well established customary law and therefore have to be followed strictly.
375. There may be a situation when a person nominated by outgoing Shankaracharya or installed by earlier functioning Shankaracharya is found unsuitable or suffers subsequently some disqualification i.e. conditions prescribed in aforesaid books laying down customs and usage and in such circumstances after taking a conscious decision, and due notice to concerned person about alleged unsuitability or disqualification, he suffers or has attained, and after a proper removal thereof, a new person can be selected and installed as Shankaracharya by Manishigans as defined and explained in earlier discussion.
376. Looking to Verses-47 and 50 of "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan", we are also of the view that in an emergency or other grave condition, a situation may arise where one Shankaracharya may be required to look after more than one Peeth. But that situation being of emergency and for certain unforeseen circumstances, would mean that it is a temporary arrangement and has to stop as soon as possible. Such a situation cannot continue for years together as that will amount to a complete violation of the well established customary laws in this regard laid down in the aforesaid commands and other scriptures. Such a situation has to be rectified at the earliest. But in no case, one Peeth can have two Shankaracharyas and a person who does not fulfill requisite qualification also cannot be appointed thereat.
377. Three points for determination, formulated above, therefore, are answered as under:
Answer (First Point):
Adi Shankaracharya and four Amnaya Peeths established by him have a special but great reverence and significance in the entire religious denomination of this Country following Sanatan Dharma and Shankar Philosophy and we can take judicial notice of this fact that this denomination constitutes majority people of this Country.
Answers (Second and Third Points):
"Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan" are commands of regulations of eligibility and suitability of person to be installed as Shankaracharya, the manner in which one can be appointed or removed and also containing conditions for regulation of these Peethas.
We also simultaneously hold that for installation of Shankaracharya, the essential eligibility conditions includes that one must be a Sanyasi, well conversant in Sanskrit, well versed in religious scriptures like Vedas, Upnishads, Brahmans etc., must be disciple of an Acharya of Amnaya Peeth in which he is to be selected and installed, and, should also follow all regulations and instructions which are provided in various scriptures like "Mathamnaya", "Mahanushasan" and Upnishads etc., some of which we have already discussed above.
378. The fourth point for determination would be, "whether at Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, installation of Shankaracharya has always followed Guru-Shishya Parampara or there has been an exception for installation of Shankaracharya thereat?"
379. It is the admitted case of both the parties that Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth is the fourth Peeth established by Adi Shankaracharya. In this regard, some history has been traced by Pt. Harikrishna Raturi in "Garhwal ka Itihas" (supra) which has been placed before us and since this historical scriptures has not been disputed by both the parties, therefore we may refer extract thereof as under.
380. On page 67-68 of book, learned author has traced the history of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth at Badrikashram and said as under:
^^vykSfdd 'kfDr ls lEiUu 'kadj f'k";ksa ds lkFk ekxZ ds d"Vksa dh vogsyuk djrs gq, cnfjdkJe esa tk gh igqWapsA ;g ogh LFkku gS tgkWa uj&ukjk;.k _f"k;ks us ?kksj riL;k dh FkhA --- vkpk;Z us ;gkWa jgdj vusd rhFkksZa dk n'kZu fd;k ijUrq iz/kku efUnj esa Hkxoku~ ukjk;.k dh ewfrZ u ns[kdj mUgsa cM+k {kksHk gqvkA --- Hkxoku~ dh ewfrZ dks ge yksxksa us blh ukjndq.M esa Qsad fn;k gSA ijUrq ihNs cM+h [kkst djus ij Hkh og ewfrZ gesa u fey ldhA bl ij vkpk;Z us ukjndq.M esa Lo;a mrjdj ewfrZ dks [kkst fudkyus dk izLrko fd;kA ---mUgksaus ukjndq.M esa Mqcdh yxk;hA muds gkFk esa iRFkj dk ,d VqdM+k feykA Åij vkdj mUgksaus ns[kk fd og i|klu esa cSBs gq, prqckZgq fo".kq dh ewfrZ gSA^^ "Despite all this, adorned with divine power Shankar alongwith his disciples could reach Badrikashram without caring for sufferings met in the way. This is the same place where Rishis Nar-Narayan had done severe penance/meditation. ... During his abode here, the Acharya visited several pilgrimages. However, he was extremely disappointed by not seeing any idol of Lord Narayana in the main temple. ... we had thrown the idol of the Lord in this very Narad Kund. Despite hectic search of late, we could not trace out the idol. On this, the Acharya proposed to himself step into the Narad Kund and trace out the idol. ... He took a dip into Narad Kund. He found a piece of stone in his hand. On coming out he saw that it was an idol of Chaturbahu (with four hands) Vishnu sitting in posture of Padmasan."
^^'kadj us Lo;a ewfrZ dh izfr"Vk efUnj esa dh rFkk oSfnd jhfr ls bldh iwtk&vpkZ dk izcU/k fd;kA 'kadj us ns[kk fd LFkkuh; czkg~e.kksa esa osnk/;;u cgqr gh de FkkA vr% muds }kjk Bhd oSfnd fof/k ls iwtu dk fuokZg ugha gks ldrk FkkA blfy, mUgksaus vius ltkrh; uEcwnjh czkg~e.k dks cnjhukFk ewfrZ dh iwtk ds fy, fu;qDr fd;kA vkpk;Z ds }kjk ;g pyk;h x;h i)fr vkt Hkh v{kq..k jhfr ls fo|eku gSA vkt Hkh nf{k.k ds uEcwnjh czkg~e.k ¼ftls jkoy th dgrs gSa½ dh v/;{krk esa bl LFkku dh iwtk&vpkZ pyrh gSA cnfj/kke gekjs pkjksa /kkeksa esa vU;re gSA mlds m)kj dk leLr Js; vkpk;Z 'kadj dks gh gSA** "Shankar himself installed that idol in the temple and made provisions for its worship according to Vedic rituals. Shankar observed that in local Brahmins there was no interest towards studies of Vedas. Therefore, worship and prayer as per vedic method could have been performed by them. Therefore, he appointed his homogeneous Nambudari Brahmin to worship the idol of Badrinath. This system initiated by Acharya is still prevailing unceasingly. Today also, in the supervision/ apprenticeship of Nambudari Brahmin of South (who is called Rawal Ji), worship and prayer of this place is performed. Badridham is incomparable among four Peethas. Entire credit of its renovation goes to Acharya Shanker only." (English Translation by Court) ^^;g vkpk;Z 'kadj ds }kjk LFkkfir eBksa esa pkSFkk eB gSA mRrjh Hkkjr ds /kkfeZd lq/kkj rFkk O;OkLFkk ds fy, vkpk;Z us cnjhukjk;.k ds ikl gh bl eB dh LFkkiuk dhA cnjhukFk ls ;g LFkku 20 ehy nf{k.k gSA lk/kkj.k yksx bls tks'kheB ds uke ls iqdkjrs gSaA^^ "This is the Fourth out of Maths established by Acharya Shanker. For the purpose of religious reforms and management in Northern India, Acharya established this Math near Badri Narain. This place is situated 20 miles away from Badrinath. Common pleaple call it "Joshimath". (English Translation by Court)
381. On page 27 to 29 of the book as under:
^^,d ys[k ls izrhr gksrk gS fd cnzhukFk ds orZeku efUnj cus gq;s 2]380 o"kZ lEor~ fodzeh 76 rd gksrs gSaA^^ "This appears from an inscription/writing that construction of existing temple of Badrinath dates back to 2380 Samvat year, corresponding to Vikram Samvat 76.
^^cnjhukFk ds iwtu vpZu dk Hkkj n.Mh lU;klh lEiznk; esa ftldk tUe uEcwjh vFkok pksyh] eqdk.kh tkfr ds nf{k.kh czkg~e.k ds ?kj dk gks fliqnZ fd;k rc ls n.Mh lU;kfl;ksa ds gkFk eas cnzhukFk ds efUnj dk iwtu vpZu vkSj izcU/k T;ksfreZB ds lkFk lkFk pyk vkrk jgkA D;ksafd 'kadj lEiznk; dk ,d eq[; izfrfuf/k t;ksfreZB esa jgrk Fkk mlh ds fliqnZ cnzhukFk ds efUnj dk Hkh izcU/k FkkA "Entrusted responsibility of worship, prayer and Aarti etc. to a person belonging to sect of Dandi Sanyasi, born in house of Dakshini Brahmin, of the caste of Namburi or Choli or Mukani. Thence, responsibility of worship and prayer of temple of Badrinath and management of Jyotirmath had throughout been in the hands of Dandi Sanyasis. Because a chief representative of Shankar Sect used to live in the Jyotirmath, who was entrusted with the management of temple of Badrinath.
382. On page 31 author has given certain historical facts of the period of Adi Shankaracharya as under:
^^T;ksfrZeB rksVdkpk;Z Lokeh dks fn;k x;k Fkk i'pkr~ mUgha ds lEiznk; dk lu~ 1776 bZ0 rd t;ksfreZB ij vf/kdkj pyk vkrk jgkA ;g rksVdkpk;Z Hkh mUgha dh tkfr;ksa esa ls fdlh ,d tkfr ds iwokZJeh FksA** "Jyotirmath was entrusted to Totakcharya Swami, thereafter till 1776 AD possession over Jyotirmath continued of his sect. This Totakacharya prior to joining the Ashram, was also one of the persons belonging to those clans." (English translation by Court)
383. The learned Author on page 29 has further said:
^^T;ksfreZB dk yxko gh efUnj cnzhukFk ls FkkA dsoy lEor~ 1554 vFkkZr~ 1497 bZ0 ls cnzhukFk ds egUrksa dh ukekoyh feyrh gS^^ "This custom appears to be ancient that it was only Sanyasi Mahant of Jyotirmathwho had authority and was worshiper of Badrinath temple, whereas the very attachment of Jyotirmath was with Badrinath. List of names of Mahants of Badrinath is available only since Samvat 1554 i.e. 1497 AD.(English translation by Court) ^^;gka rd vFkkZr~ lEor~ 1833 fodzeh bZ0 rd T;ksfreZB vkSj mlds lkFk cnzhukFk efUnj 'kadj lEiznk; esa n.Mh Lokfe;ksa ds vf/kdkj eas Fkk] fdUrq mlds i'pkr~ lU;kfl;ksa ds gkFk ls fudy dj czg~epkjh jkoyksa ds gkFk esa vk x;kA "Uptill this, i.e., Samvat 1833 Vikrami (AD), Jyotirmath alongwith Badrinath temple was in possession of Dandi Swamis of Shankar Sect, but thereafter from Sanyasis, it came into hands of Brahmchari Rawals."
mldk bfrgkl bl rjg ij ik;k tkrk gS fd tc 'kadj lEiznk; dk vkf[kjh egUr jked`".k Lokeh lu~ 1776 bZ0 esa ej x;k ml dky ogka vU; dksbZ n.Mh lU;klh fo|eku ugha FkkA vkSj cnzhukFk viwT; ugha jg ldrs FksA HkkX;o'kkr~ ml le; x<+oky ujs'k egkjkt iznhi'kkg iqjh esa ;k=kFkZ fo|eku FksA egkjktk us xksiky uked czg~epkjh dks tks uEcwjh tkfr dk czkg~e.k Fkk vkSj efUnj esa Hkxoku ds okLrs Hkksx idkrk Fkk ogha jkoy inoh ls foHkwf"kr djds jked`".k Lokeh ds LFkku ij fu;r dj fn;kA vkSj N= poaj f[kyr mldks iznku dhA rc ls cnzhukFk ds iwtdksa dh inoh egUr ls jkoyksa esa cny xbZA rc ls bUgha rhu tkfr;ksa esa ls] ftuds uke ifgys vk pqds gSa] jkoy pqus tkrs gSaA** "Its history is traced in such a way, that when Ram Krishna Swami, the last Mahant of Shankar sect died in 1776 A.D., at that point of time, no Dandi Sanyasi was present there and Badrinath could not be left without worship. Fortunately, Maharaj Pradeep Shah Puri King of Garhwal, was present in Puri on pilgrimage. After conferring title of 'Rawal' on a Brahmchari named Gopal, a Brahmin of Namburi Caste, who used to cook Bhog (pious food offered to Lord), appointed him there in place of Ram Krishna Swami and handed over Chhatra, Chanwar and Khilat to him. Since then, the title of worshippers of Badrinath changed from Mahant to Rawal. Since then, Rawal is selected only from these three clans referred above." (English Translation by Court)
384. Subsequent to installation of Totakacharya, other Shankaracharyas of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, as written by Raturi, are:
^^blds izFke v/;{k gq, rksVdkpk;Z tks 'kadjkpk;Z ds lk{kkr~ f'k";ksa esa vU;re FksA muds vuUrj gksus okys vkpk;kZsa ds uke fuEufyf[kr 'yksdksa esa feyrs gSA ftls ioZr ds if.Mr yksx izkr% Lej.kh; ekudj lnk ;kn j[krs gSa %& rksVdks fot;% d`".k% dqekjks x:M/ot%A foU/;ks fo'kkyks oqdyks okeu% lqUnjks·#.k%AA Jhfuokl% lq[kkuUnks fo|kuUn% f'koks fxjh%A fo|k/kjksa xq.kkuUnh ukjk;.k mekifr%AA ,rs T;ksfreZBk/kh'kk vkpk;kZf'pjthfou%A ; ,rku~ laLejsf=R;a ;ksxflf)a l foUnfrAA Its first Adhyaksh became Totakcharya, who was foremost among other immediate disciples. Names of his succeeding Acharyas are found in the following verse, which the Pandits of hilly area always remember in the morning as memorable.
Totak, Vijay, Krishna, Kumar, Garudhwaj, Vindya, Vishal, Vukal, Vaman, Sunder, Arun, Sriniwas, Sukhanand, Vidyanand, Shiva, Giri, Vidhyadhar, Gunanand, Narayan, Umapati. These are the Acharya and heads of Jyotirmath who are immortal. One who remembers daily these names, he becomes Siddha (perfect) in Yoga, it is said. (page 189)
385. It is not disputed before us also that last known Shankaracharya, who held this seat at Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth was Swami Ram Krishna, who died in 1833 Vikram Samvat (1776 A.D.) and thereafter for about 165 years, Peeth remained defunct. In this regard, Pt. Raturi has written as under:
^^T;skfreZB dh xn~nh ¼Jh jked`".k Lokeh dh nsgyhyk laoj.k djus ds mijkUr½ laor~ 1833 fodzeh esa fjDr gks x;hA rc ls ;g fujUrj mlh fLFkfr eas laor~ 1998 fodzeh rd pyh vk jgh FkhA mlds dksbZ izR;{k fpUg Hkh ugha Fks] ftlds vk/kkj ij mldk dksbZ irk Hkh yxk;k tk ldsA gkW] x<+oky ljdkj ds ljdkjh dkxtksa esa 5 fcLos tehu eB ds uke ls pyh vk jgh FkhA "The seat of Jyotirmath fell vacant in Samvat 1833 Vikrami (after death of Sri Ramkrishna Swami). Since then till 1998 Vikrami it has continuously been in the same status. There was no direct sign, on the basis whereof, it could have been traced. Yes, in the official files of Garhwal Government, 5 Biswas of land has been continuing in the name of Math."
386. It is common case of both the parties that B.D.M., VNS, other Shankaracharyas of three Peethas and other learned Brahmans and Pandits selected Swami Sri Brahmanand Saraswati as a suitable person to be installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth; a declaration of trust-deed was prepared on 11.05.1941 and Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was installed on 11.05.1941 as Shankaracharya by the said congregation of Manishigans. Thus since Vikram Swavat 1833 to 1998 (1776 to 1941 AD), Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth did not have any Shankaracharya and the new one, who was installed in 1941, did not come into office by virtue of Guru-Shishya Parampara. He was installed by Manishigans as contemplated in "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan" which we have discussed above. This is admitted case of both the parties. In plaint, the plaintiff has averred these facts in para 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of plaint, which read as under:
"8. That in the Jyotirpeeth Math according to the Rules and Regulations prescribed in the Mathamanaya Forty one learned and competent Sanayasis having necessary qualifications as laid down in the aforesaid books a were to the hardship of the Peeth and that for period of about 165 years Jyotir Math remained without a head.
9. That in the year 1941, the three Shankaracharya of Shringeri, Sharda and Govardhan Math, rulers of various states, learned peoples and Sanyasies etc. authorised a registered institution know as Bharat Dharma Mahamandal Banaras (Varanasi) to search a Sanyasi satisfying the qualification prescribed by Mathamanaya and Mahanushashan being installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath Badrika Ashram with an object to restore the Peeth to its pristine stage and prestige.
10. That Late Brahmanand Saraswati who was great learned Sanyasi was searched out and selected for the headship of Jyotir Math by the Bharat Dharama Mahamandal.
11. That selection of Late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was also approved by three aforesaid Shankaracharyas, Sanyasis learned men and followers of Vedic teachings.
13. That late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati thereafter was duly installed Shankaracharya of Jyotirpeeth and he assumed the said high office.
14. That thereafter Bharat Bharma Mahamandal by deed of declaration of trust dated 11th May, 1941 corresponding to Baisakh Sudi 15 Samvat 1998 made over all the land and site of the Jyotish Peeth in Pauri Garhwal which have been acquired together with a land and Ashram at Banaras to the aforesaid Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati in trust under condition given in the deed for the benefit of Jyotishpeeth.
15. That Late Brahmanand Saraswati discharged all the duties and managed affairs of Peeth with great ability during the period of his headship with the result Jyotishpeeth established its influence over the people residing in the Northern India and became very famous peeth. The people made generous donations of movables and immovables so that there may not be any difficulty to the Jyotishpeeth and the Sanyasis attached to the peeth in discharging the obligations and fulfilling the purpose for which the Adi Shankaracharya had established the Peeth.
16. That Swami Brahmanand Saraswati managed the property of the Peeth as trustee thereof and as a Sanyasi who renounced the world and devoted to."
387. Broadly, the facts relating to installation of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati by learned Pandits and other Shankaracharyas, as stated by plaintiff, are not disputed by appellant in written statement and his own oral deposition. 387A. We, therefore, answer this fourth point for determination as under:
Answer (Fourth Point):
In the past, Guru-Shishya Parampara was followed in Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth but due to unavoidable circumstances, it had broken sometimes in 1833 Vikram Swavat (1776 AD) and after 165 years, installation of Shankaracharya was made by selection of a suitable person by Manishigans and not following Guru-Shishya Parampara pursuant whereto Swami Brahmanand Saraswati came to be installed and functioned as such for about 12 years.
388. Fifth point for determination is "who came to be installed as Shankaracharya after death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati in 1953?"
389. In para-19 of plaint, it is said by plaintiff that after death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati it was found that a ''Will' was executed by him on 18.12.1952 nominating four persons as his successor, namely, (a) Ramji Triapthi (subsequently known as Shanta Nand Saraswati) (b) Dwarika Prasad Shastri (subsequently known as Dwarikeshanand Saraswati (c) Swami Vishnu Deva Nand Saraswati and (d) Swami Parmanand Saraswati. Plaintiff's case is that learned Brahmans and other Shankaracharyas considered Ramji Tripathi and found him ineligible having no knowledge of Sanskrit and, therefore, his claim for installation as Shankaracharya was rejected by learned Pandits, Sanyasis and other Shankaracharyas, though Ramji Tripathi, i.e. Shanta Nand Saraswati started to claim himself as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.
390. In the written statement, case set up by appellant is that after death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, his ''Will' was opened and as per nomination made, Ramji Tripathi (Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati) was installed as his successor. The question of selection by Manishigans did not arise, following Guru-Shishya Parampara, Swami Brahmanand Saraswati had already nominated Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati as his successor.
391. This issue was raised at the earliest by four persons, namely, Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati, Nagesh Upadhyay, Mahadev Shastri and Sudarshan Lal Bajpai in Original Suit No. 3 of 1954 filed in representative capacity under Section 92 CPC impleading Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati as sole defendant. They sought relief for removal of Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati from the office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and also a declaration for Swami Krishna Bodhashram as duly installed Shankaracharya of the said Peeth. As we have already given history of suit in earlier part which ultimately resulted in a final verdict by Supreme Court in Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati and another Vs. Ramji Tripathi (supra), from the pleadings therein, we find that it was admitted case of plaintiffs therein that there existed a ''will' dated 07.12.1952 which was published on 08.06.1952, after death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati on 20.05.1953. As per nomination made in the said ''will' first choice was Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati, who accepted office and installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 12.06.1953. Supreme Court judgment shows that a section of worshippers installed Swami Krishna Bodhashram as Shankaracharya of Math on 25.06.1953, since according to them, Brahmanand did not execute any will nominating his successor, and in any case 'will' was not executed by him while he was in a sound disposing state of mind. Supreme Court, in para 4 of judgment also said that Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati was installed on 12.06.1953 and came in possession of Mutt properties. The aforesaid suit failed for the reason that Court found that suit was filed for the benefit of an individual and not on the ground of mismanagement or breach of condition of management of a trust etc. The aforesaid suit, as already said, was filed under Section 92. Court held that a suit under Section 92 is a suit of special nature which pre-supposes existence of public trust of a religious or charitable character and such suit can proceed only on the allegations that there was a breach of trust or that the direction of Court is necessary for administration of trust and plaintiffs must pray for one or more of the reliefs that are mentioned in Section 92. Court also held that suit basically was filed for declaration that Swami Krishna Bodhashram was duly installed as Shankaracharya of Mutt on 25.06.1953 and Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati had no right to be nominated as head of Mutt since he did not possess requisite qualification and his possession of the trust property was only in the capacity of a trustee de son tort, and so he must be removed from the headship of Math. Supreme Court upheld dismissal of suit being not maintainable under Section 92 CPC. Relevant finding contained in para 12 of judgment read as under:
"The trial Court, after reading the allegations in the plaint and afterlooking into the entire evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that the suit was primarily one for declaration that Krishnabodhashram was duly installed as the Shankaracharya of the Math on June 25, 1953 and that respondent No. 1 had no right to be nominated as the Head of the Math by Brahmanand as he did not possess the requisite qualification and that his possession of the trust property was only in the capacity, of a trustee de son tort, and so he must be removed from the headship of the Math. The High Court saw no reason to differ from that finding. We would be slow to disturb a finding of this nature especially when we see that the allegations in the plaint are reasonably susceptible of being so read. We think that the purpose of the suit was to settle the controversy as to whether Krishnabodhashram or respondent No. 1 had the better claim to the headship of the Math and to the possession and management of its properties by obtaining a declaration of the Court. If the real purpose in bringing the Suit was to vindicate the general right of the public to have the rightful claimant appointed to the office,, there was no reason why the plaintiffs omitted to implead or at least refer in the plaint to the three persons nominated by Brahmanand in his will to succeed him in the order indicated therein especially when it is seen that the plaintiffs accepted the custom of the Math to have the successor nominated by the incumbent for the time, being of the office of Shankaracharya."
392. The aforesaid judgment is relevant to the fact that for the benefit of Swami Krishna Bodhashram a suit was filed for removal of Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati from the office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and therein it was an admitted case that Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati was installed on 12.06.1953 and took possession of property of Mutt.
393. In para 20 of plaint in present case, plaintiff admits that Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati started to claim headship of Jyotirmath. Several plaintiff's witnesses have also deposed that Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati was removed from the Office of Shankaracharya. When one says that a person was removed, it pre-supposes an admission that such person was appointed/installed in the seat. Relevant depositions of PW-1 and PW-31 read as under:
PW-1 Sri Shyam Sundar Vajpai (X):
^^d`".k cks/kJe dk vf/k"Bkiu djds jke th f=ikBh mQZ Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh ds vf/k"Bkiu dk fuxzg fd;k x;k FkkA T;ksfr"ihB ds fu;e ijEijk o jhfr ds vuqlkj jke th f=ikBh mQZ 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh dks T;ksfr"ihB ds ihBk/kh'oj in ls inP;qr dj fn;k x;kA^^¼isij ua0&455 d] ist&2786&2787½ "By anointing KrishnaBodhShram as Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth, the investiture of Ram Ji Tripathi alias Swami Shantanand Saraswati was rendered nugatory. Ram Ji tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati was removed from the seat of Peethadheeshwar of the Jyotish Peeth in accordance with the rule, tradition and custom." (English Translation by Court) PW-31 Sri Satya Narain Pandey (XX):
^^1941 ds ckn ls 1973 ds chp esa 'kkUrkjketh dks vLohdkj fd;k x;k FkkA lu~ ;kn ugh gS ysfdu lu~ 1953 ds vklikl gSA tks jftLVj eaS yk;k gWw mlesa fuxzg ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ o.kZu ugha gSA** ¼isij ua0&552d] ist&418]419½ "Shantaram Ji was disapproved between 1941 and 1973. I cannot recall the year, but the year is around 1953. The register which I have brought has no mentioning of Nigrah (restriction)" (English Translation by Court)
394. It is also admitted by plaintiff witnesses that the term "nigrah" means ''removal' and question of removal would arise when somebody is appointed. Relevant depositions of PW-3, PW-4, PW-13, PW-20, DW-8 and DW-22 on the meaning of word ''Nigrah" reads as under:
PW-3 Sri Kameshwar Nath Mishra (XX):
^^fuxzg 'kCn dk vFkZ eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu esa inP;qr djuk gSA f'kojke vkIVs ds laLd`r bafXy'k fMD'kujh rFkk laLd`r fgUnh dks'k tks eksrhyky cukjlh nkl izdk'kd ds }kjk izdkf'kr gS esa ns[kk tk ldrk gSA^^ ¼isij ua0&428d] ist&83&85½ "The meaning of 'Nigraha' given in Mathamanay Mahanushasan is to remove from office. It can be looked up in the Sanskrit English dictionary of Shivram Apte and Sanskrit Hindi Kosh published by Motilal Banarasi Das Publisher." (English Translation by Court) PW-4 Sri Anand Bahadur Singh (XX):
^^fuxzg 'kCn dk vFkZ gS gVkuk ;k oafpr djuk gSA xhrk esa fuxzg dk cgqr lkjs vFkZ gSaA bfUnz;ksa ij dkcw djuk Hkh fuxzg dk ,d vFkZ gSA** ¼isij ua0 427 d] ist&90½ "Nigraha means removing or depriving. The Geeta suggests so many meanings of the Nigraha. One of them is to control senses." (English Translation by Court) PW-13 Sri Basant Anant Gadgil (X):
**eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu esa mfYyf[kr **fuxzg** dk vFkZ fujkdj.k gSA fuxzg 'kCn **xzg** 'kCn dk foijhrkFkZd] **xzg** dk vFkZ xzg.k djuk vkSj fuxzg dk vFkZ vLohdkj djukA ihB ds lUnHkZ esa fuxzg dk vFkZ v;ksX; ds LFkku ij ;ksX; dks vf/k"Bkfir fd;k tkuk gSA**¼isij ua0&489d] ist&2880½ "The 'Nigriha' mentioned in Mathanmay Mahanushasan means removal. The word 'Nigriha' is antonym of 'Grih' is to adopt, whereas the meaning of 'Nigriha' is to refuse/reject. In the specific context of Peeth, meaning of Nigriha is to recognize a deserving/eligible person in place of ineligible person." (English Translation by Court) PW-20 Sri C.V. Giridhar Shastri (X):
^^eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu esa mfYyf[kr ^^fuxzg** dk vFkZ fujkdj.k gSA fuxzg 'kCn ^^xzg** 'kCn dk fojhrkFkZd gS] ^^xzg** dk vFkZ xzg.k djuk vkSj fuxzg dk vFkZ vLohdkj djukA ihB ds lUnHkZ esa fuxzg dk vFkZ v;ksX; ds LFkku ij ;ksX; dks vf/k"Bkfir fd;k tkuk gSA** ¼isij ua0&496d] ist&2921½ "The 'Nigrah' mentioned in Mathamnay Mahanushasan means removal. The word 'Nigrih' is antonym of 'Grih'. Meaning of 'Grih' is to adopt, whereas the meaning of 'Nigrih' is to refuse/reject. In the specific context of Peeth, meaning of Nigrih is to recognize a deserving/eligible person in place of ineligible person." (English Translation by Court) DW-8 Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla (XX) ^^iz'u&D;k vki fuxzg dk vFkZ crk ldrs gSa\ mRrj&'kCnuke vusdkvFkZ% yksd 'kCn dk uke Hkh j[krs gSaA uke :<+ 'kCn gksrk gSA blfy, dksbZ t:jh ugha gS fd lgh vFkZ esa iz;qDr gksA fuxzg dk vFkZ fudyuk gksrk gS tSlk fd eSa le>rk gwWaA laLd`r 'kCnkofy;ksa dk izekf.kd 'kCndks"k vejdks"k eq[; gS] gS rks vusd ysfdu vejdks"k eq[; gSA vU;ksa dk uke ml le; Lej.k ugha gSA^^ ¼isij ua0&743 d] ist&340½ "Question: Can you tell the meaning of Nigrah?
Answer: Word-name (Shabdnaam) has multiple meaning. People (Lok) name (sic) words also. Naam is a root term. Hence it is not necessary that it be used in correct meaning. As far as I understand, meaning of Nigrah is to take out. The authentic dictionary of Sanskrit is the AmarKosh Dictionary; there are so many, but AmarKosh is the main. Names of the others are not remembered to me this time." (English Translation by Court) DW-22 Sri Indu Prakash Upadhya (XX) ^^fuxzg 'kCn dk rkRi;Z gS jksduk gksrk gS ;fn dksbZ v;ksX; O;fDr ihB ij vk x;k gks mldk fuxzg djds euh"kh yksx fuxzg dj nsrs gSaA^^ ¼isij ua0&895 d] ist&497½ "The meaning of Nigrah is 'to stop'. If any unqualified person has come in the peeth then Maneeshi (learned people) stop them." (English Translation by Court)
395. PW-4 has specifically admitted that on 12.06.1953, Swamit Shanta Nand Saraswati was installed. Relevant deposition of PW-4 reads as under:
PW-4 Sri Anand Bahadur Singh (X):
^^fo}ku] if.Mr] laU;klhx.k] x`gLFk] egke.Mys'oj o Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh th ds f'k";ksa us jketh f=ikBh mQZ 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh dks vf/k"Bkiu fnukad 12-6-1953 dks djk;k Fkk** ¼isij ua0&427 d] ist&2802&2803½ "Scholars, Pandit, Sanyasis, Grihasth and Mahamandaleswaras and disciples of Swami Brahmnand Sarswati installed Ramji Tripathi alias Shanta Nand Saraswati as Jyotishpeethadhiswar on 12.6.1953." (English Translation by Court) Answer (Fifth Point):
396. We, therefore, find no difficulty in holding that on 12.06.1953 after death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, following nomination made by him vide ''Will' dated 18.12.1952, his first choice, namely, Ramji Tripathi, i.e., Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati was installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 12.06.1953 and we answer the aforesaid point for determination accordingly.
397. The next points for determination which can be considered together are:
(6) Whether Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati was removed (Nigrah) from office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth?
(7) Whether Swami Krishna Bodhashram was installed as Shankaracharya on 25.06.1953 validly, i.e., if there was no person holding the said office so as to give an opportunity of making appointment/installation in the said office on 25.06.1953?
(8) Whether this issue having already been decided by Court in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965, would operate as res judicata and related issues in suit in question would be barred by the said principle in view of decision in Suit No. 36 of 1965?
398. In the alternative, Ninth Point for determination would be "whether judgment dated 15.01.1970 passed by Trial Court in Suit No. 36 of 1965 can be said to have attained finality after dismissal of first appeal having abated due to death of sole defendant-appellant and non substitution of his legal representatives and if so, this question cannot be considered in any subsequent proceeding. In other words, what is the status and effect of abatement of appeal on the judgment of Trial Court dated 15.01.1970 in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 after the appeal was dismissed as abated.
399. In the present case, Trial Court has examined the question of functioning of Swami Krishna Bodhashram from 25.06.1953 to 10.09.1973 and whether suit is barred by principle of res judicata or not, i.e., Issues- 9 and 16. Issue No. 16 with reference to adjudication in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 has been considered by Trial Court on page 107 of judgment (page 235 Volume-I of appellant's paper book) and discussed as under:
^^tgkWa rd okn la[;k 36@1965 Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh cuke Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe o vU; tks fd fu"ks/kkKk dk okn Fkk tks i=koyh ij dkxt la[;k 45lh ds ek/;e~ ls izfroknh dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA mDr okn es oknh o izfroknh i{kdkj ugh Fks vkSj u gh bl ckn ds oknh vFkok izfroknh ds 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB ds gksus ds fy;s visf{kr ;ksX;rk ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ fu.kZ; u rks fd;k gS vkSj u gh bl LkEcU/k esa dksbZ okn foUnq cuk;s x;s gSA "So far as Suit no. 36/1965, Swami Shantanand Saraswati Vs. Swami Krishanbodhashram and others, which was a suit for Injunction, is concerned, it has been placed on record through paper no. 45C on behalf of defendant. In the said Suit, plaintiff and defendant were not parties, nor any decision with respect to eligibility of plaintiff and defendant required for being Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth, has been given nor any issue has been framed in this respect."
^^mijksDr okn foUnqvksa ls Li"V gS fd izLrqr okn 513@1989 esa fo"k;oLrq ;g gS fd D;k oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuUn fnukad 07-12-1973 dks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa vf/k"Bkfir fd;s x;s vkSj ml :i esa dk;Z djrs vk jgs gS fd ugh rFkk D;k izfroknh fnukad 14@15-11-1989 dks T;ksfr"ihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa mDr ihB ij fof/kd :i ls vf/k"Bkfir fd;k x;k gS vkSj mudk vf/k"Bkiu oS/k gS vFkok ughA ;g iz'u okn la[;k 36@1965 esa u Fks vkSj ugh gh mudk fu.kZ; fd;k x;k gSA tks fo"k; oLrq bl okn esa gS og iwoZ okn 36@1965 esa ugh FkhA tgkW rd izfroknh dk dFku gS fd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe }kjk oknh dks fu;qDr fd;k x;k gSA oknh ds okni= dh /kkjk 29] 30] 31 ls Li"V gS fd oknh Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dh chekjh ds nkSjku ihB dk izcU/ku ns[k jgs Fks rFkk Lokeh cks/kkJe }kjk muds uke dks izLrkfor Hkh fd;k x;k Fkk ysfdu 10-09-1973 dks Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dh e`R;q ds ckn T;ksfr"ihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z dh fu;qfDr dk iqu% iz'u mRiUu gqvk vkSj vU; rhu ihB ds 'kadjkpk;ksZ] lU;kfl;ksa] x`gLFkksa] HkDrksa o Hkkjr /keZ egke.My] dk'kh fo}r ifj"kn vkfn us fnukad 07-12-1973 dks oknh dk vf/k"Bkiu vkSj vfHk"ksd 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB ds :i esa fd;kA oknh }kjk vius dks dgha Hkh Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe }kjk fu;qDr ;k vf/k"Bkfir fd;s tkus dk nkok ugh fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh ;g dgk gS fd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe }kjk mUgsa viuk mRrjkf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA blls Li"V gS fd oknh }kjk vius dks Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ds ek/;e~ ls 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB dk nkok ugh fd;k gS cfYd tSls Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh dks Hkkjr /keZ egke.My] vU; rhu ihB ds 'kadjkpk;ksZ dk'kh fo}r ifj"kn o ihB ds vuq;kf;;ksa us vf/k"Bkfir fd;k] iV~VkfHk"ksd fd;k mlh rjg ls mudh Hkh fu;qfDr Hkh eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu ds fu;eksa o ihB dh izFkk ds vuqlkj dh x;hA oknh }kjk vius lk{; 'kFki i= dkxt la[;k 423d dh /kkjk 28 o 29 eas dgk x;k gS fd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dh e`R;q ds ckn fnukad 10-09-1973 dks ihB iqu% fjDr gks x;h D;ksafd Lokeh d`".cks/kkJe viuh ihB ij fdlh dks fu;qDr ugh fd;s FksA blh izdkj oknh ds xokg ih0MCyw0&1 }kjk Hkh vius l'kiFk lk{; dkxt la[;k 425d@4 esa /kkjk 17 o 18 esa Li"V fd;k gS fd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe }kjk viuk mRrjkf/kdkjh fu;qDr ugh fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj ihB fjDr gksus ds dkj.k mijksDRk fo}kuksa }kjk oknh dk vf/k"Bkiu fnukad 07-12-1973 dks fd;k x;kA oknh lk{kh ih0MCyw0&4 }kjk Hkh vius l'kiFk lk{; dkxt la[;k 426d dh /kkjk 7 esa Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe }kjk ukfer u fd;s tkus dk dFku fd;k gS ,oa ih0MCyw0&5 }kjk Hkh vius l'kiFk lk{; dkxt la[;k 427d dh /kkjk 8 esa dgk x;k gS fd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe }kjk viuk mRrjkf/kdkjh ukfer ugh fd;k x;k Fkk rks mijksDr euh"khx.kksa }kjk oknh dks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa euksuhr fd;kA blls Li"V gksrk gS fd fnukad 10-09-1973 dks Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dh e`R;q gksus ds ckn muds }kjk fdlh dh fu;qfDRk vius thou dky esa ugh dh x;h FkhA vr% blh dkj.k fnukad 10-09-1973 ls fnukad 07-12-1973 rd tc rd oknh dk vf/k"Bkiu ugh gqvk ihB 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa fjDr jghA "From the above points, it is clear that in the present suit no. 513/1989, the issue involved is that whether or not the plaintiff Swami Swaroopanand had been installed on 07.12.1973 as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar and he has been discharging his duties in the same capacity; and whether or not the defendant had been legally installed on 14/15.11.1989 as Shankaracharya of the Jyotishpeetha on the said Peetha and his installation is legal or not. These issues were neither under consideration in Suit no. 36/1965 nor have been decided. The issue which is involved in this suit was not under consideration in earlier Suit no. 36/1965. As far as the statement of the defendant is concerned that the plaintiff has been appointed by Swami Krishanbodhashram, from paras 29, 30 and 31 of the plaint of the plaintiff, it is clear that the plaintiff was looking after the affairs of the Peetha during the illness of Swami Krishanbodhashram and his name was also proposed by Swami Krishanbodhashram but after the death of Swami Krishanbodhashram on 10.09.1973, the question of appointment of Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeetha again arose; and Shankaracharyas of other three Peethas, Sanyasis, Grihasthas, devotees, Bharat Dharam Mahamandal, Kashi Vidwat Parishad and others performed plaintiff's installation and Abhishek as Shankaracharya on 07.12.1973. It was never claimed by the plaintiff that his appointment and installation was done by Swami Krishanbodhashram nor has he said that he was appointed as a successor by Swami Krishanbodhashram. From this, it is evident that plaintiff has not claimed himself to be appointed through Swami Krishana bodhashram rather in the manner, Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was installed by Shankaracharyas of other three Peethas, Kashi Vidwat Parishad and Peetha's followers and his Pattabhishek was performed by them, likewise he was also appointed following the rules of Mathamanay and Mahanushasan and tradition of the Peetha. It has been stated by the plaintiff in para 28 and 29 of his testimony on affidavit being paper no. 423Ka that after death of Swami Krishanbodhashram on 10.09.1973, the Peetha again fell vacated because Swami Krishanbodhashram had not appointed anybody on his Peetha. Similarly, it has also been stated by the plaintiff's witness PW-1 in paras 17 and 18 of his testimony on affidavit being paper no. 425Ka/4 that no successor was appointed by Swami Krishanbodhashram and the installation of plaintiff was performed on 07.12.1973 by the aforesaid scholars on account of the Peetha having fallen vacant. Plaintiff's witness PW 4 has in para 7 of his statement on oath being paper no 426 ka stated regarding non-nomination by Swami Krishnabodhashram and PW 5 has in para 8 of his statement on oath, paper no 427 ka, stated that since Swami Krishnabodhashram has nominated none as his successor, the aforesaid learned persons nominated the plaintiff as Jyotispeethadheeshwar. It makes clear that Swami Krishnabodhashram having died on 10.09.1973, no person had been appointed by him in his life time. For this very reason, until the plaintiff was anointed , the Peeth remained vacant from 10.09.1973 to 07.12.1973, without Shankaracharya.
okn la[;k 36@1965 ds fu.kZ; fnukad 15-01-1970 ds fo:) Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe o vU; }kjk vihy dh x;h Fkh vkSj nkSjku vihy gh fnukad 10-09-1981 dks Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dh e`R;q gks x;h Fkh vkSj vihy vcsV gks x;hA tSlk fd izfroknh }kjk izLrqr izi= 302x ds i`"B 11 ij ,usDlpj&8 esa Li"V fd;k x;k gSA ysfdu bl okn esa izfroknh dh vksj ls mDr vihy dh dksbZ lR;kfir izfrfyfi nkf[ky ugha dh x;h gSA mijksDr ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd okn la[;k 36@1965 dk okn Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn }kjk Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe o nks vU; ds fo:) lk/kkj.k fu"ks/kkKk dh okn ;ksftr fd;k Fkk ftlesa ;g vuqrks"k ekaxk x;k Fkk fd izfroknhx.k Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dks 'kadjkpk;Z mn~?kksf"kr u djsa rFkk Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dks 'kadjkpk;Z mn~?kksf"kr djus ls fu"ksf/kr djus gsrq ;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA mDr fu.kZ; O;fDry{;h fu.kZ; gksxk yksdy{;h ugha gksxkA ysfdu vihy ds fu.kZ; ls iwoZ gh fnukad 10-09-1973 dks Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dh e`R;q gks x;hA vr% muds fo:) okn izFke n`"V;k gh (infructuous) fu"Qy gks x;kA D;ksafd ftldks fuf"k) djus gsrq vuqrks"k ekWaxk x;k Fkk og gh nkSjku vihy gh fcuk vihy ds xq.knks"k ds vk/kkj ij fuLrkfjr gq;s e`R;q gks x;hA vr% mDr okn esa Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ds f[kykQ okn dk dkj.k gh lekIr gks x;k ,oe~ mDr okn ds lkjs i{kdkj czg~eyhu gks x;s gSa vr% fu.kZ; O;FkZ ,oe~ izHkkoghu gks x;kA D;ksafd okn la[;k 36@1965 nksuksa i{kksa ds O;fDrxr vf/kdkjksa ds lEcU/k esa Fkk vkSj O;fDrxr vf/kdkj e`R;q ds lkFk gh lekIr gks tkrs gSaA bl okn esa oknh ds vf/kdkj vkSj ;ksX;rkvksa dks ns[kk tkuk gSA /kkjk 11 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk dk izko/kku Li"V djrk gS fd iwoZ okn dh fo"k; oLrq o ik'pkrorhZ okn dh fo"k; oLrq leku gks] leku fo"k;oLrq dk fu.kZ; lkjHkwr :i ls fd;k x;k gks iwoZ ds okn o ik'pkrorhZ okn ds i{kdkj leku gksa vFkok i{kdkj vius iwoZ oknh ;k izfroknh ds ek/;e ls LoRo dk nkok dj jgs gksa] fu.kZ; l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k x;k gks vkSj fu.kZ; vfUre :i ls gqvk gksA tks Hkh O;fDr 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i ea xn~nh (office) dk nkok djrk gS mlh dh O;fDrxr ;ksX;rkvksa vkSj v;ksX;rkvksa dk ijh{k.k fd;k tk ldrk gSA izLrqr okn esa tks okn fcUnq cuk;s x;s gSa og oknh o izfroknh ds T;ksfr"ihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vko';d ;ksX;rkvksa ds /kkjd gSa vFkok ugha gS rFkk dkSu oS/k :i ls vf/k"Bkfir 'kadjkpk;Z gSa] dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkuk gSA fuf'pr :i ls ;g rF; okn la[;k 36@1965 esa ugha FkkA i{kdkj Hkh leku ugha Fks] izfroknh Hkys gh vius vf/kdkjksa dks iwoZ i{kdkj ds ek/;e ls nkok dj jgk gksA ysfdu oknh iwoZ i{kdkj ds ek/;e ls vius vf/kdkjksa dk nkok ugha dj jgk gS vkSj u gh Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe }kjk mUgsa crkSj 'kadjkpk;Z fu;qDr fd;k x;k gSA D;ksafd mudh fu;qfDr rhuksa 'kadjkpk;ksZa rFkk Hkkjr /keZ egke.My] fo}r ifj"kn o vU; }kjk Lora= :i ls dh x;h gS vr% og mUgha ds ek/;e ls t;ksfr"ihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vius vf/kdkjksa dk nkok dj jgs gSaA okn la[;k 36@1965 dk fu.kZ; fnukad 17-01-1970 dks fu.khZr fd;k x;k ftlds fo:) Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe }kjk vihy dh x;hA dkxt la[;k 876x ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn }kjk Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ds LFkku ij oknh Lo:ikuan dks i{kdkj cukrs gq;s o"kZ 1977 esa fu"iknu okn 22@1977 ;ksftr fd;k gS tks fnukad 06-04-1985 dks [kkfjt gks x;k ftldk izi= dkxt la[;k 882x@2 oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA vr% mDr okn dh fu"iknu dk;Zokgh Hkh oknh ds fo:) lQy ugha gq;h vkSj u gh vkt rd mDr okn ds vk/kkj ij mUgsa jksdk x;k gSA blls Hkh Li"V gS fd oknh Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ds ek/;e ls viuk nkok ugh izLrqr fd;k gSA vihy nkf[ky gksus dk Li"V eryc gS fd vHkh okn dh iqu% lquok;h gksxhA blh dkj.k vihy okn tkjh (Continuation of suit) gksuk gksrk gS vFkkZr~ okn dk foLrkj jgrk gS rFkk vihy esa tks vkns'k gksrk gS mlesa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; lekfgr ¼Merged½ gks tkrk gSA tSlk fd xksiky yky cuke Jherh vUukckbZ o vU; ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1998 jktLFkku ist 300 esa dgk x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr fnukad 28-02-1980 dks R;kxi= nsus ds ckn Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh dks crkSj 'kadjkpk;Z eqdnek yM+us dk Hkh dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha jg x;k Fkk vkSj u gh Lokeh fo".kwnsokuUn vihy o"kZ 1981 esa vcsV gksus rd mlds i{kdkj cusA An appeal was filed against the order dated 15.01.1970 passed in Suit no 36/1965 by Swami Krishnabodhashram and others, and during the pendency of the appeal Swami Krishnabodhashram died on 10.09.1981 with the result the appeal abated, as clarified in annexure 8 of page 11 of paper 302C filed on behalf of the defendant. But in this case, no certified copy of the aforesaid appeal has been filed on behalf of defendant. It is clear from perusal of the aforesaid that an injunction suit no 36/1965 was filed by Swami Shantanand against Swami Krishnabodhashram and two others, seeking the relief of injunction that defendants should not declare Swami Krishnabodhashram as Shankaracharya and also for restraining the defendants not to declare Swami Krishnabodhashram as Shankaracharya. The aforesaid decision would be personified, not in the public interest. But prior to the decision of appeal, Swami Krishnabodhashram died on 10.09.1973. Hence, the case against him prima-facie rendered infructuous because the person against whom relief of injunction was sought, had died prior to the disposal of the suit on merits. Hence, in the aforesaid case, cause of action itself ended and all parties to the suit have died; hence, the decision has become non est. Suit no 36/1965 was in respect of rights of both the parties and individual rights come to an end with the happening of death. In this case, plaintiff's rights and qualifications have to be examined. Provision of Section 11 C.P.C. clearly provides that if the facts of the earlier case and the latter one are similar, the similar issues have substantially been decided, the parties of earlier and latter case are same and the parties are claiming title through the plaintiff or defendant, decision is rendered finally by the competent Court. Qualifications and disqualifications can be examined only of the person staking claim for the office of Shankaracharya. Issue framed in this case, as to whether or not the plaintiff and the defendant possess essential qualifications for installation as Shankaracharya of Jyotispeeth and as to who is the legally anointed Shankaracharya, has to be decided. Certainly, this fact was not there in Case no 36/1965. Parties were also not same. Though, the defendant may be claiming his rights through earlier party (the parties of the earlier case). But the plaintiff is not claiming his rights through earlier party nor has he been appointed as Shankaracharya by Swami Krishnabodhashram, because his appointment was made independently by other three Shankaracharyas, Bharat Dharm Mahamandal, Vidwat Parishad and others. Hence, he is claiming his right as Shankaracharya of the Jyotispeeth through them. Suit no 36/1965 was decided on 17.01.1970 against which an appeal was preferred by Swami Krishnabodhashram. It is clear from a perusal of paper no 876 Ga that Execution Case no 22/1977 has been instituted by Swami Shantanand in the year 1977, by substituting Swami Krishnabodhashram with plaintiff Swaroopanand, which was dismissed on 06.04.1985, paper in respect whereof has been filed as Paper No. 882 Ga/2 on behalf of the plaintiff. Hence, the execution in the aforesaid suit against the plaintiff did not succeed nor has he ever been restrained on the ground of the said case. It also makes it clear that the plaintiff has not filed the suit through Swami Krishnabodhashram. Filing of appeal clearly indicates that the case is still to be heard. For this very reason, it amounts to continuation of suit, i.e. the case gets extended and order of the subordinate Court, is merged in the order passed in passed in appeal as laid down at Page 300 of the case of Gopal Lal versus Smt Anna Bai and others A.I.R. 1998. Besides it, Swami Shantanand Saraswati after tendering his resignation on 28.02.1980 was left with no right to contest a litigation in the capacity of the Shankaracharya nor did Swami Vishnudevanand become its party until 1981, the year when the appeal stood abated.
fof/k O;oLFkk equh'k dqekj vfXugks=h o vU; cuke yYyh izlkn xqIrk ,vkbZvkj 1989 bykgkckn 202 esa Hkh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn i{kdkj iwoZ orhZ okn esa i{kdkj ugha gS vkSj u gh iwoZorhZ okn ds i{kdkjksa ds ek/;e ls viuk nkok dj jgk gS rks izkax U;k; dk fl)kUr ykxw ugha gksxkA fof/k O;oLFkk LVsV vkQ egkjk"V~ cuke us'kuy dkULV~d'ku dEiuh ckEcs ,vkbZvkj 1996 lqizhedksVZ 2367 esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd okn ;k vihy ;fn rduhfd dkj.kksa ls [kkfjt gksrs gSa rks og dksbZ fu.kZ; ugha gSA 3 ,lh,l gSnjkckn cuke E;wfufliy dkjiksjs'ku gSnjkckn ,vkbZvkj 1995 vkU/kz izns'k 17] Mk;jsDVj lsUV~y eSjhu f'kjht fjlpZ bULVhV~;wV cuke , dukdu o vU; 2009 ¼17½ lqizhe dksVZ dslst ist 253] ,u Jh dkUrk, mQZ ,e0,u0 Jh dkUrk, cuke ,e0,u0 efYydktqZukgs ,vkbZvkj 1996 dukZVd 193] vYdk xqIrk cuke ujsUnz dqekj xqIrk ,vkbZvkj 2011 lqizhe dksVZ ist 9 vkfn fof/kd uthjksa esa Hkh izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd okn dk dkj.k fHkUu gksus rFkk u;k okn dkj.k gksus ij izkax U;k; dk fl)kUr ykxw ugha gksrk gSA It has also made clear by the Hon'ble High Court in the authority laid down in Muneesh Kumar Agnihotri and others versus Lalli Prasad Gupta AIR 1989 Allahabad 202 that if the parties are not parties to earlier case nor are they claiming through the parties of the earlier case, in such a situation, principle of res judicata shall not apply. It was laid down in the case of State of Maharashtra versus National Construction Company, Bombay, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2367, that if the case or appeal is dismissed on technical grounds, it is no decision at all. It has been laid down in the cases of 3 ACS Hyderabad versus Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, AIR 1995 Andhra Pradesh 17, Director Central Marine Series Research Institute versus A Kanakan and others 2009 (17) Supreme Court Cases Page 253; N. Shree Kantae alias M.N. Sh. Kantae versus M.N. Mallikarjunahe AIR 1996 Karnataka 193 and Alka Gupta versus Narendra Kumar Gupta AIR 2011 Supreme Court Page 9, in all legal authorities, it has been laid down that cause of action being different, principle of res judicata is not applicable."
vr% mijksDr fof/kd O;oLFkkvksa ds izdk'k esa ;g Li"V gS fd okn la[;k 36@1965 esa okn dkj.k o"kZ 1965 dk Fkk tc fd izLrqr okn esa okn dkj.k fnukad 7@8 uoEcj o 14@15 uoEcj 1989 dk gS vFkkZr nksuksa ds okn dkj.k fHkUu gSaA i'pkr~orhZ okn dkj.k u;k okn dkj.k gSA okn lk/kkj.k fu"ks/kkKk okn gS] nksuksa okn ds i{kdkj Hkh vyx vyx gSa] nksuksa oknksa dh fo"k;oLrq vyx gS rFkk nksauksa oknksa esa vyx&vyx O;fDr;ksa dh ;ksX;rk o vf/k"Bkiu ds U;k; fu.kZ; dk fo"k; fufgr gS rFkk tks okn fcUnq cuk;s x;s og Hkh vyx gSaA vr% izfroknh dh vksj ls izLrqr fof/kd uthj ikf.Mpsjh [kknh ,.M foyst bUMLV~ht cksMZ cuke ih dqyksFkaxk 2004 bykgkckn lhts 712 lqizhedksVZ] yky pUnz cuke jk/kkfd'ku ,vkbZvkj 1977 lqizhe dksVZ ist 10 o 11 ds0ds0 LokehukFku cuke Jhfuoklkxe ,y,MCyw,l ¼,eMh½ 2003&10&54 bl okn ds rF; ,oe~ ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k bl okn ij ykxw ugha gksrh gSA O;fDrxr vf/kdkjksa ls lEcfU/kr okn esa O;fDrxr vf/kdkj ,oa ,D'ku i{kdkj dh e`R;q ds lkFk gh lekIr gks tkrs gSaA tSlk fd ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk lbZn rkfgj lSQqn~nhu cuke ckEcs jkT; ,vkbZvkj 1953 lqizhe dksVZ ist 253 esa izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gSA Hence, in the light of aforesaid authorities, it is clear that, the cause of action in case no 36/1965 existed in the year 1965, while in the instant case, cause of action arose on 7/8 November and 14/15 November 1989, that is to say, the cause of action in both the cases is different. The cause of action in latter case is a fresh cause of action. This is a case of simple injunction. Parties of both the cases are different, facts of both cases are different and issues related to qualifications of different persons and issues for determination of eligibility and installation of different persons in the two suits are differently involved and the issues that are framed, too are different. Hence the authorities, cited on behalf of defendant, i.e. Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board versus P. Kulothanga 2004 Allahabad CJ 712 Supreme Court, Lal Chandra versus Radha Kishan AIR 1977 Supreme Court Page 10 and 11 K.K. Swaminathan versus Shriniwasam LAWS (MD) 2003-10-54, are not applicable to the facts of this case, on account of its facts and circumstances being different. The matter pertaining to individual rights and action become infructuous after death of the parties, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saeed Tahir Saifuddin versus State of Bombay AIR 1953 Supreme Court Page 253.
vr% okn ds rF; ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oe~ i=koyh ij miyc/k lk{;ksa ds vk/kkj ij U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWaprh gS fd oknh dk okn iazkx U;k; ds fl)kUr ls ckf/kr ugha gSA Hence, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on records, the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff's case is not barred by the principle of res judicata.
vr% bl okn fcUnq dk fuLrkj.k Hkh oknh ds i{k esa o izfroknh ds fo:) fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA** Hence, this issue stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
(English Translation by Court)
400. It is interesting to notice that though issue of res judicata with reference to adjudication in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 has been decided against appellant and in favour of plaintiff, but in regard to the 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 Trial Court has observed that in all the preceding adjudications, issue of 'Will' has been decided holding that 'Will' was properly executed and in the present case also Trial Court did not record any finding otherwise in respect of such 'Will'. To this effect, findings of Trial Court in the present case at internal page-150 of judgment (Page 274, Volume-I of appellant's paper book) read as under:
^^rnksijkUr Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn }kjk ,d okn 36@65 Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn cuke~ Lokeh d`".k cks/kkJe fu"ks/kkKk dk ;ksftr fd;k x;k ftldh fLFkfr okn fcUnq la[;k 16 esa Li"V dj nh x;h gSA mDr okn esa Hkh olh;r fnukad 18-11-52 dks oS/k ekuk rFkk Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn dk vf/k"Bkiu Hkh oS/k ekuk rFkk fu"ks/kkKk okn izfroknh Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ds fo:) bu vk/kkj ij fu.khZr fd;k x;k fd fnukad 25-06-1953 dks mudks Lokeh d`".k cks/kkJe dk vf/k"Bkiu rks gqvk Fkk ysfdu ihB fnukad 25-06-1953 dks fjDr ugha Fkh rFkk Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe Lokeh c`EgkuUn ds f'k"; ugha Fks rFkk f'k"; ds jgrs ckgjh O;fDr dks iafMr lHkk vf/k"Bkfir ugha dj ldrh rFkk okLrfod :i ls gVk;s tkus rd Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn in ij cus jgsxsaA "Thereafter, a Suit-36/65, (Swami Shantanand Vs Swami Krishna Bodhasharam), for injunction, was filed by Swami Shantanand, the status of which has been made clear in Issue no.-16. In that case too, Will executed on 18.11.52 was held valid and installation of Swami Shantanand was also held to be legal and suit for injunction was decided against defendant Swami Krishnabodhashram on the ground, that when Swami Krishnabodhasharm was installed on 25.06.1953, the Peeth (Seat) was not vacant on 25/06/53 and Swami Krishnabodhasharam was not disciple of Swami Brahmanand and assembly of Pandit can not install any outsider, if a disciple is already available and it is also that Swami Shantanand will continue to hold the office until his actual removal.
mijksDr rhuksa fu.kZ;ksa ls ;g Li"V gS fd olh;r fnukad 18-12-52 fof/kd :i ls fuLrkfjr gq;h gS rFkk Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn dks laLd`r dk Kku ugha FkkA D;ksa fd okn la[;k 36@65 esa Hkh laLd`r ds Kku ds lEcU/k esa U;k;ky; dk dksbZ Li"V fu"d"kZ ugha gS cfYd muds }kjk xq: ij NksM+k x;k gSA It is evident from the aforesaid three decisions that Will dated 18.12.52 has legally been executed and Swami Shantanand had no knowledge of Sanskrit language. Because there is no specific finding of the Court in Suit no. 36/65 regarding knowledge of Sanskrit language, rather it was left by him on his Guru.
oknh }kjk bl okn esa Hkh olh;r fnukad 18-12-52 dks pqukSrh nh gS tc fd U;k;ky; bl okn esa bl ij fu.kZ; nsuk mfpr ugha le>rh gS vkSj u gh 1952 dh olh;r dks bl okn esa pqukSrh nh tk ldrh gS vkSj u gh bl okn esa ;g ns[kk tk ldrk gS fd Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn dks laLd`r dk Kku Fkk fd ughaA** Will dated 18.12.52 has been challenged by the Plaintiff in this case also, whereas the Court does not deem it proper to give a finding on it, in this case nor the Will of 1952 can be challenged in this suit, nor it can be considered in this suit whether Swami Shantanand had knowledge of Sanskrit or not." (English translation by Court)
401. Trial Court, we find, has proceeded in a very strange manner. It has not held 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 ingenuine or having not been executed by Testator, i.e., Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. On the contrary, findings recorded in respect of 'Will' in earlier litigation has been left untouched. The result would be that for the purpose of present suit, 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 has to be treated, a valid 'Will' having all legal consequences. Court below has also observed that in the present case it cannot be examined, whether Swami Shantanand had knowledge of Sanskrit or not. That being so, it was not open to Trial Court to proceed further to assume or presume or to treat something already settled regarding knowledge of Sanskrit of Swami Shantanand so as to proceed with the assumption that Swami Shantanand was not qualified to hold the seat of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth and, therefore, seat must be deemed to be vacant. This is a contradictory finding recorded by Trial Court. Once it has held that it cannot examine, whether Swami Shantanand Saraswati possessed knowledge of Sanskrit or not, it had no authority to proceed further on this aspect. Unfortunately we find that in order to bring in and make installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram valid, there was no other way and hence Trial Court despite observing that it cannot examine the question, whether Swami Shantanand possessed knowledge of Sanskrit or not, still proceeded to hold that he did not have such knowledge and, therefore, was removed from the seat of Shankaracharya by congregation of Manishigans. Aforesaid finding has been recorded by Trial Court at internal pages 151 to 153 (Page 275 to 277 Vol-I, Appellant's Paper Book) and we may reproduce the above contradictory and illegal finding recorded by Trial Court as under:
^^Lokeh czg~ekuUn dh e`R;q fnukad 20-05-53 ds dkQh fnukas rd ;g Hkh irk ugh Fkk fd dkSu O;fDr 'akdjkpk;Z gksxkA lEHkor% blfy;s vUrfje desVh dk xBu fd;k x;k ftlds v/;{k orZeku okn ds oknh FksA tc bykgkckn ls ykdj olh;r [kksyh x;h rks Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn dk uke izFke dze esa izdk'k esa vk;kA okn la[;k 3@54 o 36@65 ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd mUgsa laLd`r dk Kku ugh FkkA okn la[;k 36@65 ds voyksdu ls Hkh mUgsa laLd`r dk Kku Fkk bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ fu"d"kZ ugh gSA Hkys gh oknh ds xokg ih0MCyw0&4] ih0MCyw0&5 o ih0MCyw0&33 us Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn dks laLd`r dk Kku u gksus ds lEcU/k esa xokgh nh gS rFkk izfroknh ds xokg Mh0MCyw0&3 Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh }kjk vius l'kiFk lk{; ds ist 41 ij Mh0MCyw0&4 Jh jaxukFk nqcs }kjk vius l'kiFk lk{; ds ist 5 ij] Mh0MCyw0&32 Lokeh ;ksX;'ojkuUn fxjh }kjk vius l'kiFk lk{; ds ist 13 ij] Mh0MCyw0&38 Lokeh egUr euksgj iqjh }kjk vius l'kiFk lk{; ds ist 7 ij] Mh0MCyw0&22 Jh bUnw izdk'k mik/;k; us vius l'kiFk lk{; ds ist 10 ij 'kadjkpk;Z ds fy;s laLd`r dk Kku gksuk vko';d crk;k gSA ysfdu U;k;ky; dks bl Lrj ij ;g fu.khZr ugh djuk gS fd Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn dks laLd`r dk Kku gS ;k ughA ysfdu okn la[;k 3@54 o okn la[;k 36@65 ls vo/kkj.kk yh tk ldrh gS fd mUgsa laLd`r dk Kku ugh FkkA ;gh dkj.k gS fd fo}kuksa euh"khx.k us eBkEuk; egkuq'kklue~ ds izko/kkuksa ds v/khu mudk fuxzg dj Lokeh d`".k cks/kkJe dks 'kadjkpk;Z ds in ij vklhu djk;kA vU;Fkk vkSj dksbZ dkj.k Lokeh d`".k cks/kkJe dks vf/k"Bkfir djus dk ugh FkkA okn la[;k 3@54 o okn la[;k 36@65 esa Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dk vf/k"Bkiu fnukad 25-06-53 dks ekuk x;k gSA okn la[;k 36@65 esa Hkh vf/k"Bkiu fnukad 25-06-53 dks rks ekuk x;k ysfdu 'kadjkpk;Z dk in fjDr u gksus ds dkj.k mls oS/k ugh ekuk x;kA mDr vkns'k dh vihy ;ksftr gq;h D;ksafd fof/k vuqlkj vihy okn dk tkjh ¼Appeal is the continuation of suit½ jguk gksrk gS rFkk vihy dk vf/kdkj dkuwuh vf/kdkj gS ftlesa okn dh iqu% lquok;h dh tkrh gS ftlesa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dks [kkfjt Hkh fd;k tk ldrk gS rFkk mldh iqf"V Hkh gks ldrh gS rFkk mls iqu% lquok;h gsrq v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds ikl Hkstk Hkh tk ldrk gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns'k vihy ds nkSjku gh vfUre ugh gks tkrk gS cfYd vihy dk fuLrkj.k xq.k nks"k ds vk/kkj ij gkus dh fLFkr esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns'k vihy esa lekfgr gks tkrk gS vkSj vihy esa ikfjr vkns'k vfUre gksrk gSA okn la[;k 3@54 esa Hkh ikfjr vkns'k dh vihy ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa 385@62 ;ksftr dh x;h tks 11-09-73 dks fu.khZr gq;hA tc fd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dh e`R;q fnukad 10-09-73 dks gh gks pqdh FkhA blls Hkh Li"V gksrk gS fd mDr vihy Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dh e`R;q rd yfEcr Fkh vkSj dksbZ Hkh vkns'k czg~eyhu gksus ds fnukad rd vfUre ugh FkkA okn la[;k 36@65 dk fu.kZ; 01-09-70 esa ikfjr fd;k x;k ftldh vihy ;ksftr dh x;hA fof/k vuqlkj vihy okn dk tkjh ¼Appeal is the continuation of suit½ jguk gksrk gSA mDRk vihy 29-08-81 rd yfEcr jgh tks izfroknh ds izi= 302 ds vuqlkj Lokeh d`".k cks/kkJe ds czg~eyhu gksus ds dkj.k vcsV gq;hA blls Li"V gksrk gS fd tc rd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe thfor jgs mDr vihy dk fujLrkj.k ugh gqvk Fkk vkSj og yfEcr FkhA "Many days after demise of Swami Brahmannand on 20.05.1953, it was not known as to who would be Shankaracharya. Hence, probably, it was the reason that an Interim Committee was constituted, President whereof was the present plaintiff of the suit. When the will was opened on being brought from Allahabad, the name of Swami Shantanand came into light figuring at the top of the list. From perusal of suits no. 3/54 and 36/65, it is clear that he had no knowledge of Sanskrit language. On perusal of suit no. 36/65 also, no conclusion can be drawn with respect to his knowledge of Sanskrit. Although, the witnesses of the plaintiff, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-33 have deposed about lack of knowledgable of Sanskrit language of Swami Shantanand, and the witnesses of defendant, DW-3 Swami Vasudevanand Sarswati in his oral testimony, at page number 41, DW-4 Shri Rangnath Dubey in his oral testimony at page number 5, DW-32 Swami Yogeshwaranand in his statement on oath at page number 13, DW-38 Swami Mahant Manohar Puri in his statement on oath at page number 7, DW-22 Shri Indu Prakash Jaiswal in his evidence on oath at page number 10, have stated that knowledge of Sanskrit is a must for Shankaracharya. But the Court is not to decide at this stage as to whether Swami Shantananad Sarswati had the knowledge of Sanskrit or not; but from Suits no. 3/54 and 36/65, one can draw inference that he had no knowledge of Sanskrit language. It was the reason why the learned seers while doing his Nigrah (restraint) as ordained by 'Mathamanay Mahanushasan', had made to install Krishnabodhashram to hold the office of Shankaracharya. Otherwise, there was no reason to install Swami Krishnabodhashram. In suits no. 3/54 and 36/65, the date of enthronement of Krishnabodhashram is taken to be 25.06.1953. In suit no. 36/65, date of enthronement as Shankaracharya was taken to be 25.06.1953, but his enthronement on the seat was not held valid as the seat of Shanakaracharya was not vacant. On the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed; because according to law, an appeal is continuation of the suit; and right to appeal is a legal right in which, suit is heard again, wherein the order of subordinate Court can be upheld or set aside or remanded to the subordinate Court for rehearing. The order of the subordinate Court during pendency of appeal is not final; rather, in case of disposal of the appeal on merits and demerits, order of the subordinate Court merges into appellate order and the order passed in the appeal is the final one. Challenging the order passed in Suit no. 3/54, Appeal no. 385/62 was filed in the Hon'ble High Court, which was decided on 11.09.1973, whereas Swami Krishnabodhashram had died on 10.09.1973. From this, it is clear that it was pending till the demise of Swami Krishnabodhashram and there was no final order until his being Brahmleen (left for heavenly abode). Suit no. 36/65 was decided on 01.09.1970, challenging which appeal was filed. According to law, appeal is the continuation of suit. The said appeal, remained pending till 29.08.1981, which according to paper no. 302 of the defendant got abated on account of Krishnabodhashram having died. From this, it is clear that the said appeal was not disposed of and remained pending till Swami Krishnabodhashram was alive."
Hkys gh Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dh e`R;q rd okn la[;k 36@65 esa ifkjr fu.kZ; dh vihy yfEcr Fkh vkSj mDr v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; vfUre ugh gqvk Fkk ysfdu v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk okn foUnq la[;k 5 o 7] 8 ds fuLrkj.k esa fu"d"kZ nsrs gq;s Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dks Lokeh czg~ekuUn dk f'k"; ugh ekuk Fkk rFkkk mUgsa ckgjh O;fDRk crk;k Fkk rFkk ;g Hkh fu"d"kZ ns fn;k Fkk fd f'k"; ds jgrs if.Mr lHkk ckgjh O;fDRk dks ukfer ugh dj ldrh gS rFkk Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn dks muds okLrfod inP;qr ¼Actual removel½ rd in ij jgus dk fu"d"kZ fn;k FkkA bl ckr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s D;ksafd fo}kuksa }kjk Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn dk fuxzg igys gh fd;k tk pqdk Fkk blfy;s czg~ekUkUn ds ofj"B f'k";ksa esa ls Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh dks 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB ds in ij vf/k"Bkfir djk fn;k x;kA tgkW rd okLrfod inP;qr ¼Actual removel½ dk iz'u gS fdlh Hkh eBk/kh'k@VªLVh dks gVkus ds nks gh rjhds gSa ;fn mDr VªLVh }kjk /kkjk 92 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr VªLV dh lEifRr dk nqfoZfu;ksx rFkk dqiz'kklu dk dk;Z fd;k gS rks mlds fo:) /kkjk 92 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr inP;qr djus gsrq okn yk;k tk ldrk gSA ysfdu ;fn 'akdjkpk;Z dh v;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij mls gVkuk gS rks eBkEuk; egkuq'kklue~ tSlk fd okn foUnq la[;k 2] 3] 4 esa fu"d"kZ fn;k tk pqdk gS euh"khx.k }kjk fuxzg djds ;ksX; dks vf/k"Bkfir dj fn;k tk;sxkA blds fy;s dksbZ vuq"Bku dh vko';drk ugh gSA ;fn fo}kuksa }kjk ;ksX; 'kadjkpk;Z dks vf/k"Bkfir dj fn;k x;k rks og iwoZ LFkkfir v;ksX; 'kadjkpk;Z dk fuxzg gksxk] mldk in~P;qr gksxkA okn la[;k 36@65 esa Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn dk vf/k"Bkiu oS/k ekuk x;k rFkk muds inP;qr gksus rd muds in ij cus jgus dk fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k rFkk mijksDr okn esa izfroknhx.k dk vf/k"Bkiu rks ekuk x;k ysfdu eq[;r% rhu dkj.k ls vf/k"Bkiu voS/k ekukA 1&og Lokeh czg~ekuUn ds f'k"; ugha Fks] 2&xq: f'k"; ijEijk ds vuqlkj psyk gh 'kadjkpk;Z cu ldrk gS] 3&iafMr lHkk f'k"; ds jgrs ckgjh O;fDr dks vf/k"Bkkfir ugh dj ldrhA tSlk fd okn la[;k 36@65 ds okn foUnq la[;k 5] 7 o 8 ds fu"d"kZ ls Li"V gsA mDr fu.kZ; esa fn;s x;s fu"d"kZ ds izdk'k esa tc fd 07-12-1973 rd mDr fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihy yfEcr Fkh rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns'k vfUre ugh Fkk] eBkEuk; egkuq'kklue~ esa nh x;h 'kfDr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fo}kuksa }kjk tSlk fd bl okn ds okn foUnq la[;k 2] 3] 4 esa fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS Lokeh Lo:ikuUn dks 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vf/k"Bkfir fd;k D;ksfd os Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh ds ofj"B f'k"; Fks blls xq: f'k"; ijEijk dks Hkh ekU;rk nh x;h rFkk Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLOkrh ds vf/k"Bkiu ds lkFk gh Lokeh 'kkUrkUkUn ljLorh dk Lor% gh fuxzg@inP;qr gks x;kA^^ Despite the fact that appeal against the order passed in the suit no. 36/65 was pending till death of Swami Krishnabodhashram; and the decision of Court below had not become final. But the Court below, while deciding Issues no.5, 7 and 8, had not held Swami Krishnabodhashram as a disciple of Swami Shri Brahmanand Sarswati, and had held him as an outsider. The Court had also given the finding that in the event of the avaialibility of a disciple, Assembly of Pandits (Pandit Sabha) cannot nominate an outsider and also recorded the finding for continuance of Swami Shantanand to hold the office, till his actual removal. Considering this aspect, since Nigrah (abandonment) of Swami Shantanand had already been done by learned scholars, Swami Swaroopanand Sarswati who was senior disciple of Swami Brahmanand was enthroned on the seat of Shankaracharya of Jytotispeetha. As far as actual removal is considered, there are two methods for removal of a Mathadheesh/Trustee; if property of trust has been misappropriated and mismanaged, a suit can be brought against him for his removal under section 92 CPC. But if a Shankaracharya has to be removed on the ground of his disqualification, as held in the finding recorded on issues 2, 3 and 4, the eligible one shall be installed by the learned scholars after abandoning him in the manner as stipulated in Mathamaanay Mahanushasan. For this, there is no requirement of performance of any ritual. If a qualified Shankaracharya is enthroned by the learned persons, it will be abandonment/restriction of the disqualified Shankaracharya, and it will amount to his removal from the office. In suit no. 36 of 1965, finding was given that that the installation of Swami Shantanand was valid and he was allowed to continue at the seat till his removal, and in the aforesaid suit, the installation of the defendant though accepted, but it was termed invalid for three reasons, which are: (i) He was not a disciple of Swami Brahmanand Sarswati, (ii) As per the master-disciple tradition, only a disciple can become a Shankaracharya, (iii) Council of learned scholars cannot enthrone any outsider if a disciple is available, as is clear from the findings on issues 5, 7 and 8 in the suit no. 36 of 1965. In the light of findings recorded in the aforesaid decision, when the appeal was pending till 07.12.1973 against the said decision, and the order of Court below had not become final, as concluded while recording findings on Issues no. 2, 3 and 4, Swami Swaroopanand was installed as Shankaracharya by learned Scholars, exercising the powers conferred by Mathamanay and Mahanushasan, because he was senior disciple of Swami Brahmanand Sarswati, thereby recognising Master-disciple tradition and the installation of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati automatically resulted in abandonment/ restriction (Nigrah)/ dethronement of Swami Shantanand Saraswati." (English Translation by Court)
402. Again for the purpose of answering Issue-9 with regard to the functioning of Swami Krishna Bodhashram from 25.06.1953 to 10.09.1973, Court below has merely proceeded to hold that since he actually functioned as Shankaracharya and therefore, has answered the said issue in favour of the plaintiff though the legal consequence of judgment dated 15.01.1970 in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965, in our view, could not have been ignored by Court below. The findings of the Trial Court in respect to Issue-9 at internal page 208 to 211, reads as under:-
^^fuLrkj.k okn foUnq la[;k 9%& okn foUnq la[;k 9&D;k Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe fnukad 25-6-1953 ls 10-09-73 rd cfnzdkJe ds 'kadjkpk;Z jgs\ Disposal of issue number-9:-
Issue no. 9:-Whether Swami Krishnabodhashram had been Shankaracharya of Badrikashram from 25.6.1953 to 10.09.73 ?
oknh dh vksj ls dgk x;k gS fd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh fnukad 25-06-1953 ls fnukad 10-09-1973 rd cfnzdkJe ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa jgsA D;ksafd Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh dk fnukad 12-06-1953 dks vf/k"Bkiu ds ckn gh rhuksa ihBksa ds 'kadjkpk;Z] fo}kuksa }kjk laLd`r dk Kku u gksus o 'kadjkpk;Z in ds v;ksX; gksus ds dkj.k mudk fuxzg fd;k x;k rFkk Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh dks 25-06-53 dks T;ksfrZeB cfnzdkJe ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vf/k"Bkfir fd;k x;kA tcfd izfroknh dh vksj ls dgk x;k gS fd mijksDr okn foUnq okn la[;k 36@1965 esa fu.khZr gks pqdk gSA Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh dHkh Hkh fof/kd :i ls vf/k"Bkfir 'kadjkpk;Z ugh Fks vkSj u gh T;ksfr"ihB dh lEifRr;ksa dk v/;klu mUgsa izkIr Fkk vkSj u gh mUgksusa 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vius e`R;q fnukad 10-09-1973 rd dk;Z fd;kA It has been said on behalf of the plaintiff that Swami Krishnabodhashram Sarswati had been Shankaracharya of Badrikashram from 25.06.1953 to 10.09.1973. Because soon after installation of Swami Shantanand Sarswati on 12.06.1953, he was abandoned/restricted by Shankaracharys of three Peethas and scholars on account of his lack of knowledge of Sanskrit and being ineligible for the office of Shankaracharya, and Swami Krishnabodhashram Sarswati was installed as Shankaracharya of Jotirmath Badrikashram on 25.6.1953. Whereas, it has been pleaded on behalf of the defendant that the aforesaid issue has been decided in Suit No. 36/1965. Swami Krishnabodhashram was never legally installed Shankaracharya, nor he was in possession of the properties of Jotishpeeth, nor he functioned as Shankaracharya till his death dated 10.09.1973, tSlk fd igys Li"V dj fn;k x;k gS fd mijksDRk okn la[;k 3@1954 esa Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh dks laLd`r dk Kku u gksus rFkk vko';d ;ksX;rk;sa u j[kus rFkk mUgsa VªLVh Mh 'kku VkVZ dk fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k Fkk rFkkk mijksDr okn la[;k 36@1965 esa Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh ds laLd`r dk Kku gksus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ fu"d"kZ ugh fn;k x;k FkkA As it has already been made clear that in the aforesaid Suit no. 3/1954, Swami Shantanand Sarswati was declared as trustee de son tort because of lack of knowledge of Sanskrit and not possessing essential qualifications, and in the aforesaid Suit No.36/1965, no finding had been made given with regard to Sanskrit knowledge of Swami Shantanand.
izLrqr okn esa Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh ;k Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh dh ;ksX;rkvksa dks ugha ns[kk tkuk gSA ysfdu okn esa Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ds 'kadjkpk;Z gksus rFkk oknh dks ukfer fd;s tkus dk okn foUnq cuk gSA vr% vo/kkj.kk yh tk ldrh gS fd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh dks fnukad 25-06-1953 dks T;ksfrZeB ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vf/k"Bkfir djus ds ihNs D;k dkj.k Fks rFkk fo}kuksa }kjk Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh tks fd izfroknh ds vuqlkj ihB ds f'k"; Hkh ugh Fks flQZ ;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij D;ksa vf/k"Bkfir fd;k x;kA In the present suit, qualifications of Swami Shantanand Saraswati or Swami Krishnabodhashram Saraswati are not to be adjudicated. But in the suit, an issue has been framed with respect to Swami Krishnabodhashram being Shankaracharya and the plaintiff being nominated. Therefore, it can be perceived as to what were the reasons for installing Swami Krishnabodhashram Saraswati as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath on 25.06.1953, and why Swami Krishnabodhashram Saraswati, who according to the defendant was not even a disciple of peeth, was installed by scholars on the basis of qualification only.
tgkW rd ;ksX;rk dk iz'u gS] ;ksX;rk eBkEuk; egkuq'kklue~ ds vuqlkj Hkh vko';d gS] U;kl i= 1941 esa Hkh ;ksX;rk dks fo'ks"k egRo fn;k x;k gSA Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh dh olh;r fnukad 18-12-52 esa Hkh ;ksX;rk dks fo'ks"k egRo fn;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr okn la[;k 3@1954 o okn la[;k 36@1965 esa Hkh ;ksX;rk dks fo'ks"k egRo fn;k x;k gSA Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh dh ;ksX;rk dks Lo;a izfroknh }kjk vius l'kiFk lk{; Mh0MCyw0&3 esa Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS rFkk Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dks laLd`r dk fo}ku] R;kxh] riLoh ,oa ljy lar dgk x;k gSA So far as qualification is concerned, qualification is essential even according to Mathamnaya Mahanushasnam. Qualification has been given special significance in Trust Deed of 1941. Qualification has been given special importance in the Will of Brahmanand Saraswati dated 18.12.52 also. In addition to it, special importance has been given to qualification in Suits No. 3/1954 and 36/1965. Qualification of Swami Krishnabodhashram Saraswati has been admitted by the defendant in his deposition as D.W.- 3, and Swami Krishnabodhashram has been admitted as a scholar of sanskrit, hermit, ascetic and a simple saint.
tgkW rd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh ds T;ksfr"ihB ij 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vf/k"Bkiu dk iz'u gS okn la[;k 3@1954 esa Hkys gh Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh i{kdkj ugh Fks ysfdu muds vf/k"Bkiu dks ekuk x;k gS RkFkk bl okn esa Hkh mlls vf/k"Bkiu gksus ds lEcU/k esa vo/kkj.kk yh tk ldrh gSA okn la[;k 36@1965 esa Hkh Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh dk 25-06-1953 dks vf/k"Bkiu ekuk x;k gSA Hkys gh in fjDr u gksus ds dkj.k muds vf/k"Bkiu dks oS/k ugh ekuus dk fu"d"kZ fn;k Fkk] ftlds fo:) Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh }kjk vihy dh x;hA nkSjku vihy okn la[;k 36@1965 eas U;k;ky; }kjk fudkys x;s fu"d"kZ dks vfUre ugh ekuk tk ldrkA D;ksafd vihy okn dk tkjh jguk ¼Continuation of suit½ gksrh gS rFkk vihy oLrqr% okn dh iqu% lquok;h gksrh gS ftlesa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh iqf"V Hkh gks ldrh gS] vkns'k fujLr Hkh gks ldrk gS vkSj fjek.M gsrq iqu% lquok;h gsrq v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks Hkstk tk ldrk gSA tgkW rd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh ds T;ksfr"ihB ij 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vf/k"Bkiu dk iz'u gS okn la[;k 3@1954 esa Hkys gh Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh i{kdkj ugh Fks ysfdu muds vf/k"Bkiu dks ekuk x;k gS RkFkk bl okn esa Hkh mlls vf/k"Bkiu gksus ds lEcU/k esa vo/kkj.kk yh tk ldrh gSA okn la[;k 36@1965 esa Hkh Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh dk 25-06-1953 dks vf/k"Bkiu ekuk x;k gSA Hkys gh in fjDr u gksus ds dkj.k muds vf/k"Bkiu dks oS/k ugh ekuus dk fu"d"kZ fn;k Fkk] ftlds fo:) Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh }kjk vihy dh x;hA nkSjku vihy okn la[;k 36@1965 eas U;k;ky; }kjk fudkys x;s fu"d"kZ dks vfUre ugh ekuk tk ldrkA D;ksafd vihy okn dk tkjh jguk ¼Continuation of suit½ gksrh gS rFkk vihy oLrqr% okn dh iqu% lquok;h gksrh gS ftlesa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh iqf"V Hkh gks ldrh gS] vkns'k fujLr Hkh gks ldrk gS vkSj fjek.M gsrq iqu% lquok;h gsrq v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks Hkstk tk ldrk gSA So far as installation of Swami Krishnabodhashram Saraswati on Jyotishpeeth as Shankaracharya is concerned, though Swami Krishnabodhashram Saraswati was not a party in Suit No. 3/1954, but his installation has been admitted and from this fact also it may be inferred in this suit, with respect to his installation. In Suit No. 36/1965 also installation of Swami Krishnabodhashram Saraswati on 25.06.1953 has been admitted, though the Court had given finding not to recognise his installation as valid on account of the office being not vacant, against which Swami Krishnabodhashram Saraswati filed an appeal. During the appeal, findings recorded by Court in Suit No. 36/1965 cannot be treated to be final. Appeal is continuation of suit and is, in fact, rehearing of suit, wherein the order of Subordinate Court can be confirmed or reversed or can also be remanded to the Court below for rehearing.
okn la[;k 3@1954 dh vihy la[;k 385@1962 fnukad 11-09-1973 dks [kkfjt dh x;hA ysfdu Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh dh e`R;q mlls igys gh fnukad 10-09-1973 dks gks pqdh FkhA vFkkZr mudh e`R;q rd okn la[;k 3@1954 dk vkns'k vfUre ugh FkkA Appeal no. 385/1962 concerning Suit no.3/1954 was dismissed on 11.09.1973. But prior to that Swami Krishnabodhashram Saraswati had died on 10.09.1973. That means, till his death, order passed in Suit no. 3/1954 was not a final order.
blh izdkj okn la[;k 36@1965 dh vihy dh x;h Fkh] tks fd Lohdkj Hkh gks ldrh Fkh o fujLr Hkh gks ldrh Fkh ysfdu og Hkh tc rd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh thfor jgs fuLrkfjr ugh gks ik;hA tSlk fd izfroknh }kjk izLrqr fu"iknu okn la[;k 22@1977 ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS ftlesa 1977 dks Hkh vihy yfEcr jguk Lo;a izfroknh }kjk fn[kk;k x;k gS vkSj mDr vihy o"kZ 1981 eas vcsV gq;h gSA tc fd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh dh e`R;q nkSjku vihy gh fnukad 10-09-1973 dks gks x;h FkhA izfroknh }kjk fnukad 25-06-1953 ls fnukad 10-09-1973 muds czg~eyhu gksus ds fnukad rd mUgsa 'kadjkpk;Z ds in ls gVkus ds fy;s u rks dksbZ vfUre vkns'k Fkk vkSj ugh dksbZ fu"iknu dk;Zokgh mudh e`R;q rd dh x;h] tks ,dek= dk;Zokgh Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh ds fo:) dh x;h og Hkh dkxt la[;k 874x lwph ls nkf[ky izi=ksa ds vuqlkj [kkfjt gks x;hA tgkW rd ihB dh lEifRr;ksa dk lEcU/k gS bl nkSjku dbZ lEifRr;kW Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh ds uke crkSj 'kadjkpk;Z ntZ Fkh rFkk okn la[;k 36@1965 ds vuqrks"k ls Hkh Li"V gS fd og crkSj 'kadjkpk;Z dk;Z dj jgs Fks rFkk n.M] N=] pWoj] flagklu Hkh /kkj.k fd;s Fks] ftlds fy;s gh Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh }kjk lk/kkj.k fu"ks/kkKk okn ;ksftr fd;k x;k Fkk tks Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh dh e`R;q rd yfcr jgkA tgkW rd izkax U;k; ds fl)kUr ds rdZ dk iz'u gS] bldk fuLrkj.k okn foUnq la[;k 16 esa izfroknh ds fo:) fuLrkfjr fd;k tk pqdk gSA Similarly, the appeal filed in Suit no. 36/1965, could be allowed or dismissed, but it could not be disposed of till Swami Krishnabodhashram Saraswati was alive. As it is apparent from perusal of the execution of Suit no. 22/1977, filed by defendant, wherein it has been shown by the defendant himself that the appeal was also pending till 1977, and the aforesaid appeal abated in the year 1981. Whereas, during the death of Swami Krishnabodhashram Saraswati had taken place on 10.09.1973 during pendency of appeal. From 25.06.1953 to 10.09.1973, till the date he passed away (Brahmaleen), neither there was any final order to remove him from the office of Shankaracharya nor any execution proceedings were initiated by defendant till his death. The sole proceeding, which was taken against Swami Krishnabodhashram Saraswati, was also rejected as evident from documents filed vide index paper no. 874 C. As far as the property of the Peeth is concerned, during this period, several properties were enrtered in the name of Swami Krishnabodhashram Saraswati as Shankaracharya and it is also clear from the 'relief' in Suit no. 36/1965 that he was functioning as a Shankaracharya and also holding Dand, Chhatra, Chanwar, and Singhasan; wherefor, a Suit for temporary injuction was filed by Swami Shantanand Saraswati, which remained pending till the death of Swami Krishnabodhashram Saraswati. So far as the principle of res judicata is concerned, it has been decided against the defendant in issue no. 16.
vr% Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ljLorh fnukad 25-06-1953 ls fnukad 10-09-1973 rd cfnzdkJe ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vf/k"Bkfir jgsA Therefore, Krishnabodhashram Saraswati remained installed as Shankaracharya of Badrikashram since 25.06.1953 to 10.09.1973.
vr% bl okn foUnq dk fuLrkj.k oknh ds i{k esa o izfroknh ds fo:) fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA** Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant."
(English Translation by Court)
403. We have no manner of doubt that aforesaid findings cannot be sustained and has to be reversed. We are giving our reasons as under.
404. In order to hold that Shanta Nand Saraswati was not qualified having no knowledge of Sanskrit, Court below has relied on judgment in Original Suit No. 3 of 1954 completely forgetting the basic principles that the suit filed under Section 92 was ultimately dismissed. Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati being defendant therein could not have filed an appeal against mere finding, on an issue decided against him when suit is ultimately dismissed for the reason that appeal under Section 96 CPC lies against decree and not against a mere finding. The aforesaid finding, if any, could not have been read against Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati in any manner. Even it did not constitute res-judicata in view of Section 11 which provides that the matter must have been heard and finally decided by Court.
405. In Nana Tukaram Jaikar Vs. Sonabai Mahadav and others AIR 1982 Bom. 437, suit was dismissed but on some issues, an adverse finding was recorded against defendant, hence Court held that such finding would not operate as res-judicata and could not have been appealed.
406. Therefore, a finding recorded against defendant, Swami Shantanand Saraswati, in Original Suit No. 3 of 1954, which was ultimately dismissed, could not have been raised against him since issue did not attain finality as plaintiff therein, against dismissal of suit did not proceed further and defendant, against whom finding on a particular issue was recorded, could not have filed appeal by virtue of Section 96 which permits appeal against decree and not finding. Hence, there was no finality of judgment on this issue and Trial Court relying on this finding in O.S. 3/1954, which was dismissed against Swami Shantanand, defendant therein, in order to read something against him, has clearly erred in law. This finding of Trial Court, therefore, has to be reversed. Law on this aspect is almost uniform and some of the authorities of different High Courts as also Privy Council taking the same view are Raghu Nath Vs. Shib Charan Lal (1895) ILR 17 All 174, Nundo Lall Bhuttacharjee and others Vs. Bidhoo Mookhy Debee 1886 ILR 13 Cal. 17, Waris Khan and Others Vs. Ahmadullakhan and others AIR 1952 Nag 238, Midnapur Zamindari Company Limited Vs. Naresh Narayan Roy AIR 1922 PC 241, Ramaswami Reddi Vs. Talaivasal Marudai Reddi and others AIR 1924 Mad 469, S.P.A. Annamalay Chetty vs. B.A. Thornhill AIR 1931 PC 263.
407. Trial Court has also recorded a perverse finding that in Original Suit 36 of 1965 with regard to qualification of Swami Shantanand Saraswati no finding was recorded. In Original Suit 36 of 1965, issue 4 was clearly with respect to qualification of plaintiff therein, i.e., Swami Shantanand Saraswati, "whether he possesses requisite qualification to hold the office of Shankaracharya as laid down in Mathamnay and Mahanushasan". Issue 4 therein reads as under:
"4. Whether the plaintiff possesses the requisite qualifications for holding the office of Shankaracharya as laid down in Muttamanay and Mahanusashan?"
408. Answering said issue, Civil and Sessions Judge, Allahabad in judgment dated 15.01.1970 held as under:
"It would thus appear that on the plaintiffs side there is the nomination in the will by Guru. That way his Guru found him as a proper disciple, the nomination implies that the late Jagatguru determined his qualifications and found him as Sat Shishya. Adding that circumstance as an additional weight in the scale of evidence for the plaintiff, I am inclined to believe P.W. 4 Pandit Ram Khelawan Tripathi, P.W. 7 Dr. Jai Ram Mishra, P.W. 9 Sri Makhan Lal Kela, P.W. 10 Sri Sayta Nand Gaur, P.W. 11 Brahmachari Shanker Lal, P.W. 14 Sri Ram Narain Dutt Pande, P.W. 15 Sri Kapildeo Tripathi and P.W. 16 Sri Anantanand Saraswati and hold that the plaintiff has the qualifications required for the office of the Shankaracharya."
"In view of the above discussion my finding is that in view of the nomination as successor in the will of Swami Brhmanand Ji the late Jagadguru Shankaracharya the plaintiff does possess the qualification for holding the office of Shankaracharya as laid down in Muttamanay and Mahanushasan. More over as a secular judge I have no right to interfere with the conscience of the testator who nominated what he believed to be proper for administration of mutt in future, nor can the Court sit in judgment of nomination."
409. Once a clear finding was recorded by Trial Court in Original Suit 36 of 1965, the observation by Trial Court in the present case that on qualification of Swami Shantanand Saraswati regarding knowledge of Sankrit, no specific finding is recorded, is thoroughly misconceived, misreading and shows that it has misdirected itself in making out a case of disqualification of Swami Shantanand Saraswati for installation as Shankaracharya when his qualification was duly endorsed while adjudicating a specific issue made in this regard by Trial Court in Original Suit 36 of 1965. The otherwise findings in judgment under appeal, therefore, has to be set aside. Effect of Abatement
410. The finding of Trial Court that since appeal preferred by Swami Krishna Bodhashram against judgment dated 15.01.1970 in Original Suit 36 of 1965 stood abated, therefore, judgment did not attain finality and hence would be of no help to appellant and question, whether Swami Krishna Bodhashram was validly installed on 25.06.1953 or not can still be examined by it, in our view, is clearly erroneous and this finding has to be reversed. Sri Goel, in our view, has rightly submitted that judgment in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965, even otherwise, has attained finality and resulted in a decree executable between the parties in the said suit, therefore, whatever, issues have been decided therein, could not have been re-agitated by plaintiff in the subsequent suit and in respect of those issues, former judgment would operate res-judicata; and, in any case, no issue could have been allowed to be raised in subsequent suit which has effect of upsetting earlier final decree. In this regard, Sri Goel advanced his submissions based on certain authorities throwing light on the effect of "abatement". We may consider those authorities also at this stage.
411. The first authority in this regard is Sundar Pande and others Vs. Musammat Kumari 1919 (50) Indian Cases 935 (Alld.). This Court considered effect of death of sole plaintiff-respondent during pendency of appeal when legal heirs were not brought on record in the context of Order 22 Rule 4 and 11 C.P.C., 1908. Suit property was claimed to be stridhan of step-mother of plaintiff, Musammat Kumari, who filed a suit for declaration of her title alleging that she inherited property upon death of Musammat Moti Rani, her step-mother. She also claimed for possession. Suit was decreed whereupon defendant filed First Appeal in High Court. During pendency of appeal, Plaintiff-respondent, Musammat Kumari died. Court referring to Order 22 Rule 4, held that it has no power to declare that suit has abated. Reading Rule 11 alongwith Rule 4, and substituting word "respondent for defendant" and "appeal for suit", this Court held that under this Rule it has no power to declare a suit as distinct from appeal to have abated in a case in which there was decree already made before death of plaintiff. However, since execution of decree is also impossible which was obtained by deceased-plaintiff what Court should do in such case is to direct that having regard to events which have happened, appeal should be struck out from the file of pending cases.
412. In Nathaniel Uraon Vs. Mahadeo Uraon and others AIR 1957 Patna 511, a suit for ejectment of defendants-8 to 11 was filed claiming that plaintiff and defendants-1 to 7 have joint possession as there was no family partition and plaintiff and defendants-1 to 7 are descendants of common ancestor-Sukra. The disputed land comprised of Khata No. 141. It was ancestral raiyati land of plaintiff and defendants-1 to 7, recorded jointly in their names or their ancestors in the record of rights. Suit was mainly contested by defendants-8 and 9 who stated that they had purchased plots no. 566 and 2489 from defendant-1 which was separate and exclusive property of defendant-1. They denied claim of joint possession or co-ownership pleading that there was a division about 30 years back between Sukra Uraon and his brothers. Defendants-2 to 7 supported plaintiff's case and defendants-10 and 11 supported defence set up by defendants-8 and 9. Trial Court held that no division amongst ancestors of plaintiff and defendants-1 to 7 was proved and one co-sharer even if have separate possession of common land cannot alienate same to a third person as his own exclusive property since it was a co-ownership land until a partition takes place. Relying on judgment of this Court in Jamna Vs. Jhalli AIR 1920 All 111 and Mohammad Sher Khan Vs. Bharat Indu AIR 1928 All 59, Trial Court decreed suit holding that defendant-1 could not have alienated joint land to defendants. Trial Court passed decree for joint possession of disputed land between plaintiff and defendants-1 to 7 and for ejectment for defendants-8 and 9. First Appeal under Section 96 of CPC was filed by defendants-8 and 9 before District Judge who affirmed Trial Court's findings with regard to factum that there was no partition by metes and bounds with respect to joint family property but then relying on a decision of Patna High Court in Sat Narayan Singh Vs. Anant Prosad AIR 1919 Pat 549 and Ram Nandan Sahay Vs. Jai Gobind Pandey AIR 1919 Pat 445, Appellate Court concluded that co-owner would be held in joint possession alongwith transferer and transferree. It accordingly, modified decree of Trial Court by disallowing ejectment of defendants-8 and 9 and gave plaintiff a decree for joint possession of plots no. 566 and 2489 with defendants- 1 to 9. One of the plaintiffs, Nathaniel Uraon, brought Second Appeal in High Court and co-plaintiff, Bhaura Uraon was impleaded as one of the respondents. During pendency of appeal, defendant-9, before Trial Court, died. There was no substitution. Second Appeal accordingly abated against defendant-9 and dismissed accordingly holding decree of lower Appellate Court final in respect of plot no. 2489 which was transferred by defendant-1 to defendant-9. In respect of another plot relating to defendant-8, Patna High Court confirmed modified decree passed by First Appellate Court following the principle that a person can in law confer upon another person all the rights he possesses in law but not more. Court held that a co-owner can transfer his undivided share in the joint property by way of lease, sale, gift or otherwise. Patna High Court in Sat Narayan Singh Vs. Anant Prosad (supra) culled out following principles in deciding the matter:
"(a) It is not trespass for one co-owner A either by himself or by his tenants to use the common property in the natural and necessary course of use or enjoyment. The remedy of the other co-owner B is to sue A, but not his tenants, for compensation according to his share, for the exclusive use of the common property by A.
(b) A is entitled to protect himself in the profitable use of the land as to which he is accountable to B, but he is not entitled to exclude B or his tenants from entering the land and carrying on agricultural operations in a way consistent with the continuance of the joint ownership and possession.
(c) As a necessary corollary, B or his tenants is or are entitled to maintain a suit for joint possession either with A or his tenants, unless such joint possession interferes with the profitable use of the land by A or unless A or his tenants has or have improved the land to the knowledge of and without any objection by B."
413. In State of Punjab Vs. Nathu Ram AIR 1962 SC 89, certain land was acquired by Punjab Government which belong to Labhu Ram and Nathu Ram. They refused to accept compensation offered by Collector and applied to Punjab Government through Collector under Rule 6 of Punjab Land Acquisition (Defence of India) Rules, 1943 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1943"). Matter was referred to Arbitrator under Rule 10 who made an award ordering a higher compensation than what was offered by Collector. The award of Arbitrator was challenged by State Government in appeal before High Court. During pendency of appeal, Labhu Ram, one of the respondents, died. High Court took the view that since cause of action was common, appeal has abated against Labhu Ram, hence its effect would be that it has also abated against Nathu Ram and consequently dismissed the same. It also dismissed cross-objections filed by respondents. That is how matter came up before Supreme Court. It held that with death of Labhu Ram, when no application for bringing on record his legal representatives was filed within the prescribed time, appeal of State Government stood abated against Labhu Ram but C.P.C. does not provide for abatement of appeal against other respondents. Court held that Order 22 Rule 4 does not provide for abatement of appeal against co-respondents of deceased respondent as there can be no question of abatement of appeal against them. This is a different thing that appeal against co-respondents cannot proceed in certain circumstances but it is not at par that appeal abates against them also. If Court can deal with the matter in controversy, so far as regards the rights and interests of appellants and respondents, other than deceased respondent, it has to proceed with appeal and decide it. It is only to deal with such matters which cannot proceed that it will have to refuse to proceed further with appeal and therefore would dismiss it. When a Court cannot proceed with the matter depends on the facts of each case and no exhaustive statement can be made about such circumstances. Some such circumstances were noticed by Court in para 6 of judgment as under:-
"It may, however, be stated that ordinarily the considerations which weigh with the Court in deciding upon this question are whether the appeal between the appellants and the respondents other than the deceased can be said to be properly constituted or can be said to have all the necessary parties for the decision of the controversy before the Court. The test to determine this has been described in diverse forms. Courts will not proceed with an appeal (a) when the success of the appeal may lead to the Court's coming to a decision which be in conflict with the decision between the appellant and the deceased respondent and therefore which would lead to the Court's passing a decree which will be contradictory to the decree which had become final with respect to the same subject matter between the appellant and the deceased respondent; (b) when the appellant could not have brought the action for the necessary relief against those respondents alone who are still before the Court and (c) when the decree against the surviving respondents, if the appeal succeeds, be ineffective, that is to say, it could not be successfully executed."
414. Thereafter, Court examined the question as to appeal could have survived against co-respondents after death of Labhu Ram and held it cannot. Reasons recorded in para 9 of judgment reads as under:-
"The result of the abatement of the appeal against Labhu Ram is therefore that his legal representatives are entitled to get compensation on the basis of this award, even if they are to be paid separately on calculating their rightful share in the land acquired, for which this compensation is decreed. Such calculation is foreign to the appeal between the State of Punjab and Nathu Ram. The decree in the appeal will have to determine not what Nathu Ram's share in this compensation is, but what is the correct amount of compensation with respect to the land acquired for which this compensation has been awarded by the arbitrator. The subject matter for which the compensation is to be calculated is one and the same. There cannot be different assessments of the amounts of compensation for the same parcel of land. The appeal before the High Court was an appeal against a decree jointly in favour of Labhu Ram and Nathu Ram. The appeal against Nathu Ram alone cannot be held to be properly constituted when the appeal against Labhu Ram had abated. To get rid of the joint decree, it was essential for the appellant, the State of Punjab, to implead both the joint-decree holders in the appeal. In the absence of one joint-decree holder, the appeal is not properly framed. It follows that the State appeal against Nathu Ram alone cannot proceed." (emphasis added)
415. The above judgment was followed in Rameshwar Prasad and others Vs. Shyam Beharilal Jagannath and others AIR 1963 SC 1901 and therein when reliance was sought under Order 41 Rule 4, Court held that provisions of Order 41 Rule 4 C.P.C. would not over-ride provisions of Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C. The provisions of Order 41 Rule 4 C.P.C. applies at the time of appeal but once appeal has been filed, provisions of Order 41 Rule 4 C.P.C. would become unavailable. Order 22 operates during the pendency of an appeal and its institution. If some party dies during pendency of appeal, his legal representatives have to be brought on record within the period of limitation. If that is not done, appeal by deceased-appellant abates and does not proceed any further. Order 22 Rule 9 and Order 41 Rule 4 C.P.C. are, therefore, neither inconsistent nor apply to the same proceedings but they operate at different stages and provide for different contingencies. There is nothing common in these provisions which make the provisions, of one, interfere in any way with another.
416. The two judgments relied by Shri Goel though observe that death of one of the parties would abate appeal and confer finality to judgment, decree under appeal but actually real issue raised therein was in respect of continuance of cause of action in respect of other co-appellants or co-respondents in the light of Order 22 Rule 4. These decisions, therefore, do not help the appellant in respect to the issue in question.
417. In Bibi Rahmani Khatoon and others Vs. Harkoo Gope and others (1981) 3 SCC 173, a title suit was filed by Bibi Rahmani Khatoon and others for declaration of their possession, title and for recovery of possession of agricultural lands comprising two holdings bearing Khata Nos. 458, 459 in Touzi No. 7535 in Village Parsain. There were 7 defendants in suit. One defendant-7 Brahmadeo claimed interest in Khata No. 458 on the basis of a sale deed dated 31.03.1959 executed by defendant-5, Deonandan Singh. Suit was decreed by Trial Court declaring plaintiffs as owners in both khatas and entitled to recover possession. First Appeal was dismissed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Gaya and Trial Court's judgment was confirmed. During pendency of appeal before First Appellate Court, defendant-7, Brahmadeo, died. Neither his legal heirs were substituted nor anybody came for substitution. Second Appeal was filed by another defendants, i.e., Harkoo Gope and three others. When Second Appeal was pending, defendants-appellants also brought to the notice of High Court, Patna that in view of Notification under Section 3 of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1956"), village was brought in consolidation operation, hence appeal pending in High Court would abate in view of Section 4 of Act, 1956. It was accepted by High Court and appeal was disposed of, observing as under:-
"The appeal abates and judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are hereby set aside as having been abated."
418. Since High Court declared even decree of Trial Court and First Appellate Court, abated, and set aside the same, plaintiffs brought appeal in Supreme Court. It was argued that by virtue of Notification under Section 3 of Act, 1956 and by application of Section 4 of Act, 1956, only Second Appeal would have abated hence High Court could not have set aside judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court for the reason, when an appeal abates, judgment and decree of Court against which appeal is preferred becomes final. Another argument was that appellants in High Court had no interest in Khata No. 458 in which only defendant-7, Brahmadeo had claimed a title and since he died when First Appeal was pending, against him First Appeal itself has abated. There was no issue with respect to said Khata before High Court and to that extent, decree of Court below could not have been set aside by High Court. Supreme Court examined effect of Section 4 of Act, 1956 and held that pending Second Appeal in High Court would abate. Then it proceeded to examine correctness of order of High Court setting aside decree of Courts below on the ground that proceedings have abated. Court held that concept of 'abatement' is known to civil law. If a party to a proceeding, either in Trial Court or appeal or revision, dies and right to sue survives or a claim has to be answered, heirs and legal representatives of deceased party would have to be substituted and failure to do so would result in abatement of proceedings. If a party to a suit dies and abatement takes place, suit would abate. If a party to an appeal or revision dies and either appeal or revision abates, it will have no impact on judgment, decree or order against which appeal or revision is preferred. Such judgment, decree or order under appeal or revision would become final.
419. But then Court distinguished above principle in the light of scheme of Act, 1956. It construed the concept of "abatement" under Section 4 of Act, 1956 and held that the judgment if held final, then it will be binding on Consolidation authorities also and that will create obstruction in consolidation proceedings for the reason that party whose appeal and revision would abate would lose its chance of persuading Consilidation authorities. Court thus said, "Therefore, the legislature intended that not only appeal or revision would abate but judgment, order or decree against which appeal is pending would also become non est as they would also abate and this would leave consolidation authority free to adjudicate the claims or title or other rights or interest in land involved in consolidation." Accordingly, it upheld the order passed by High Court.
420. In taking above view, Court relied on its earlier judgments in Ram Adhar Singh Vs. Ramroop Singh AIR 1968 SC 714 and Chattar Singh Vs. Thakur Prasad Singh AIR 1975 SC 1499 which had arisen from pari materia provision i.e. Section 5 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1953"). Court, therefore, crystallized the principle in the context of 'abatement' under Section 4 of Act, 1956 as under:-
"Accordingly, both on principle and precedent it is crystal clear that where a notification is issued bringing the land involved in a dispute in the civil proceeding under a scheme of consolidation, the proceedings pending in the civil Court either in the trial Court, appeal or revision, shall abate as a consequence ensuing upon the issue of a notification and the effect of abatement would be that the civil proceeding as a whole would come to a naught. Therefore, the order of the High Court impugned in this appeal is legal and valid so far as it not only directed abatement of the appeal pending before the High Court but also abating the judgments and decrees of the trial Court and the first appellate Court because the entire civil proceeding came to naught." (emphasis added)
421. In Amba Bai and others Vs. Gopal and others (2001) 5 SCC 570, a more interesting question had arisen. A suit for specific performance was filed by one Laxmi Lal, sole plaintiff, against Radhu Lal, sole defendant, Suit was dismissed. First Appeal of plaintiff was allowed and suit was decreed. Sole defendant, Radhu Lal preferred Second Appeal against decree of First Appellate Court. During pendency of Second Appeal, sole defendant/appellant-Radhu Lal, died on 14.12.1990. Neither legal representatives of sole defendant/appellant sought their substitution nor the factum of death of Radhu Lal was brought to the notice of High Court, when appeal came up for hearing on 23.05.1991 and the same was dismissed on merits. Decree of First Appellate Court, was put in execution. Legal representatives of Radhu Lal resisted execution holding that order dated 23.05.1991 passed by High Court dismissing Second Appeal was a nullity, having been passed against a dead person and there was a merger of judgment of First Appellate Court in the order of Second Appellate Court hence, it could not have been executed. Executing Court rejected objection holding that there was no merger. High Court did not pass any decree and it is the First Appellate Court's decree which was executable. Said order of Executing Court was challenged in revision before High Court which was allowed and learned Single Judge of High Court held that order passed in Second Appeal was a nullity as it was against a dead person and decree of First Appellate Court had merged with judgment of Second Appellate Court. Therefore, there was no question of any execution and execution proceedings were liable to be rejected. This order was challenged by legal representatives of Radhu Lal in Supreme Court. It observed that so far as order dated 25.03.1991 is concerned, same being a judgment against a dead person, was a nullity. But then it also held that since Radhu Lal had died on 14.12.1990 and within 90 days, substitution was not sought, appeal stood abated by operation of law and that being so, question of merger would not arise in this case. Court held that effect of abatement is that decree passed by First Appellate Court acquired finality. For this purpose, it relied on earlier decisions in Rajendra Prasad Vs. Khirodhar Mahto 1994 Supp (3) SCC 314 and also Bibi Rahmani Khatoon and others Vs. Harkoo Gope and others (supra). Considering the concept of merger, Court held that judgment and order of an inferior Court is subjected to an appeal or revision by superior Court and in such proceedings, order or judgment, if passed by superior Court, determining rights of parties, it would supersede order or judgment passed by inferior Court. A juristic justification for such doctrine of merger is based on the common law principle that there cannot be at one and the same time, more than one operative order governing subject matter. Judgment of inferior Court is deemed to lose its identity and merges with judgment of superior Court. However, when appeal pending in superior Court abates, in absence of legal representatives of party who has died, decree passed by inferior Court attained finality on its own since there was no other judgment of superior Court. Therefore, question of application of doctrine of merger does not arise. In the result, Supreme Court set aside order passed by High Court and confirmed Executing Court's order that judgment of First Appellate Court was executable.
422. In the aforesaid authorities and in particular in Bibi Rahmani Khatoon and others Vs. Harkoo Gope and others (supra) and Amba Bai and others Vs. Gopal and others (supra), in our view, the law laid down is that if a decree has been passed by Trial Court and defendant's appeal abates due to death of sole defendant or defendants, the decree passed by Trial Court will remain operative and is not abated except of the cases which are governed by special or specific statutory provisions, like, Section 5 of Act, 1953 and Section 4 of Bihar Act, 1956 whereunder entire civil proceedings will abate which would include not only the suit or decree passed therein but even appeal, revision etc.
423. A distinction has been drawn between the abatement under the provisions of CPC and other specific statutory provision. Referring to the aforesaid decisions in the context of Bihar Act, 1956, in Paras Nath Rai and others Vs. State of Bihar and others (2012 ) 12 SCC 642, Court has held that once a Notification has been published under Section 3 of Bihar Act, 1956 every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of right or interest in any land lying in the area or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken, pending before any Court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending, shall stand abated with a view to ensure the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Consolidation Act remain unhampered and the said authorities are not obstructed by the proceedings in civil Courts and their decisions are not impeded by the decisions of the civil Courts. Court clearly made a distinction between abatement under CPC and specific statutes and observed:
" ... there is conceptual difference between statutory abatement and abatement under the Code of Civil Procedure. On the basis of a statutory abatement, the whole proceeding from its inception stands abated because the local law has provided an effective alternative remedy to be persuade before an exclusive forum to remedy the grievance raised before the Court."
424. In Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) VS. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy (2005) 1 SCC 481, the decisions in Ram Adhar (supra), Chattar Singh (supra) and Mst. Bibi Rahmani Khatoon (supra) were referred to and distinguished on the ground that they relate to statutory abatement consequent upon a notification under the State consolidation of holding legislation having been issued and, therefore, when a pending appeal abates, it includes even the suit and decree passed therein since language of statute was wide enough, but that is not the situation in other matters. Court than said in para 13 of the judgment as under:
"13. Abatement kills the right to sue and has the effect of unceremoniously terminating the pending legal proceedings without adjudication on merits. It has to be strictly construed and applied only to such cases to which its applicability is undoubtedly attracted. Excepting where an otherwise legislative intention is expressly or by necessary implication deducible, a provision for abatement of pending proceedings shall abate only such proceedings as were pending on that day and at that stage and not the original proceedings which had already stood concluded but were reopened by a superior forum for the purpose of examining legality or propriety thereof."
425. The effect of abatement of appeal arising from judgment and decree passed in Original suit No. 36 of 1965, thereafter, abated only appeal on account of death of defendant-appellant but plaintiff-respondent, who was alive and had a decree in his favour, was entitled to enjoy fruits of decree which remained operative.
426. For the reason aforesaid we uphold the submission of Sri Goel and hold that judgment and decree dated 15.07.1970 attained finality and issue returned therein could not have been reagitated by plaintiff in subsequent suit when parties in earlier suit, whose rights are being disputed, are not before Court in subsequent proceedings and among those parties judgment had attained finality vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.1970, after dismissal of appeal as abated. Whether judgment dated 15.01.1970 would operate as res judicata:
427. First we proceed to discuss the question of res judicata of the judgment dated 15.06.1970 in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965.
428. On behalf of appellant it is pleaded that installation of Swami Santanand Saraswati and execution of Will dated 18.12.1952 by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati could not have been reagitated by plaintiff-respondent since both these issues have already been adjudicated in Misc. Case No. 44 of 1953 and Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 hence judgment dated 12.12.1955 and 15.01.1970 would operate as res judicata. It was not open to Trial Court to reagitate the issues already determined in aforesaid two judgments as the same operate as res judicata under Section 11 read with Explanation VI CPC as also barred by Order II Rule 2 read with Order VI Rules 2 and 4 CPC.
429. The submission of Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel for appellant, is that the said judgment operates as res judicata in respect of declaration of alleged installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram invalid and installation of Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati as valid and that being so, plaintiff in the present case claiming his right after demise of Swami Krishna Bodhashram causing seat of Shankaracharya vacant, which it did not and therefore entire suit is liable to be dismissed for this reason alone. The argument of learned counsel for plaintiff obviously is that plaintiff was not a party in the aforesaid suit and the suit having resulted in abatement of appeal, therefore finding therein cannot be said to have become final.
430. With regard to genuineness of Will dated 18.12.1952 we find that issue no. 2 was formulated by Court below as under:
"2(a). Whether late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati executed a Will dated 18.12.1952 as alleged by the plaintiff in his favour? If so, had he a right to nominate his successor as alleged?
(b) In case the Will dated 18.12.1952 is proved to have been executed was it obtained by the plaintiff under the conditions as alleged in paragraph-31 to 33 of the written statement?"
431. Trial Court on the question of Will has observed that its genuineness was already determined in its favour in a matter where plaintiff-respondent was also a party and he also being the President of interim committee was well aware of said Will, hence its genuineness cannot be doubted. Therefore, in the present case neither Will executed in 1952 can be challenged nor it can be examined, whether Swami Santanand Saraswati had knowledge of Sanskrit or not. Findings to this effect recorded by Court below on page 274 Vol. I of APB, read as under:
^^oknh }kjk bl okn esa Hkh olh;r fnukad 18-12-52 dks pqukSrh nh gS tc fd U;k;ky; bl okn esa bl ij fu.kZ; nsuk mfpr ugha le>rh gS vkSj u gh 1952 dh olh;r dks bl okn esa pqukSrh nh tk ldrh gS vkSj u gh bl okn esa ;g ns[kk tk ldrk gS fd Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn dks laLd`r dk Kku Fkk fd ughaA** "Will dated 18.12.1952 has been challenged by plaintiff in this suit whereas The Court does not consider it proper to render decision on this point and neither a Will of 1952 can be challenged in this suit nor it can be adjudicated in this suit, whether Swami Shantanand had or had not knowledge of Sanskrit language." (English translation by Court)
432. Trial Court thereafter has proceeded to examine whether plaintiff-respondent was installed as Sankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth/Jyotirmath on 07.12.1973 and answered this question in favour of plaintiff. For our purposes at this stage suffice it to notice that Trial Court in the present case did not touch the genuineness of Will or installation of Swami Santanand as Sankaracharya after death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati and there is no cross appeal by plaintiff-appellant on this aspect, we find no reason to proceed to decide the matter treating said Will to have been proved finally as genuine one and has its natural and legal consequences, as the case may be.
433. On the question of judgment dated 15.01.1970 passed in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 it has to be examined whether it will operate as res judicata in the suit in question so as to non suit plaintiff-respondent or not.
434. Before coming to factual aspect of the matter, we find it appropriate to have a bird eye view on the concept of principle of res judicata as has been known in law.
435. The legislative history involving the principle of res judicata brings us to the first codified civil procedure i.e. Act 8 of 1859, which was applicable to only the Mofussil Courts (i.e. the Courts of Civil Judicature not established by Royal Charter). Prior thereto, the procedure of Mofussil Courts was regulated by Special Acts and Regulations, which after enactment of Act 8 of 1859 were repealed by Act 10 of 1861. Act 23 of 1861 further amended 1859 Act. Section 42 of Act 23 of 1861 gives short title as 'Code of Civil Procedure' to parent Act 8 of 1859. In 1862, the Supreme Court and the Courts of Sadar Diwani Adalat in Presidency Towns were abolished by the High Courts Act, 1861 and powers of those Courts were vested in the Chartered High Courts. The Letters Patent of 1862 establishing the High Courts extended the procedure of Act 8 of 1859 to these Courts. The Charter of 1865 which empowered the High Courts to make Rules and Orders regulating proceedings in civil cases, required them to be guided, as far as possible, by the provisions of Code of 1859 and subsequent amending Acts. Act 8 of 1859 was amended from time to time vide Act 4 of 1860, 43 of 1860, 23 of 1861, 9 of 1863, 20 of 1867, 7 of 1870, 14 of 1870, 9 of 1871, 32 of 1871 and 7 of 1872. The Act 8 of 1859, which we can term as the "first codified civil procedure", was repealed and substituted by Act 10 of 1877, which may be termed as "second codified civil procedure". There were only two amendments in this Act, vide Act 18 of 1878 and 12 of 1879. Within five years of the enactment of the second Code, this was also repealed and superseded by Act 14 of 1882, which can be treated as "third Code of Civil Procedure". It was also amended by Acts 15 of 1882, 14 of 1885, 4 of 1886, 10 of 1886, 7 of 1887, 8 of 1887, 6 of 1888, 10 of 1888, 13 of 1889, 8 of 1890, 6 of 1892, 5 of 1894, 7 of 1895 and 13 of 1895. It was then superseded and substituted by the present Code, i.e., Act No. 5 of 1908, which came into force on 1st January, 1909.
436. All the four Codes were enacted with the preamble mentioning as an Act to consolidate and to amend the laws relating to procedure of the Courts of Civil Judicature meaning thereby the legislature all through intended to construe exhaustive enactments dealing with the matters pertaining to procedure of Courts in civil matters. To consolidate means to collect the statutory law relating to a particular subject and to bring it down to take in order that it may form a useful code applicable to the circumstances existing at the time when the consolidation is enacted as observed by the Privy Council in A.G. of Bengal Vs. Prem Lal Mullick (1895) ILR 22 Cal. 788 (PC). Same view was expressed by our full Bench also in Shantha Nand Gir Chela Vs. Basudevanand AIR 1930 Alld. 225. The purport of such codification means that if the language of the statute is plain, simple and unambiguous, there may not be any occasion for the Court to have recourse to the earlier law but if it is capable of more than one meaning, it is permissible to refer to the previous state of law so as to construe the provision correctly. A consolidating Act raises the presumption that it does not intend to alter the earlier law in its entirety unless the changes and alteration are such so as to show that the earlier law has been made redundant in its entirety.
437. Principle of res judicata, as it stands today, we find has its origin and existence long back besides any boundation of system of jurisprudence whether Hindu law, Muslim law, English law etc. We do not find any substantial change in the principle and the very basis of the concept which if applicable would have to be followed by a Court of law unless it can be shown that the principle of res judicata, as is known, is not at all attracted in a given case. We find that the availability of the principle of res judicata existing in different systems of law has been very painstakingly traced by the Hon'ble Judges of Lahore High Court in a Full Bench decision in Mussammat Lachhmi Vs. Mussammat Bhulli, 1927 ILR (VIII) 384 and it would be useful to have the benefit of such in depth study by reproducing the same as under :
"In the mitakshra (Book II, Chap. I, Section V, verse 5) one of the four kinds of effective answers to a suit is "a plea by former judgment" and in verse 10, Katyayana is quoted as laying down that "one against whom a judgment had formerly been given, if he bring forward the matter again, must be answered by a plea of Purva Nyaya or former judgment" (Macnaughten and Colebrooke's translation page 22). The doctrine, however, seems to have been recognized much earlier in Hindu Jurisprudence, judging from the fact that both the Smriti Chandrika (Mysore Edition, pages 97-98) and the Virmitrodaya (Vidya Sagar Edition, page 77) base the defence of Prang Nyaya (=former decision) on the following text of the ancient law-giver Harita, who is believed by some Orientalists to have flourished in the 9th Century B.C. and whose Smriti is now extant only in fragments :-
"The plaintiff should be non-suited if the defendants avers; 'In this very affair, there was litigation between him and myself previously,' and it is found that the plaintiff had lost his case".
There are texts of Parsara (Bengal Asiatic Society Edition, page 56) and of the Mayukha (Kane's Editiona, page 15) to the same effect. Among Muhammadan law-givers similar effect was given to the plea of "Niza-I-munfasla" or "Amar Mania Taqrir Mukhalif." Under Roman Law, as administered by the Proetors' Courts, a defendant could repel the plaintiff's claim by means of "exceptio rei judicata" or plea of former judgment. The subject received considerable attention at the hands of Roman jurists and as stated in Roby's Roman Private Law (Vol. II, page 338) the general principle recognized was that "one suit and one decision was enough for any single dispute" and that "a matter once brought to trial should not be tried except, of course, by way of appeal". The spirit of the doctrine is succinctly expressed in the well known maxim "Nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa" (no one shall be twice vexed for the same cause). At times the rule worked harshly on individuals (E.g., when the former decision was obviously erroneous) but its working was justified on the great principle of public policy "Interest rei publicant sit finis litium" (it is for the public good that there be an end of litigation). In some of these ancient systems, however, the operation of the rule was confined to cases in which the plaintiff put forward his claim to "the same subject matter with regard to which his request had already been determined by a competent Court and had passed into judgment". In other words, it was what is described as the plea of "estoppel by judgment" or "estoppel by record", which was recognized and given effect to. In several European continental countries even now the rule is still subject to these qualifications, e.g., in the Civil Code of France, it is said "The authority of the thing adjudged (chose judge) has place only in regard to that which has constituted the object of a judgment. It is necessary that the thing demanded be the same; that the demand be founded upon the same cause; that it be between the same parties and found by and against them in the same capacity." In other countries, and notably in England, the doctrine has developed and expanded, and the bar is applied in a subsequent action not only to cases where claim is laid to the same property but also to the same matter (or issue) as was directly and substantially in dispute in the former litigation. In other words, it is the identity of the issue, which has already been "necessarily tried" between the parties and on which a finding has been given before, and not the identity of the subject matter which attracts the operation of the rule. Put briefly the plea is not limited to "estoppel by judgment" (or record), but is also extended to what is described as "estoppel by verdict". The earliest authoritative exposition of the law on the subject in England is by Chief Justice DeGrey in the Duchess of Kingston Case (1), which has formed the basis of all subsequent judicial pronouncements in England, America and other countries, the jural systems of which are based on or inspired by British Jurisprudence. In that case a number of propositions on the subject were laid down, the first of them being that "the judgment of a Court of concurrent jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is as a plea a bar, or as evidence conclusive, between the same parties upon the same matter, directly in question in another Court." In British India the rule of res judicata seems to have been first introduced by section 16 of the Bengal Regulation III of 1793, which prohibited the Zilla and City Courts "from entertaining any cause, which form the production of a former decree of the record of the Court, shall appear to have been heard and determined by any judge or any superintendent of a Court having competent jurisdiction". The earliest legislative attempt at codification of the law on the subject was, however, made in 1859, when the first Civil Procedure Code was passed. Section 2 of the Code barred the cognizance by Courts of suits based on the same cause of action, which had been heard and determined before by Courts of competent jurisdiction. It will be seen that this was only a partial recognition of the English rule in so far as it embodied the principles relating to estoppel by judgment (or record) only and did not extend to estoppel by verdict. In 1877 when the Code was revised, the operation of the rule was extended in section 13 and the bar was no longer confined to the retrial of a dispute relating to the same cause of action but the prohibition equally applied against reagitating an issue, which had been heard and finally decided between the same parties in a former suit by a competent Court. The section has been amended and amplified twice again and has assumed its present form in section 11 of the Code of 1908, the principal amendments which have a bearing on the question before us, being (a) that the expression "former suit" was defined as meaning a suit which has been first decided and not one which was first instituted, and (b) that the competence of a Court is not regulated by the course of appeal of the former suit but by its capacity to try the subsequent suit as an original Court. But although the Indian Legislature has from 1859 onwards made several attempts to codify the law on the subject and the present section 11 is a largely modified and improved form of the original section 2 of Act VIII of 1859, it must be borne in mind that the section as even now enacted, is not exhaustive of the law on the subject, and the general principles of res judicata apply to matters on which the section is silent and also govern proceedings to which the section does not in terms apply."
438. It is, thus, evident that Res judicata is a principle or doctrine or concept which is well recognized since ancient times. It is a principle of universal application treated to be a fundamental and basic idea in every developed jural society. The very objective of adjudication of a dispute by an adjudicatory forum, whatever name it is called, is to bring to an end dispute or lis between the parties. The seed of justice, thus, aims to have every matter fairly tried once and, thereafter, further litigation should be barred treating to be concluded for all times to come between the parties. So far as the dispute which has already been adjudicated, it is a rule common to all, well defined in a civilized system of jurisprudence that the solemn and deliberate sentence of law upon a disputed fact pronounced, after a proper trial, by its appointed organ should be regarded as final and conclusive determination of the question litigated and should set at rest, forever, the controversy. This rule which treats the final decision of a competent Tribunal as "irrefragable truth" was well known to Hindu and Mohammadan lawyers and jurists since long as the system is recognized in Hindu as well as Muslim laws also.
439. So far as Europe is concerned, it is mainly influenced with the legal system of Roman jurisprudence. This principle is one of the great gains of Roman jurisprudence carried to modern jural system of Europe. In the Anglo saxon jurisprudence, this principle is formerly based on an maxim of Roman jurisprudence "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" (it concerns the state that there should be an end to law suits) and partly on the maxim "nemo debut bis vexari pro una at eadem cause (no man should be vexed twice over for the same cause). The Act 8 of 1859 provided the principle of the res judicata in Section 2 which read as under :
"The civil Court shall not take cognizance of any suit brought on or cause of action which shall have been heard and determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they claim."
440. The principle of res judicata vide Section 2 of C.P.C., 1859 came to be considered before the Privy Council in Soorjomonee Dayee Vs. Suddanund Mahapatter (1873) 12 BLR 304, 315 (P.C.). The Judicial Committee said "We are of the opinion that Section 2 of the Code of 1859 would by no means prevent operation of the general law relating to res judicata founded on the principle "nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa".
441. In Krishna Behary Ray Vs. Bunwari Lal Ray, (1875) 1 Cal. 144 (146), Privy Council while construing the expression "cause of action" held that it cannot be interpreted in its literal and restricted sense and if a material issue had been tried and determined between the same parties by a competent Court, the same cannot be re-agitated again by the parties in a later suit who were also partied in the former suit.
442. When this view was expressed in some other judgments also the legislature introduced the words "matter directly and substantially in issue" in Section 13 in Act No. 10 of 1877 and 14 of 1882. In Act No. 10 of 1877, it was Section 13 of the Code.
443. In Parthasaradi Ayyangar and others Vs. Chinnakrishna Ayyangar and others Vol. V ILR Madras Series (1882) 304 an interesting question with respect to res judicata and estoppel by verdict and/or estoppel by judgment was considered. An original suit no. 12 of 1850 was instituted by certain persons of Tenkalai sect in the Court of Sadar Amin against the members of Vadakalai sect. A Vadakalai temple was erected in the village of Mathura Mangalam in the honor of a devotee Embar in which the member of Tenkalai sect were interested in maintaining worship and in defending the privileges of the temple. The other sect, namely, Vadakalai, also erected a Vaishnava temple on a private site in the Sanadi (temple) street in honor of a devotee, Vedhanta Desikar, which was later on thrown open for regular public worship. In 1849 the above mentioned suit was filed praying that the Vadakalais be compelled to remove their idols and be prohibited from celebrating festivals and erecting any temple in the village for the worship of their idols. The Vadakalais, defended the suit contending that the general right of owners of land to erect on their own property, places of public worship and to set up therein such idols as they thought fit. Earlier to that suit, it appears that there was some other suit between the same sects wherein the Pandit had delivered an opinion that the public worship of idols of devotees such as the spiritual teachers of the respective sects was not recognized by Hindu law, and that law did not permit persons to assemble together to celebrate to such idols. But where it was customary to do so, such idols might be used in private worship. Relying on the said opinion of the Pandit, the Sadar Amin granted the order of injunction prayed for. In the appeal preferred before the Judge, he held that supposing the worship of which the Tenkalais complained was prejudicial to the interests of the institution they supported, the question being one of conscience, no cause of action accrued to the Tenkalais, and that it was competent to the Vadakalais to adopt the worship of what idols they pleased in pagodas erected on their own lands. It reversed the decree in so much it ordered the removal of the idols and prohibited the Vadakalais from erecting pagodas and celebrating public worship therein. But it found that conduct of procession in honor of Vadakalai idols was an innovation, did not form an essential part of the worship, and might be productive of public disturbance, and, accordingly, passed an order restraining it. Noticing that this part of the order was beyond the relief sought in the plaint, an appeal was preferred before the Sadar Court. The Sadar Court sought for opinion of the Pandits of the Court with respect to Hindu law on the subject who opined that it would be contrary to custom to allow a pagoda to be erected by the Vadakalai Vaishnavas even on their own ground if such an erection was against the feelings generally of the people of the village. He referred to a passage in the preamble of the Mitakshara which declared that "no cases prejudicial to the feelings of the inhabitants of a town or village shall be entertained by a King". The Sadar Court accordingly decreed that the defendants (the Vadakalais) should be prohibited from erecting temple or instituting public worship on the spot of ground objected to by the plaintiffs and which lay within the range of their temple, that is to say, within the usual range of the processions conducted in connection with the temple worship. In another appeal no. 141 of 1856, Sadar Court declared that the right to pass in procession through the public streets of a town in such a way as the Magistrate might not object to as dangerous to the public safety, was a right inherent in every subject of the state and the Vadakalais' action which continued was in disobedience as was restrained by the earlier decree and injunction prohibiting decree was again passed in 1862. Thereafter, Vadakalais removed their idols and erected a building for the purpose of worship on another site. No arrangement of celebration of the public worship was made till 1879 except of occasional processions. However, in 1879 again provision was made for continuous conduct of such worship throughout the year. This led to another suit which ultimately reached to the appellate Court. It was held that the decree in earlier suit cannot preclude the Vadakalais from building a temple or conduct public worship at any other spot and plea of estoppel based on the earlier decisions was held to be inapplicable. The Court held that the matter in issue which was raised and decided in the former suit was not a question of fact but a question of law based on the opinion of Pandit which was found opposed to the law declared to be the law of India under British administration. The Court held that the law of India under British administration as declared is that the persons of whatever sect are at liberty to erect building and conduct public worship on their own land provided they neither invade the rights of property enjoyed by their neighbours nor cause a public nuisance, and that they are also entitled to conduct religious processions through public streets so that they do not interfere with the ordinary use of such streets by the public and subject to such directions as the Magistrate may lawfully give to prevent obstructions of the thoroughfare or breaches of the public peace. The Court held that the principle of res judicata also would not come in way. The Courts are bound to ascertain and apply the law and not to make law. It observed that what was argued was estoppel by verdict and estoppel by judgment. Explaining the "estoppel by verdict", it was held that it indicates that such estoppels are confined to questions of facts and no authority was cited before the Court to warrant the application of rule to determination of an issue of law. Explaining the principle of res judicata, the Court observed, "Although considerations of convenience have established the rule that the final decree of a competent Court is decisive of the rights it declares or refuses notwithstanding it may have proceeded on an erroneous view of the law, and although the same considerations have established the rule that the determination by a competent Court of questions of fact directly and substantially in issue are binding on the parties, these considerations do not suggest the expediency of compelling the Courts to refuse to give effect to what they have ascertained to be the law." However, the Court also said that all earlier decisions were in respect of a different place and would not bar the subsequent suit which was in respect to another spot.
444. In Ram Kirpal Vs. Rup Kuari (1883) ILR 6 (Alld.) 269 (P.C.) it was held that Section 13 of 1877 Act would not apply to execution proceedings but upon general principles of law the decision of a matter once decided in those proceedings was a bar to the same matter being re-agitated at a subsequent stage thereof.
445. Act 5 of 1908 contains the provision of res judicata under Section 11 which substantially is same as it was in Act 14 of 1882, but includes certain explanations clarifying some aspects of the matter considered to be necessary in the light of some judgments of different High Courts. It has undergone some amendments in 1976, but has withstood the test of the time more than a decade. Section 11 of Act 5 of 1908, as it stands today, reads as under :
"11. Res judicata.- No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
Explanation I- The expression "former suit" shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.
Explanation II.- For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.
Explanation III.- The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
Explanation IV.- Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
Explanation V.- Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.
Explanation VI- Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.
Explanation VII.- The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and reference in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to proceedings for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
Explanation VIII.-An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in as subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised."
446. Explanations VII and VIII have been added by Amendment Act of 1976 and admittedly have no application to the dispute in hand.
447. The plea of res judicata is an inhibition against the Court and a finding in favour of a party on the plea of res judicata would oust the jurisdiction of the Court to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been raised, which has been heard and finally decided in the former suit (see : Pandurang Dhondi Chougule Vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav AIR 1966 SC 153. Since, it restrains the Court to try the subsequent suit or an issue raised subsequently, we have no manner of doubt that for the purpose of present case, it is the provision contained in Section 11 of Act 5 of 1908, which will govern the matter and not the earlier one. The application of principle of res judicata is based on public policy and in the interest of the State as well. However, we would like to clarify here itself that we may not be understood as observing that the principle of res judicata is confined to Section 11 of the Act 5 of 1908. As we have already held, the principle of res judicata was well recognized in the ancient legal systems also and it has consistently been held as not limited to the specific words of the Code for its application.
448. One of the oldest case which considered the doctrine of res judicata vide Section 11, CPC, 1908 is Sheoparsan Singh and others Vs. Ramnandan Prasad 43 IA 91(PC)= 20 C.W.N. 738 (P.C.) wherein their Lordships reminded the dictum in the words of Lord Coke in Priddle Vs. Napper 6 Coke IA 1777 which said "Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium", otherwise great oppression might be done under colour and pretence of law. (See also Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. JT 2009 (6) SC 29).
449. The statement of law as propounded in Sheoparsan Singh (supra) has been approved by the Apex Court in Iftikhar Ahmed Vs. Syed Meharban Ali 1974 (2) SCC 151.
450. Then comes Hook Vs. Administrator General of Bengal 1921 (ILR) 48 (Cal.) 499 (P.C.) wherein it was said that Section 11 of the Code is not exhaustive of the circumstances in which an issue is res judicata. Even though the Section may not apply, the plea of res judicata still would remain operative apart from the limited provisions of the Code, and would bar a subsequent suit on the same issue unless is shown to be inapplicable by the defendants referring to pleading, parties and cause of action etc. It was reaffirmed by Lord Buckmaster in T.B. Ramachandra Rao and another Vs. A.N.S. Ramchandra Rao and others, AIR 1922 PC 80 wherein the remarks were "that the principle which prevents the same case being twice litigated is of general application, and is not limited by the specific words of the Code in this respect."
451. In Kalipada De Vs. Dwijapada Das, AIR 1930 PC 22 the Privy Council held "the question as to what is considered to be res judicata is dealt with by Section 11 of CPC 1908. In that section many examples and circumstances in which the rule concerning res judicata applies are given; but it has often been explained by this Board that the terms of Section 11 are not to be regarded as exhaustive".
452. In Gulam Abbas Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 2199 it was held that Section 11 is not exhaustive of the general doctrine of res judicata. Though the rule of res judicata as enacted in Section 11 has some technical aspects, the general doctrine is founded on consideration of high public policy to achieve two objectives namely that there must be a finality to litigation and that individuals should not be harassed twice over the same kind of litigation.
453. It is thus clear that principle of res judicata is based on sound policy and not an arbitrary one. Henry Campell Black in his Treatise "for law of judgments" 2nd Edition Vol. I, para 242 has observed that "Where the Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter in the particular case, its judgment unless reversed or annulled or impeachment by parties or privies, in any collateral action or proceeding whatever the Doctrine of this Court, and of all the Courts of this country, is formerly established, that if the Court in which the proceedings took place had jurisdiction to render the judgment which it did no error in its proceedings which did not affect the jurisdiction will render the proceedings void, nor can such errors be considered when the judgment is brought collaterally into question one. This principle is not merely an arbitrary rule or law but it is a doctrine which is founded upon reason and the soundest principle of public policy."
454. In Jenkins Vs. Robertson, (1867) LRIHL 117 Lord Romily observed "res judicata by its very words means a matter upon which the Court has exercised its judicial mind and has come to the conclusion that one side is right and has pronounced a decision accordingly. In my opinion res judicata signifies that the Court has after argument and considerations come to a decision on a contested matter."
455. In Corpus Juris Vol. 34 it is said that it is a rule of universal law providing every regulated system of jurisprudence and is put upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of common law, the one of public policy and necessity which makes it to the interest of the state that there should be an end of litigation, and, the other, hardship on the individual that he should not be vexed twice for the same cause.
456. The Apex Court in Smt. Raj Lakshmi Dasi and others Vs. Banamali Sen and others AIR 1953 SC 33 remarked "When a plea of res judicata is founded on general principles of law, all that is necessary to establish is that the Court that heard and decided the former case was a Court of competent jurisdiction. It does not seem necessary in such cases to further prove that it has jurisdiction to hear the later suit. A plea of res judicata on general principle can be successfully taken in respect of judgments of Courts of exclusive jurisdiction, like revenue Courts, land acquisition Courts, administration Courts, etc. It is obvious that these Courts are not entitled to try a regular suit and they only exercise special jurisdiction conferred on them by the statute.
457. In Lal Chand Vs. Radha Kishan, AIR 1977 SC 789=1977(2) SCC 88 the Apex Court reiterated "the principle of res judicata is conceived in the larger public interest which requires that all the litigation must sooner than later come to an end. The principle is also founded on equity, justice and good conscious which require that a party which has once succeeded on a issue should not be permitted to be harassed by a multiplicity of proceedings involving the same issue".
458. In K. Ethirajan Vs. Lakshmi and others, AIR 2003 SC 4295 the Apex Court refering to para 26 of its earlier judgement in Hope Plantations Ltd. Vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade, JT 1998 (7) SC 404 held that rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again. Where the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgement and cannot litigate again on the same cause of action.
459. In Sulochana Amma Vs. Narayanan Nair, AIR 1994 SC 152 the scope of Section 11 CPC was considered and it was said that Section 11 does not create any right or interest in the property but merely operates as a bar to try the same issue once over. It aims to prevent multiplicity of the proceedings and accords finality to an issue which directly and substantially has arisen in the former suit between the same parties or their privies, decided and became final so that parties are not vexed twice over; vexatious litigation would be put to an end and the valuable time of the Court is saved. The above judgement also clarifies Explanation VIII that the decree of a Court of limited jurisdiction would also operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit though the subsequent suit was not triable by that Court.
460. Recently the Apex Court has reiterated the above view in Brij Narain Singh Vs. Adya Prasad, JT 2008 (3) SC 1.
461. The doctrine of res judicata has been extended to public interest litigation also in State of Karnataka and another Vs. All India Manufacturers Organization and others, 2006(4) SCC 683 and the Court has said:
"As a matter of fact, in a public interest litigation, the petitioner is not agitating his individual rights but represents the public at large. Hence the litigation is bona fide, a judgement in previous public interest litigation would be a judgement in rem. It binds the public at large and bars any member of the public from coming forward before the Court and raising any connected issue or an issue, which had been raised should have been raised on an earlier occasion by way of public interest litigation."
462. In Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal and others Vs. Dossibai AIR 1971 SC 2355, the Court clarified that the doctrine of res judicata is in the domain of procedure and cannot be exalted to the status of a legislative direction between the parties so as to determine the question relating to interpretation of the enactment affecting the jurisdiction of the Court finally between them even though no question of fact or mixed question of law and fact and relating to the right in issue between the parties once determined thereby. It also said that a decision of a competent Court on a matter in issue may be res judicata in another proceeding between the same parties; the "matter in issue" may be an issue of fact, an issue of law or one of mixed law and fact. However, the Apex Court said that the previous decision on a matter in issue alone is res judicata; the reasons for the decision are not res judicata, and said as under :
"The previous decision on a matter in issue alone is res judicata; the reasons for the decision are not res judicata."
463. Another aspect as to when the rule of res judicata would not be attracted has been dealt with in detail in para 10 of the judgment in Mathura Prasad Serjoo Jaiswal (supra) which reads as under :
"A mixed question of law and fact determined in the earlier, proceeding between the same parties may not, for the same reason, be questioned in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties. But where the decision is on a question law, i.e. the interpretation of a statute, it will be res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties where the cause of action is the same, for the expression "the matter in issue" in S. 11, Code of Civil Procedure, means the right litigated between the parties, i.e. the facts on which the right is claimed or denied and the law applicable to the determination of that issue. Where, however, the question is one purely of law and it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a decision of the Court sanctioning something which is illegal, by resort to the rule of res judicata a party affected by the decision will not be precluded from challenging the validity of the order under the rule of res judicata, for a rule of procedure cannot supersede the law of the land."
464. In other words, what we discern from the above authorities, is that the res judicata is a fundamental principle in a legal system to set at rest a dispute once settled so as not to trouble the parties again and again on the same matter. It operates on the principle that a question must be once fairly and finally tried by a competent Court and, thereafter, further litigation about it between the same parties must be deemed to have concluded and should not be allowed to be re-agitated. The maxim to be attracted is "no one shall be vexed twice over the same matter". [See Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. (supra)].
465. It is not that every matter decided in a former suit can be pleaded as res judicata in a subsequent suit. To attract the plea of res judicata, the conditions precedent, which need to be proved are :
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same matter, which was directly and substantially in issue, either actually or constructively, in the former suit.
2. The former suit must have the same parties or the parties under whom they or any of them claims.
3. The parties must have litigated under the same title in the former suit.
4. The Court, which decided the former suit must have been a Court competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the Court in the first suit.
466. In Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai Vs. Mohd. Hanifa AIR 1976 SC 1569, the Apex Court said that in attracting the plea of res judicata the following conditions must be proved :
1. that the litigating parties must be the same;
2. that the subject-matter of the suit also must be identical;
3. that the matter must be finally decided between the parties; and
4. that the suit must be decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
467. In certain cases, the applicability of res judicata qua the aforementioned conditions precedent came to be considered with certain different angles, which may be useful to be referred hereat.
468. One such aspect came to be considered by the Privy Council in Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. Vs. Kumar Naresh Narayan Roy and others, AIR 1924 P.C. 144 which is also a decision cited by Sri Siddiqui. The plaintiff excluded certain question by the statement of his pleader and, therefore, the trial Court did not decide the issue. In the first appeal the defendant urged that the Trial Judge was wrong in not deciding this question even though his action was based on the plaintiff's advisor's statement and the defendant asked the first appellate Court expressly to decide the question. The Court did so. The question was whether it can be argued that the point decided was not raised and, therefore, the Court did not consider it to be a necessary issue. On the contrary when the first appellate Court decided the issue and the same became final, it would operate as res judicata to the subsequent suit involving the same issue.
469. Another angle of the above aspect came to be considered by the Privy Council in Prem Narain Vs. Ram Charan and others, AIR 1932 P.C. 51 where though the point was not properly raised in the plaint but both parties without protest chose to join issue upon that point and it was held that the decision on the point would operate as res judicata between the parties.
470. In Jagdeo Misir Vs. Mahabir Tewari, AIR 1927 All. 803 a Division Bench of this Court held:
"We think that those two cases are authorities for the proposition that if a party raised an issue, however improperly, in a case which is accepted by the other side and if the Court itself accepts the issue to be one relevant to the enquiry and necessary for the determination of the case, and that issue is argued out by both parties and a judicial decision come to, it is not open subsequently for either of the parties or their successors-in-interest or the person claiming through them, to say that the issue does not constitute res judicata."
471. This has been followed in Lalji Sahib Vs. Munshi Lal, AIR 1943 All 340 and Dhan Singh Vs. Jt. Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow and others, AIR 1973 All. 283.
472. In Dhan Singh (supra) this Court also held that res judicata may apply even though the parties against whom it is sought to enforce did not enter appearance and contest question in the previous suit. But in such a case it has to be shown that such a party had notice that the relevant question was in issue and would have to be decided for which the burden lie on the person who pleaded bar of res judicata. For these propositions this Court followed and relied on Chandu Lal Vs. Khalilur Rahman, AIR 1950 P.C. 17.
473. The proposition advanced is that even if a judgement in a previous case is erroneous it would be binding on the parties thereto and would operate as res judicata in subsequent case as held in Gorie Gouri Naidu (Minor) and another Vs. Thandrothu Bodemma and others, AIR 1997 SC 808 is well settled.
474. In short, we can say that though in order to have the defence of res judicata accepted, it is necessary to show not only that the cause of action was same, but also that the plaintiff had an opportunity of getting the relief in the former proceedings, which he is now seeking. In Jaswant Singh Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property 1985 (3) SCC 648 it was pointed out that the test is whether the claim in the subsequent suit or proceeding is in fact founded upon the same cause of action, which was the foundation of the former suit or the proceeding. The cause of action for a proceeding has no relation, whatsoever, to the defence, which may be set up, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff or the applicant. It refers entirely to the grounds set forth in the plaint or the application, as the case may be, as the cause of action or in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff or the applicant ask the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour.
475. In Talluri Venkata Seshayya and others Vs. Thadikonda Kotiswara Rao and others, AIR 1937 P.C. page 1 we find that there was a case where five temples, subject matter of suit, were built in 19th Century by one Thadikonda Seshayya a native of Vellatur and the grandfather of Kotiswara Rao adoptive father who is said to have earned wealth in Hyderabad and returned to his native place. The temples were built for the deities of Siddhi Ganapati Swami, Rajeswara Swami, Bhimeswara Swami, Adi Seshachala Swami and Kameswara Maharani. Sri Thadikonda Seshayya conducted the festivals and other affairs of the deities during his life time. He left a will dated 26.08.1826 shortly before his death directing his widow, Adilakshmamma to make a permanent endowment for the temples to the extent of Rs. 70,000/- out of his self acquired properties. The widow purchased two sets of properties in the villages of Kowtharam and Peddapulivarru for the temples, conducted the affairs of temples out of the land so purchased, and afterwards made a formal gift of the lands to the idols. Another set of properties in the village of Vellatur was endowed to the same temples by the Zamindar of Narasaraopet. Seshayya's two sons, Siddi Ganapati Doss and Nagabhushana Gajanana Doss conducted festivals and other affairs until the death of Ganapati in 1857. The latter's widow claimed the Dharmakartaship but the Collector decided in favour of Gajanana. In 1859 the Inam Commissioner granted an Inam title deed in respect of the Devadayam Inam situated in the village of Kowtharam. In 1867 Gajanana started borrowing money on the security of Devadayam lands, which culminated in a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 8000/- dated 15.01.1887 under which the lands of Kowtharam were handed over to the mortgagee. To discharge this mortgage Gajanana and his adopted sons Seshayya granted permanent lease of Kowtharam lands dated 06.12.1888 and on the same date the mortgagee, Gopalkrishnamma executed the counterpart of the lease. Two persons interested in the temples and in the performance of the service and worship thereof who had obtained the leave of the Court under Section 18, Religious Endowments Act, 20 of 1863, on 18.01.1891 filed suit O.S. No. 4 of 1891 in the District Court, Kistna against Gajanana, his adopted son Seshayya and Gopalakrishna claiming that the five suit temples at Vellatur were public temples, therefore, the first two defendants be removed from the office of the Dharmakarta. The main defence taken by the defendants in the said suit was that the temples and lands were private property hence Act, 20 of 1863 did not apply. Gajanana died during the pendency of suit. Vide judgment dated 05.02.1892 the District Judge Kistna dismissed suit holding that the temples were private, lands were a private foundation and Act, 20 of 1863 did not apply. The judgment was confirmed by Madras High Court in appeal vide judgment dated 03.08.1893. One suit was filed by Venkata Seshayya and others on 21.08.1923 as representing the interested public under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC with the requisite permission of the Subordinate Judge of Masaulipatam seeking a declaration that five temples of the village of Vellatur, Guntur District are public temples and that certain Inam lands situated in Kowthavaram village form the endowment of these temples and, therefore, the plaintiff seeking setting aside of a permanent lease in respect of these lands executed on 06.12.1888 by the then Managers of the temples, the mortgage deed on the security of these lands dated 03.11.1900 and the Court sale effected in execution of the decree obtained on the basis of the said mortgage in O.S. No. 29 of 1911. They further seek restoration of possession of these lands to Kotiswara Rao, defendant no. 1 who is the person hereditary Dharmakartha of the temples. Before the Privy Council it was contended on behalf of the appellants conceding that the appellants must be deemed to be claiming under plaintiffs in 1891 suit within the meaning of Explanation VI, Section 11 CPC as they were both claiming as representing the public interest in the temples of Kowthavaram lands and the issue in the two suits was substantially same but it was submitted that 1891 suit was not a bona fide litigation, there was gross negligence in the conduct of the suit by the plaintiff in 1891 suit, and, therefore, the principle of res judicata would not bar the present suit. Rejecting the submission, it was held that the provision of Section 11 CPC is mandatory and the ordinary litigant who claims under one of the parties to the former suit can only avoid its provisions by taking advantage of Section 44, Evidence Act which defines with precision the grounds of such avoidance as fraud or collusion. The exposition of law stated therein need not be discussed further since it is consistent with what was held subsequently also as has been discussed by us above.
476. During the course of argument, the learned counsel has pleaded and pressed plea of maintainability of suit on the ground of res judicata and estoppel, using both the term it appears to us interchangeably. However, we do not subscribe to the view since it is now well settled that the two are essentially different. It is true that sometimes res judicata has been treated as part of the doctrine of the estoppel, but both have been held to be different in connotation, in application and with reference to the essential indicias thereof.
477. Both these principles are based on public policy and justice. Often they are treated as a branch of law having same traits but both differ in several aspects. Doctrine of res judicata some times is construed as a branch of doctrine of estoppel but as we said earlier both have different connotation. In Hope Plantations Ltd. (supra) in para 26 of the judgement the Apex Court said:
"It is settled law that the principles of estoppel and res judicata are based on public policy and justice. Doctrine of res judicata is often treated as a branch of the law of estoppel through these two doctrines differ in some essential particulars..........."
478. The estoppel is part of the law of evidence and prevents a person from saying one thing at one time and opposite thing at another time while res judicata precludes a man from avowing the same thing in successive litigations. (Cassomally Vs. Carrimbhoy (1911) 36 Bom. 214; Radharani Vs. Binodamoyee AIR 1942 Cal. 92; Rajah of Venkatgiri Vs. Provinces of Madras AIR (34) 1947 Madras 5. We find it useful to refer the distinction elucidated by Hon'ble Mahmood J. in Sitaram Vs. Amir Begum (1886) ILR 8 Alld. 324 "Perhaps shortest way to describe difference between the plea of res judicata and estoppel is to say that while the former prohibits the Court from entering into an inquiry at all as to a matter already adjudicated upon, the later prohibits a party after the inquiry has already been entered upon from proving any thing which would contradict his own previous declaration or acts to the prejudice of another party who, relying upon those declaration or acts to the prejudice of another party, has altered his position. In other words, res judicata prohibits an inquiry in limine, whilst an estoppel is only a piece of evidence".
479. Res judicata has been held to be a branch or specie of the rule of estoppel called "estoppel by record". In Guda Vijayalakshmi Vs. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, AIR 1981 SC 1143 in para 3 the Apex Court observed:
"Res judicata, after all, is a branch or specie of rule of estoppel called estoppel by record and though estoppel is often described as a rule of evidence, whole concept is more correctly viewed as a substantive rule of law."
480. A judgement operates as estoppel on all points considered and decided therein. It is the decision and not decree that creates bar of res judicata. Res judicata, therefore, is estoppel by judgement or record and not by decree. The judgement operates as estoppel in respect to all the findings which are essential to sustain the judgements. What has taken place, recorded and declared final, cannot be questioned subsequently by anyone which has already an opportunity to adjudicate and this is what we call as estoppel on record. The distinction between the doctrine of res judicata and estoppel would lie with the estoppel results from the acts and conduct of the parties while the res judicata prohibits the Court from entering into an inquiry as to a matter already adjudicated upon. While in the case of estoppel it prohibits a party after the inquiry has already been entered upon from proving anything which would contradict his own previous declaration or acts to the prejudice of another party who relying upon those declaration or acts has altered his position. Rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over and again even though the determination may even be demonstratedly wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgement and are estopped from questioning it. They cannot litigate again on the same cause of action nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier litigation. These two aspects are "cause of action estoppel" and "issue estoppel". It is held that these two terms are of common law origin.
481. The learned counsel for the parties have also addressed this Court as to what does it mean by the words "suit"; "issue"; "directly and substantially in issue" in order to show whether the principle of res judicata would be attracted in the cases in hand or not.
482. To apply the doctrine of res judicata we need to understand the meaning of the word "suit" or "issue", when a matter can be said to be "directly and substantially in issue", can it be said that the parties are same or parties in the earlier suit were the parties under whom the present one are claiming their rights i.e. litigating under the same title.
483. Learned counsel for parties admitted that as per Order IV Rule 1 CPC suit is instituted by placing a plaint and in view of Order VI pleading means plaint and written statement and what constitute a plaint we may look into Order VII.
484. It is not disputed by the parties that the term "suit" has not been defined in CPC. Section 26 says that every suit shall be instituted by presentation of a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed. The term "suit" was considered by the Privy Council in Hansraj Gupta and others Vs. Dehradun Mussorie Electric Tramway Company Ltd., AIR 1933 PC 63 and it was held that word "suit" ordinarily, apart from some context, must be taken to mean a civil proceeding instituted by presentation of a plaint. To the same effect is the view expressed by the Madras High Court in Venkata Chandrayya Vs. Venkata Rama Reddy, (1899) 22 Madras 256, Raja Gopa Chettiar Vs. Hindu Religion Endowment Board, Madras, AIR 1934 Madras 103 and by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs. Sardara Singh and others, AIR 1981 (Punjab and Haryana) 354.
485. However, if a suit is filed by a pauper under Order XXXIII CPC the same would commence from the moment the application to sue in forma pauperis is presented. (see Matuka Mistry Vs. Kamakhaya Prasad, AIR 1958 (Patna) 264 (FB), Narayana Dutt and another Vs. Smt. Molini Devi, AIR 1964 (Rajasthan) 269, Shripati Quer Vs. Malti Devi, AIR 1967 (Patna) 320). This illustration is only for the purpose to show "any other manner as may be prescribed", contained in Section 26 CPC.
486. Similarly, the "issue" has also not been defined in CPC. Whartons "Law Lexicon" says that "issue" means "the point in question at the conclusion of the pleading between the contending parties in an action, when one side affirms and the other side denies". Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the settlement of "issues" and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon. Rule 1 deals with the framing of issues as follows:
1. Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and deemed by the other.
2. Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence.
3. Every material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other, shall form the subject of a distinct issue.
4. Issues are of two kinds.
(a)Issues of fact
(b)Issues of law Meaning of "a matter directly and substantially in issue"
487. Then comes as to what constitutes "a matter directly and substantially in issue". One of the tests recognized is, if the issue was necessary to be decided for adjudicating on the principle issue, and, was decided.
488. A collateral or incidental issue is one i.e. ancillary to a direct and substantive issue; the former is an auxiliary issue and the later the principal issue. The expression collateral or incidental in issue implies that there is another matter which is directly and substantially in issue. (Mulla's C.P.C. 16th Edition, Vol. I, page 179).
489. Difficulty, however, in distinguishing whether a matter was directly in issue or collaterally in issue confronted various Courts in different Countries and certain tests were laid down therein. Halsbury's Laws of England (Vol. 16, para 1538, 4th Edn.) says "difficulty arises in the application of the rule, in determining in each case what was the point decided and what was the matter incidentally cognizable, and the opinion of Judges seems to have undergone some fluctuations."
490. In "The Doctrine of Res Judicata" (2nd Edn., 1969, p. 181), "Spencer Bower and Turner", quoted Dixon, J. of the Australian High Court in Blair Vs. Churran (1939) 62 CLR 464 at page 553; "The difficulty in the actual application of these conceptions is to distinguish the matters fundamental or cardinal to the prior decision on judgment, or necessarily involved in it as its legal justification or foundation, from matters which, even though actually raised and decided as being in the circumstances of the case the determining considerations, yet are not in point of law the essential foundation of a groundwork of the judgment."
491. The aforesaid authorities opined in order to understand this essential distinction, one has always to inquire with unrelenting severity- is the determination upon which it is sought to find an estoppel so fundamental to the substantive decision that the latter cannot stand without the former. Nothing less than this will do. It is suggested by Dixon, J. that even where this inquiry is answered satisfactorily, there is still another test to pass: viz. whether the determination is the "immediate foundation" of the decision as opposed to merely "a proposition collateral or subsidiary only, i.e. not more than part of the reasoning supporting the conclusion." It is well settled, say the above authors, "that a mere step in reasoning is insufficient. What is required is no less than the determination of law, or fact or both, fundamental to the substantive decision."
492. Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol. 50, para 725) noticed the above aspects and conceded it is sometimes difficult to determine when particular issue determined is of sufficient dignity to be covered by the rule of estoppel. It is said that estoppel by judgment does not extend to any matter which was only incidentally cognizable or which came collaterally in question, although it may have arisen in the case and have been judicially passed on.
493. However, this rule did not prevent a judgment from constituting an estoppel with reference to incidental matters necessarily adjudicated in determining ultimate vital point.
494. American Jurispudence (Vol. 46, Judgments, para 422) says; "Under this rule, if the record of the former trial shows that the judgment could not have been rendered without deciding the particular matter, it will be considered as having settled that matter as to all future actions between the parties."
495. The words "substantially" means "of importance and value". When a matter is substantially in issue, when it is of importance and value for the decision of main proceeding. When parties go to a trial on a particular issue treating it as material and invites the Court to give a decision thereon, that will be an issue substantially and directly involved and would operate as res judicata. However, a mere expression of opinion on a question not in issue cannot operate as res judicata as held in Ragho Prasad Gupta Vs. Krishna Poddar AIR 1969 SC 316.
496. In Sajjadanashin Sayed Md. B.E. Edr. (D) By LRS. Vs. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and others 2000 (3) SCC 350, the term "directly and substantially in issue" qua the words "incidental and collateral" came up for consideration. The Edroos family in Gujarat claimed to be descendants of Hazarat Imam Ali, the son-in-law and cousin of Prophet Muhamed. One of the descendants of the said Hazrat came down to India in 1542 A.D. and founded his Gadi at Ahmedabad, Broach and Surat. The members of the Edroos family were Sajjadanashins or Mutavallis of the wakf throughout. The three Rozas at the three places as well as the villages which were granted - not only for the maintenance of these Rozas but also for the benefit of the Waquif's family, - constituted the wakf. The holder was buried in the house and his Dargah is situated in this place. There is also a place for reciting prayers. In an earlier litigation in Sayed Abdula Edrus Vs. Sayad Zain Sayad Hasan Edrus ILR (1889) 13 Bom. 555, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, traced the history of the wakf and held that the custom of primogeniture did not apply to the office of Sajjadanishin or Mutavalli of this wakf. In a later dispute in Saiyad Jaffar El Edroos Vs. Saiyad Mahomed El Edroos AIR 1937 Bom. 217 another Division Bench held after construing the royal grants relating to the villages Umrao and Orma that the grants were primarily for the Rozas and Dargas and they clearly constituted "wakf" but that the Sajjadanashin or Mutavalli had, however, a right to the surplus income left over after discharge of the legal obligations regarding the wakf. It was thus held that the Sajjadanishin could provide for the needs of the indigent members of the family and this was a pious obligation which was only a moral obligation and not a legal obligation and hence the indigent members of the Edroos family, as a right, could not claim maintenance out of the surplus income. Thereafter, Regular Suit No. 201 of 1928 was filed by three plaintiffs under Section 92 C.P.C. impleading father of Sayed Mohamed Baquir-El-Edroos in 1928 after obtaining permission on 22.2.1928 from the Collector under Section 92 C.P.C. for filing the suit. The suit was dismissed on 6.10.1931, the first appeal was dismissed but cross objections were allowed on 21.11.1938 and the second appeal to the High Court was withdrawn. In the aforesaid suit, there were eight points whereof points no. 1 to 7 related to the validity of appointment of the defendant and the nature of the office and the right to the surplus etc. It was held that the appointment of defendant as Sajjadanashin was valid and that the grant of the property was both for the Rozas and for the maintenance, presumably of the Sajjadanashin and his family members. It was also held that the Sajjadanashin had complete power of disposal over the surplus as he was not in the position of an ordinary trustee. It was held that the Sajjadanashin had complete power of disposal over the surplus, hence the plea of plaintiff's complaint about mis-utilization of the income by Sajjadanashin was rejected. Another issue was framed whether the waqf was a private or a public and it was held that it was a private waqf. The District Court held that from 1746 A.D. onwards, the Sajjadanashin were using the revenue of these villages for their own maintenance and that of the members of their family and other dependents. This finding was consistent with the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Saiyad Jaffar El Edroos (supra) wherein this was held permissible. The District Court in view of the fact that Sajjadanashin was from the family and not a stranger or outside held it a private waqf. Thereafter another matter came before the Gujrat High Court in relation to Ahmedabad Rozas wherein also a Single Judge of Bombay High Court in Alimiya Vs. Sayed Mohd. AIR 1968 Guj. 257 rejected a similar plea. This judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench in Sayed Mohd. Vs. Alimiya (1972) 13 Guj.LR 285. In the case before the Apex Court in respect to Rozas at all the three places, the Assistant Commissioner in enquiry no. 142 of 1967 passed an order dated 26.7.1968 accepting the preliminary objection of res judicata but the Joint Charity Commissioner, Gujarat in its order dated 17.12.1973, in appeal, did not accept the said plea which was pressed before him only in respect of the Rozas at Broach and Surat. He set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner and remanded the matter for enquiry. The Assistant Judge in Misc. Civil Application No. 32 of 1974 affirmed the order of Joint Commissioner on 3.9.1976 and it was further affirmed by a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in First Appeal No. 985 of 1976 on 27.7.1985. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant, Sajjadanashin Sayed took the matter to the Apex Court and raised the plea of res judicata in respect of Rozas at Broach and Surat. It is in the light of the above facts, the Apex Court considered the matter. In order to see whether the principle of res judicata is attracted, the Apex Court framed an issue as to what is the meaning of "collaterally and incidentally in issue" as distinguished from "directly and substantially in issue". In para 11, the Apex Court found that the matter collaterally and incidentally in issue are not ordinarily res judicata and this principle has been well accepted but certain exceptions to this principle have also been accepted. The Court also traced out the law on the subject in England, America, Australia and India. Referring to Halsbury's Laws of England (Vol. 16, para 1538, 4th Edn.), the Court observed that the fundamental rule is that a judgment is not conclusive if any matter came collaterally in question or if any matter is incidentally cognizable. The said judgment attained finality since the second appeal filed in the High Court was withdrawn.
497. In the light of the above facts and in this context the Apex Court in Sajjadanashin (supra) in respect of India, affirmed the view of the learned Author Mulla in "C.P.C." as under:
"..a matter in respect of which relief is claimed in an earlier suit can be said to be generally a matter "directly and substantially" in issue but it does not mean that if the matter is one in respect of which no relief is sought it is not directly or substantially in issue. It may or may not be. It is possible that it was "directly and substantially" in issue and it may also be possible that it was only collaterally or incidentally in issue, depending upon the facts of the case. The question arises as to what is the test for deciding into which category a case falls? One test is that if the issue was "necessary" to be decided for adjudicating on the principle issue and was decided, it would have to be treated as "directly and substantially" in issue and if it is clear that the judgment was in fact based upon that decision, then it would be res judicata in a later case. One has to examine the plaint, the written statement, the issues and the judgment to find out if the matter was directly and substantially in issue (Ishwer Singh Vs. Sarwan Singh AIR 1965 SC 948 and Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai Vs. Mohd. Hanifa AIR 1976 SC 1569).
498. It also referred to two judgments of the Privy Council in Run Bahadur Singh Vs. Lucho Koer ILR (1885) 11 Cal 301 and Asrar Ahmed Vs. Durgah Committee AIR 1947 PC 1 as well as its earlier decision in Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji Vs. Ishwarlalbhai Narsibhai 1952 SCR 513 and found that inspite of a specific issue and adverse finding in the earlier suit, the finding was not treated as res judicata as it was purely incidental or auxiliary or collateral to the main issue in each of the three cases and was not necessary for the earlier case nor formed foundation. It also considered Sulochana Amma (supra) and a Madras High Court decision in Vanagiri Sri Selliamman Ayyanar Uthirasomasundar-eswarar Temple Vs. Rajanga Asari Air 1965 Mad. 355 in respect whereto it was pointed out that there was a direct conflict. The Court however found that the said decisions are not contrary to each other but should be understood in the context of the tests referred to above. It held that in Sulochana Amma (supra) it is to be assumed that the tests above referred to were satisfied for holding that the finding as to position was substantially rested on title upon which a finding was felt necessary but in the case before the Madras High Court, it must be assumed that the tests were not satisfied. The Apex Court confirmed the observations of the learned author Mulla in "C.P.C. (Supra)" and said that it all depend on the facts of each case and whether the finding as to title was treated as necessary for grant of an injunction in an earlier suit and was also substantive basis for grant of injunction or not.
499. Further, the Court in Sajjadanashin (supra) quoted the following from the "Corpus Juris Secundum" (Vol. 50, para 735, p. 229) where a similar aspect in regard to findings on possession and incidental findings on title were dealt with and held, "Where title to property is the basis of the right of possession, a decision on the question of possession is res judicata on the question of title to the extent that adjudication of title was essential to the judgment; but where the question of the right to possession was the only issue actually or necessary involved, the judgment is not conclusive on the question of ownership or title." The Court observed that in the case before it there were certain changes in the statutory law with respect to definition of "public waqf" and in view thereof since now the "private waqf" was also included within the definition of "public waqf" in the Act, due to change in subject it held that the earlier decision would not operate as res judicata.
500. In Sharadchandra Ganesh Muley Vs. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 1996 SC 61, Explanation IV Section 11A containing doctrine of 'might and ought' and application of doctrine of constructive res judicata came to be considered. The Court held that where in respect of land acquisition proceedings an earlier writ petition was filed without raising a plea which was available at that time, in the second writ petition such plea could not have been taken as the doctrine of 'might and ought' engrafted in Explanation IV to Section 11 of the C.P.C. would come into play and the incumbent would be precluded from raising the controversy once over. The Court held that the doctrine of constructive res judicata shall put an embargo on his right to raise a plea as barred by limitation under Section 11A.
"Explanation IV"
501. However, the concept of "constructive res judicata" is necessary to be dealt with in view of Explanation-IV Section 11 C.P.C. A Matter, which might and ought to have been made a ground of attack or defence is a, matter which is constructively in issue. The principle underlying Explanation-IV is res judicata not confined to issues which the Courts are actually asked to decide but cover issues or facts which are so clearly part of the subject matter of the litigation and so clearly could have been raised that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow a new proceeding to be started in respect of them. (State of U.P. Vs. Nawab Hussain AIR 1977 SC 1680). The proposition of law expounded in the authorities cited by Sri Siddiqui, as referred to above, in para 20 is also unexceptional. However,it would apply only where a plea was available at the time of the suit but not availed of. But there is no question of constructive res judicata where there is no adjudication in the earlier proceedings (Kewal Singh Vs. Smt. Lajwanti 1980 (1) SCC 290). The effect of Explanation-IV is where a matter has been constructively in issue, it could not from the very nature of the case be heard and decided but will be deemed to have been heard and decided against the parties omitting to allege it except when an admission by the defendant obviates a decision (Sri Gopal Vs. Pirthi Singh (1902) ILR 24 Alld. 429 (PC); Government of Province of Bombay Vs. Peston Ji Ardeshir Wadia AIR 1949 PC 143).
502. There is an exception to this plea, i.e., where the evidence in support of one ground is such as might be destructive for the other ground, the two grounds need not be set up in the same suit. In Kanhiya Lal Vs. Ashraf Khan AIR 1924 Alld. 355, it was observed that a person claiming property on the allegation that it is wakf property and that he is the Manager thereof is not bound to claim the same property in the same suit alternatively in his own rights in the event of its being held that the property was not wakf property. In Madhavan Vs. Chathu AIR (38) 1951 Madras 285, a suit to recover possession of properties on a claim that they belong personally to the plaintiff was held not barred by reason of a decision in a previous suit, in which they were claimed as belonging to a Tarwad of which he was a member. Similarly, where the right claimed in the subsequent suit is different from that in the former suit; it is claimed under a different form that in the former suit; it is claimed under a different title, the subsequent suit would not be barred by res judicata/constructive res judicata.
503. Next is the question about the "same parties" or "between parties under whom they or any of them claim". In order to find a person by res judicata it must be shown that he was in some way party to the earlier suit as the judgment binds only parties and privies. A person claiming under a party is known as privy. The ground of privity is property and not personal relations. If the plaintiff in subsequent suit claims independent right over the suit property the principle of res judicata would not apply. If the predecessor in interest was party to the suit/proceeding involving the same property then the decision binds his successor in interest. From the record it must be evident that the party sought to be bound was in some way a party to the suit. A person merely interested in the litigation cannot be said to be a party to the suit. Such a person is neither to make himself a party nor can be bound by the result of the litigation as held in Jujjuvarapu Vs. Pappala, AIR 1969 A.P. 76.
504. Where a person in the subsequent suit claims independent right over the suit property the principle of res judicata would not apply. (Byathaiah (Kum) and others Vs. Pentaiah (Kum) and others, 2000 (9) SCC 191).
505. Similarly the party must be litigating under the same title. The test is the identity of title in two litigations and not the identity of the actual property involved in two cases as held in Smt. Raj Lakshmi Dasi and others Vs. Banamali Sen (supra); Ram Gobinda Daw Vs. Smt. H. Bhakta Bala Dassi, AIR 1971 SC 664.
506. Same title means same capacity; the test being whether the party litigating is in law the same or a different person. If the same person is a party in different character, the decision in the former suit does not operate as res judicata. Similarly, if the rights claimed are different, the subsequent suit will not be res judicata simply because the property is identical. Title refers not to cause of action but to the interest or capacity of the party suing or being sued.
507. In Sri Ramjee and others Vs. Bishwanath Pd. Sah and others AIR 1978 Patna 129, former suit was filed by plaintiff alone and in his own rights while the subsequent suit was filed in the name of the deity and it was held not barred as res judicata.
"Explanation VI"
508. Lastly, but not the least, is the concern with respect to Explanation-VI, i.e., representative suit. It provides that where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or a private right claimed in common for themselves and other persons interested in such right, shall, for the purpose of the Section, be deemed to have claimed under the persons so litigating. The counsel for appellant has heavily relied upon this provision. Explanation-VI apparently is not confined to the cases covered by Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C., but would include any litigation in which, apart from the rule altogether, parties are entitled to represent interested persons other then themselves. It is a kind of exception to the ordinary rule of res judicata which provide for the former litigation between the same parties or their privies. Even persons, who are not parties in the earlier proceeding, in certain contingencies, may be debarred from bringing a suit subsequently if the conditions contemplated under Explanation-VI Section 11 are satisfied. The conditions to attract Explanation-VI so as to constitute res judicata, which must exist, are :
1. There must be a right claimed by one or more persons in common for themselves and others not expressly named in the suit,
2. The parties not expressly named in the suit must be interested in such right.
3. The litigation must have been conducted bona fide on behalf of all the parties interested.
4. If the suit is one under Order 1 Rule 8, all the conditions of that Section must have been strictly complied with.
509. The essentials of representative suit vis a vis the principle of res judicata with reference to Explanation VI Section 11was considered by Privy Council in Kumaravelu Chettiar and others Vs. T.P. Ramaswami Ayyar and others, AIR 1933 PC 183. Prior to the enactment of CPC of 1877 there was no express legislation on the subject of representative suit. In these circumstances, the Courts assumed the task and followed the practice virtually obtained in the Court of Chancery in England. Existence of this practice was demonstrated by referring to a judgment of Madras High Court in Srikanti Vs. Indupuram (1866) 3 M.H.C.R. 226. The Court emphasized that convenience, where community of interest existed, required that a few out of a large number of persons should, under proper conditions, be allowed to represent the whole body, so that in the result all might be bound by the decree, although only some of the persons concerned were parties named in the record. It observed that absence of any statutory provision on the subject, the Courts in India, it would seem, prior to 1877 assumed the task and duty to determine in the particular case whether, without any real injustice to the plaintiffs in the later suit, the decree in the first could properly be regarded as an estoppel against further prosecution by them of the same claim. The first legislation was made vide Section 30 in CPC 1877 which is now found in Order I Rule 8 CPC of 1908. The Privy Council held at page 186:
"It is an enabling rule of convenience prescribing the conditions upon which such persons when not made parties to a suit may still be bound by the proceedings therein. For the section to apply the absent persons must be numerous; they must have the same interest in the suit which, so far as it is representative, must be brought or prosecuted with the permission of the Court. On such permission being given it becomes the imperative duty of the Court to direct notice to be given to the absent parties in such of the ways prescribed as the Court in each case may require; while liberty is reserved to any represented person to apply to be made a party to the suit."
510. The Privy Council also approved a Calcutta High Court decision in Baiju Lal Vs. Bulak Lal, (1897) 24 Cal 385, where Ameer Ali, J. explaining the position under Section 30 said:
"The effect of S. 30 is that unless such permission is obtained by the person suing or defending the suit, his action has no binding effect on the persons he chooses to represent. If the course prescribed by S. 30 is not followed in the first case, the judgment does not bind those whose names are not on the record."
511. In Waqf Khudawand Taala Banam Masjid Mauza Chaul Shahabudinpur vs. Seth Mohan Lal 1956 ALJ 225 a suit for declaration of the property in dispute as a public mosque was filed. It appears that earlier a suit was filed against some Muslims claiming to be the proprietor and notice under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. was also issued to other residents of that locality. Defence taken by Muslims was that property in dispute was a public mosque. The suit was decreed and the defence was not found proved. Thereafter second suit was filed by Muslim parties of neighbouring village wherein the plea of res judicata was taken. Defending the said objection on behalf of plaintiffs it was contended that in earlier case notice under Order 1 Rule 8 was issued to the residents of Chaul Shahabuddinpur and not of the village to which the plaintiffs belonged which is a neighbouring village. However, the Court upholding the plea of res judicata observed that Explanation VI to Section 11 C.P.C. is attracted in the matter and once in respect of a public right the matter has been adjudicated, the decision is binding on all persons interested in that right and they will be deemed to claim under the persons who litigated in the earlier suit in respect of that public right.
512. The question of issue estoppel and constructive res judicata in regard to a judgment in a representative suit came to be considered by the Apex Court in Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Vs. Mahant Harnam Singh and others, AIR 2003 SC 3349. The facts, in brief, are necessary to understand the exposition of law laid down therein. Gurdial Singh and Ishwar Singh of Village Jhandawala obtained permission from the Advocate General under Section 92 CPC to institute a suit against one Harnam Singh for his removal from Mahantship. It was stated in the plaint that there was one Guru Granth Sahib at Village Jhandawala, Tehsil and District Bhatinda which was managed by Mahant Harnam Singh as a Mahatmim and he was in possession of the Dera, and agricultural land belonging to Guru Granth Sahib which was a public religious place and was established by the residents of village; it was a public trust created by the residents of the village for the service of the public to provide food from lunger, to allow the people to fulfill religious beliefs and for worship etc. The two plaintiffs in their capacity as representatives of owners of land situated in the village and the residents thereof claim that they were entitled to file a suit under Section 92 CPC. Harnam Singh, Mahant in his written statement took the defence that there was no such interest in the public as to entitle the aforesaid plaintiffs to institute the suit. The trial Court and the High Court recorded a concurrent finding that all Mahants of the institution from Bhai Saida Ram to Mahant Harnam Singh have been Nirmalas. However, the trial Court held that such Nirmala Sadhus are not Sikhs and that the institution was not a Sikh institution. High Court disagreed with this conclusion and held that Sadhus Nirmalas are a sect of the Sikhs and consequently the Sikhs had interest in the institution as it was a Sikh Gurdwara and upheld the plaintiffs claim to file a representative suit under Section 92 CPC. In appeal the Apex Court, however, held (i) Nirmala Sadhus are not Sikhs; (ii) the mere fact that at some stage there was a Guru Granth Sahib in the Dera in dispute cannot lead to any conclusion that the institution was meant for or belonged to the followers of the Sikh religion. The Dera was maintained for entirely a distinct sect known as Nirmals Sadhus who cannot be regarded as Sikhs; (iii) the institution was held to be not belonging to the followers of the Sikh religion; (iv) the plaintiffs in their mere capacity of followers of Sikh religion could not be held to have such interest as to entitle them to institute a suit under Section 92 CPC. This judgement dated 24.02.1967 of the Apex Court is reported as Mahant Harnam Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh and another, AIR 1967 SC 1415. In the meantime it appears that under Section 7(1) of Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, 60 persons claiming to be worshippers made a petition for declaring the institution in question, i.e., Guru Granth Sahib situated in Village Jhandawala, District Bhatinda to be a Sikh Gurdwara. The Punjab Government by notification dated 23.01.1961 made such a declaration under Section 7(3) of the aforesaid Act. It may be pointed out that these 60 persons also included the two plaintiffs of earlier litigation, i.e., Gurdial Singh and Ishwar Singh. Mahant Harnam Singh with others filed counter petition under Section 8 of Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 stating that the institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara but was a Dera Bhai Saida Ram. A similar petition under Section 8 was also moved by 58 persons of the Dera making a similar claim. Both these petitions were forwarded by the State Government to the Tribunal for disposal. The Tribunal formulated the following two questions: (1) what is the effect of the judgment of the Apex Court in Mahant Harnam Singh (supra); and (2) whether the institution in dispute was a Sikh Gurdwara. The Tribunal decided issue no. 1 as a preliminary issue vide order dated 08.03.1977 and held that the decision in Mahant Harnam Singh (supra) would not bar the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide claim petition under Section 7 of the Act. The order of the Tribunal attained finality since challenge before the High Court and Apex Court was unsuccessful. Thereafter, issue no. 2 was taken up and the Tribunal held that the institution was a Sikh Gurdwara, originally established by Sikhs and the object of worship was Guru Granth Sahib because the majority of villagers were Sikhs and Nirmalas are Sikhs. This order of the Tribunal in respect of issue no. 2 was challenged before the High Court. It held that the Tribunal had lost sight of the decision in Mahant Harnam Singh (supra). It is this order of the High Court which was taken in appeal before the Apex Court, which held that once in a suit instituted under Section 92 CPC a categorical finding was recorded that (i) Nirmala Sadhus are not Sikhs; (ii) the Dera was maintained for entirely a distinct sect known as Nirmals Sadhus who cannot be regarded as Sikhs; (iii) the mere fact that at some stage there was a Guru Granth Sahib in the Dera cannot lead to any conclusion that the institution was meant for or belonged to the followers of Sikh religion, these findings were rendered in suit filed under Section 92 CPC, therefore, cannot be reagitated and any challenge thereto is precluded on the principle of issue estoppel. The nature of suit under Section 92 CPC was explained by the Apex Court in para 19 of the judgement referring to its earlier decision in R. Venugopala Naidu and others Vs. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities and others, AIR 1990 SC 444 holding that a suit under Section 92 CPC is a suit of special nature for the protection of public rights in the public trust and charities. The suit is fundamentally on behalf of the entire body of persons who are interested in the trust. It is for vindication of public rights. The beneficiaries of the trust, which may consist of public at large, may choose two or more persons amongst themselves, for the purpose of filing a suit under Section 92 CPC and the suit-title in that event would show only their names as plaintiffs. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the parties to the suit are only those persons whose names are mentioned in the suit-title. The named plaintiffs being the representatives of public at large, which is interested in the trust, of such interested persons, would be considered in the eyes of law to be parties to the suit. A suit under Section 92 CPC is thus a representative suit and as such binds not only the parties named in the suit-title but all those who share common interest and are interested in the trust. It is for that reason that Explanation 6 to Section 11 CPC constructively bars by res judicata the entire body of interested persons from reagitating the matter directly and substantially in issue in an earlier suit under Section 92 CPC.
513. It is well settled law that explanation to a Section is not a substantive provision by itself. It is entitled to explain the meaning of the words contained in the Section or to clarify certain ambiguities or clear them up. It becomes a part and parcel of the enactment. Its meaning must depend upon its terms. Sometimes, it is for exclusion of some thing and sometimes excludes something from the ambit of the main provision or condition of some words existing therein. Therefore, an explanation should be read harmoniously so as to clear any ambiguity in the main section. A clash of interest in the parties would oust the applicability of Explanation-VI.
514. In Commissioner of Endowments and others Vs. Vittal Rao and others (2005) 4 SCC 120, it was held that even though an issue was not formerly framed but if it was material and essential for the decision of the case in the earlier proceedings and the issue has been decided, it shall operate as res judicata in the subsequent case.
515. In Vithal Yeshwant Jathar Vs. Shikandarkhan Makhtumkhan Sardesai AIR 1963 SC 385, it was held :
"It is well settled that if the final decision in any matter at issue between the parties is based by a Court on its decisions on more than one point- each of which by itself would be sufficient for the ultimate decision- the decision on each of these points operates as res judicata between the parties."
516. These are the few general principles, which we have considered and elaborated to find answer to the issues relating to res judicata and estoppal raised by learned counsels for the parties.
517. In Madhukar D. Shende Vs. Tarabai Aba Shedage, 2002(2) SCC 85 plaintiff who has lost in all the three Courts below took appeal in Supreme Court. A suit for declaration of title and preventive injunction and in alternative for recovery of possession was dismissed by Trial Court and second appeal was dismissed by High Court. Plaintiff set up the case in respect of disputed property which was admittedly owned by late Bhagubai, who expired on 24.09.1963. Before death of Bhagubai, as claimed by plaintiff, he executed a registered deed of Will on 22.09.1963 in favour of Chingubai, sister of Bhagubai. Chingubai by registered sale deed dated 24.09.1976 transferred property to plaintiff. Courts below held that Will was not proved due to suspicious circumstances and plaintiff failed to prove its title over disputed land hence dismissed same. Before Supreme Court defendant-respondent admitted that there was no proof of title of defendant over suit property. It also gave up its plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession. It was also not disputed that disputed property vested in Bhagubai and sale deed executed by Chingubai in favour of plaintiff was also proved. Therefore, dispute was only with regard to Will which the Courts below held not proved due to suspicious circumstances and that was the issue considered by Supreme Court. Court observed that requirement of proof of a Will is the same as any other document excepting that evidence tendered in proof of a will should additionally satisfy requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Law of evidence does not permit conjecture or suspicion having the place of legal proof nor permits them to demolish a fact otherwise proved by legal and convincing evidence. Well founded suspicion may be a ground for closer scrutiny of evidence but suspicion alone cannot form foundation of a judicial verdict positive or negative. One who propounds a Will must establish competence of testator to make Will at the time when it was executed. The factors, such as, Will being a natural one or being registered or executed in such circumstances and ambience, as would leave no room for suspicion, assume significance. Who are the persons propounding and supporting a Will as against the person disputing Will and pleadings of parties would be relevant and of significance. In this regard Court found that relevant piece of evidence, i.e., an earlier judgment was not considered by Courts below inasmuch as one of the property (not subject matter of suit) was earlier pleaded to a dispute between same parties. Said property was under tenancy of Tarabai as a tenant of Bhagubai and suit property was trespassed upon by Tarabai. With regard to tenanted premises Chingubai filed a suit for ejectment against Tarabai after terminating his tenancy and claiming right to sue by virtue of same Will dated 22.09.1963. Tarabai in said suit had denied Will. Trial Court dismissed suit. First Appellate Court allowed appeal observing that Will was challenged by a mere tenant having no interest in property except by adverse possession, evidence which was tendered, adequate to prove testamentary capacity as well as the execution of the Will. Judgment of First Appellate Court was upheld by High Court by dismissing writ petition filed by Tarabai under Article 227 of the Constitution upholding the findings of Lower Appellate Court on the Will to be duly attested and registered document executed by Bhagubai.
518. Before Supreme Court plaintiff's counsel sought to plead the aforesaid findings in earlier proceeding as res judicata but the Court found that neither plea of res judicata was taken in Courts below nor there was any such issue. Court found that res judicata is a mixed question of fact and law and in absence of any such plea taken before Courts below, it cannot be permitted to be raised before highest Court for the first time. However, Court finds that still the judgment of earlier litigation between same parties was a relevant piece of evidence under Sections 11, 13 and 35 of Evidence Act having material bearing on the controversy arising for decision in subsequent suit. This material aspect was completely overlooked by all the three Courts and this was a serious error of law having consequence on the findings on most vital issue on the said case. Court also found that alleged suspicious circumstances were all untenable and constitute irrelevant consideration to negative the otherwise well admissible proof to establish the Will. It observed:
"Courts below have allowed their findings to be influenced by such suspicion and conjectures as have no foundation in the evidence and have no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the case and unwittingly allowed their process of judicial thinking to be vitiated by irrelevant reasonings and considerations. The weighty factor that the factum of execution of will by Bhagubai was being denied by a rank trespasser without raising any specific pleadings and the fact that no relation of Bhagubai has chosen to lay a challenge to the will, have been simply overlooked. In our opinion, the High Court ought not to have sustained such a perverse finding which would result in the property of a rightful owner being lost to a trespasser."
519. This judgment, in our view, does not help parties on the issue of res judicata since it has been decided on the ground that relevant piece of evidence, i.e., judgment of Court rendered in respect of a property between same party relating to same document of Will was not considered by Courts while recording a contrary finding in respect of same document, i.e., 'Will'.
520. One of the decisions relied by learned counsel for appellant relating to religious endowment is Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2014(5) SCC 75. It relates to Sri Sabhanayagar Temple at Chidambaram. Temple was in existence since time immemorial. It was being administered by Podhu Dikshitars, all male married members of the families of Smarthi Brahmins who claim to have been called for the establishment of the Temple in the name of Lord Natraja. In 1927 Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1927 was enacted by State of Madras, which was repealed by Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "MHRCE Act, 1951"). Pursuant to MHRCE Act, 1951 Government promulgated scheme for management of Temple by constituting Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, which appointed an Executive Officer for the management of the Temple vide order dated 28.08.1951. This order dated 28.08.1951 was challenged by Dikshitars before High Court in a writ petition which was allowed vide judgment dated 13.12.1951 and said order was quashed. Holding that the Dikshitars constituted a 'religious denomination' and their position vis-à-vis the Temple was analogous to Muttadhipati/Mutt, hence the order passed by Board was violative of Article 26 of the Constitution. State of Madras's appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court on 09.02.1954 whereupon notification was withdrawn by State Government. Subsequently, MHRCE Act, 1951 was repleaded by Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the "TNRCE Act, 1959") and therein also statutory authorities were empowered to appoint Administrative Officer to administer the religious institutions. However certain safeguards were provided under various provisions including Section 107 of TNRCE Act, 1959. Commissioner, Religious Endowments on 31.07.1987 appointed an Executive Officer and on 05.08.1987 passed an order defining duties and powers of Executive Officer appointed for administration of temple. These orders were again challenged in writ petition before High Court which was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.02.1997. An intra-Court appeal was preferred by Dikshitars which was disposed of vide order dated 01.11.2004 giving liberty to Dikshitars to file a revision before Government under Section 114 of TNRCE Act, 1959 since writ petition was filed without exhausting statutory remedy. Consequently, revision was filed but dismissed on 09.05.2006. This revisional order was challenged in writ petition which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 02.02.2009 holding that finding that Dikshitars were religious denomination hold in Marimuthu Dikshitar v. The State of Madras and Anr., 1952(1) MLJ 557 would not operate as res judicata. The writ appeal preferred by Dikshitars wherein Dr. Subramanian Swamy was also allowed to be a party was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.09.2009, hence matter went to Supreme Court in aforesaid case.
521. It was argued that a declaration made by Court in a list between Dikshitars, State and Religious Endowment Commissioner acknowledging them as religious denomination would operate as res judicate and the High Court could not have taken an otherwise view in a subsequent litigation. It was also argued that under TNRCE Act, 1959 State may have a power to regulate activities of temple but lack competent to direct Dikshitars from their right to manage and administer the Temple and its property.
522. The issue was contested on the ground that Article 26(d) applies only when temple/property is owned and established by 'religious denomination', which was not the case so far as Dikshitars are concerned and, therefore, earlier judgment will not operate as res judicata. After examining provisions of TNRCE Act, 1959 Court observed that it did not contemplate supersession of administration in perpetuity but it provides a temporary measure till the evil gets remedied. Court also explained the meaning of expression "religious denomination" by referring to its earlier decision in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282 that word "denomination" as per Oxford Dictionary means, "a collection of individuals classed together under the same name: a religious sect or body having a common faith and organisation and designated by a distinctive name". Court observed that practice of setting up Maths as centres of theological teaching was started by Shri Sankaracharya and was followed by various teachers since then. After Sankara, came a galaxy of religious teachers and philosophers who founded the different sects and sub sects of the Hindu religion that we find in India at the present day. Each one of such sects or sub-sects can certainly be called a religious denomination, as it is designated by a distinctive name, in many cases in the name of the founder and has a common faith and common spiritual organization. Court also held that the issue, whether Dikshitars constitute a 'religious denomination' and whether they have a right to participate in administration of Temple, both stood finalized by High Court in the earlier judgment i.e. Marimuthu Dikshitar (Supra) and, thus, doctrine of res judicata is applicable in full force.
523. On the question of res judicata Court formulated question, whether an issue in a case between same parties, which had been finally determined could be negated relying upon interpretation of law given subsequently in some other cases. It answered the said question in negative. Court stressed upon the fact that when an issue between same parties have already been settled in earlier lis, it must be treated to have come to an end and should not be allowed to be reagitated in subsequent proceedings. In this context it explained the meaning of 'res' stating:
"The literal meaning of "res" is "everything that may form an object of rights and includes an object, subject-matter or status" and "res judicata" literally means "a matter adjudged a thing judicially acted upon or decided: a thing or matter settled by judgments". "Res judicata pro veritate accipiter" is the full maxim which has, over the years, shrunk to mere "res judicata", which means that res judicata is accepted for truth. The doctrine contains the rule of conclusiveness of the judgment which is based partly on the maxim of Roman jurisprudence "interest reipublicae ut sit finis lithium" (it concerns the State that there be an end to law suits) and partly on the maxim "nemo debet bis vexari pro uno et eadem causa" (no man should be vexed twice over for the same cause)."
524. Referring earlier decisions, in Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) Court also said:
(1) Even an erroneous decision on a question of law attracts the doctrine of res judicata between the parties to it. The correctness or otherwise of a judicial decision has no bearing upon the question whether or not it operates as res judicata. (Vide: Shah Shivraj Gopalji v. Edappakath Ayissa Bi and Ors., AIR 1949 PC 302; and Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee and Ors. AIR 1953 SC 65).
(2) A different view on interpretation of law may be possible but the same should not be accepted in case it has the effect of unsettling transactions which had been entered into on the basis of those decisions, as reopening past and closed transactions or settled titles all over would stand jeopardized and this would create a chaotic situation which may bring instability in the society.
(3) Declaration that "Dikshitars are religious denomination or section thereof" is in fact a declaration of their status and making such declaration is in fact a judgment in rem.
525. In Smt. Raj Lakshmi Dasi and Ors. v. Banamali Sen and Ors., AIR 1953 SC 33 in para 15 Court said:
"15. .....the rule of res judicata, while founded on ancient precedents, is dictated by a wisdom which is for all time..... Though the rule of the Code may be traced to an English source, it embodies a doctrine in no way opposed to the spirit of the law as expounded by the Hindu commentators. Vijnanesvara and Nilakantha include the plea of a former judgment among those allowed by law, each citing for this purpose the text of Katyayana, who describes the plea thus: 'If a person though defeated at law, sue again, he should be answered, "you were defeated formerly". This is called the plea of former judgment" .... And so the application of the rule by the Courts in India should be influenced by no technical considerations of form, but by matter of substance within the limits allowed by law."
526. In Satyadhyan Ghosal Vs. Deorajin Debi, AIR 1960 SC 941 scope of principle of res judicata was explained as under:
"7. The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. What it says is that once a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily it applies as between past litigation and future litigation. When a matter whether on a question of fact or a question of law has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to a higher Court or because the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matter again. This principle of res judicata is embodied in relation to suits in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but even where Section 11 does not apply, the principle of res judicata has been applied by Courts for the purpose of achieving finality in litigation. The result of this is that the original Court as well as any higher Court must in any future litigation proceed on the basis that the previous decision was correct."
527. The above observations have been followed in Daryao Vs. State of U.P, AIR 1961 SC 1457; Greater Cochin Development Authority Vs. Leelamma Valson, 2002(2) SCC 573; and, Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar, 2005(1) SCC 787.
528. A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court applied the doctrine of res judicata in writ jurisdiction also in Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Janapada Sabha Chhindwara, AIR 1964 SC 1013 and said:
"17. .... Therefore, there can be no doubt that the general principle of res judicata applies to writ petitions filed under Article 32 or Article 226. It is necessary to emphasize that the application of the doctrine of res judicata to the petitions filed under Article 32 does not in any way impair or affect the content of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of India. It only seeks to regulate the manner in which the said rights could be successfully asserted and vindicated in Courts of law."
529. In Hope Plantations Ltd. (supra) Court in paras 17 and 26 said as under:
"17. ..... One important consideration of public policy is that the decision pronounced by Courts of competent jurisdiction should be final, unless they are modified or reversed by the appellate authority and other principle that no one should be made to face the same kind of litigation twice ever because such a procedure should be contrary to consideration of fair play and justice."
26. .... Rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again even though the determination may even be demonstratedly wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it."
530. In Gulabchhand Chhotalal Parikh vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1153 Court said that provisions of Section 11 CPC are not exhaustive with respect to all earlier decision operating as res judicata between same parties on same matter in controversy in a subsequent regular suit, and on the general principle of res judicata, any previous decision on a matter in controversy, decided after full contest or after affording fair opportunity to the parties to prove their case by a Court competent to decide it, will operate as res judicata in a subsequent regular suit. It is not necessary that the Court deciding matter formerly be competent to decide subsequent suit or that former proceeding and the subsequent suit have same subject matter.
531. In Erach Boman Khavar Vs. Tukaram Shridhar Bhat and another, 2013(15) SCC 655 question up for consideration was, whether principle of res judicata would attract at successive stages of same litigation and if so in what circumstances.
532. Father of Erach Boman Khavar entered into an agreement of leave and licence with M/s Poysha Industrial Co. Ltd. in respect of a flat owned by him. Period of licence expired but M/s Poysha Industrial Co. Ltd. continued to pay licence fee and same was accepted by father of Erach Boman Khavar without prejudice. In 1990 a suit for eviction was instituted against Company and sub-tenant under Bombay Rent Act, 1947. On 04.03.1997 the sub-tenant, i.e., Tukaram Shridhar Bhat filed application seeking impleadment contending that he is a sub-tenant. He was also in fact Managing Director of Company. Impleadment application was allowed by Small Cause Court and Tukaram Shridhar Bhat was allowed to be impleaded as defendant. When suit was pending in a separate proceeding before Company Judge in a winding up matter on 09.01.1998, a winding up order was passed against Company. Landlord filed application before Company Judge seeking possession of flat. On 14.02.2000 Company Judge rejected said application expressing its opinion that before premises could be returned, rights of person to occupy the premises are required to be determined. It also observed that there is no legal or valid subsisting tenancy or sub-tenancy that the premises could be returned to landlord. This order of Company Judge dated 14.02.2000 was challenged before Division Bench but appeal was dismissed on 22.08.2000. Thereafter father of Erach Boman Khavar filed an amendment application in plaint for incorporating certain grounds including unlawful subletting by Company to Tukaram Shridhar Bhat. This application was rejected vide order dated 09.11.2000 on the ground that Bombay Rent Act, 1947 have been repealed on 31.03.2000. Thereafter landlord filed Suit No. 226/336 of 2001 in Small Cause Court for eviction on the ground of illegal subletting. Said suit was filed after obtaining leave from Company Judge. On 02.01.2002 original plaintiff, i.e., father of Erach Boman Khavar died and thereafter legal representative, i.e., appellant was brought on record. Suit was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 12.07.2004. On 21.09.2005 appellant, i.e., Erach Boman Khavar terminated tenancy and on 18.10.2005 filed an application before Company Judge under Section 446 of Companies Act, 1956 seeking permission to file eviction suit in Small Cause Court as the respondent-Company was not entitled to protection under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Company Judge granted permission for filing of amendment but no such amendment was filed. On 27.07.2006 Company Judge allowed application in terms of prayer clause (a) without prejudice to rights and contentions of official liquidator to raise objections as permissible in law. Thereafter an application for recall was filed observing that Court was misled as if suit had already been instituted though no such suit was instituted. The application was rejected by Company Judge. This order was challenged before Division Bench, which allowed appeal and set aside orders dated 27.07.2006 and 28.09.2006 passed by Company Judge and matter was remitted to Company Judge. Again Company Judge granted leave. The Division Bench allowed appeal holding that second application for leave was not maintainable and barred by principle of res judicata being a successive application in the same Court on self-same facts. This order of Division Bench was taken in appeal before Supreme Court. Supreme Court first examined the matter on merits and found that grant of leave of Court was not a condition precedent for initiation of civil or legal proceedings. It could have been obtained even after initiation of proceedings. Secondly suit property was not property of Company and so it was not a case where the Company was to face deprivation of its right and claims are to be adjudicated by Company Judge. Company Judge was already apprised of said fact when application was filed. Coming to the question of res judicata Court reaffirmed the principle that between two stages in same litigation when a Court at earlier stage decided matter in one way, will not allow the parties to reagitate the same at the subsequent stage of the suit. Court relied on a three Judge Bench decision in Satyadhyan Ghosal Vs. Deorajin Debi (supra).
533. This principle however was subsequently explained in Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993 and in para 11 the Court said:
"11. We agree that generally speaking these propositions are not open to objection. If the Court which rendered the first decision was competent to entertain the suit or other proceeding, and had therefore competency to decide the issue or matter, the circumstance that it is a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction or one from whose decision no appeal lay would not by themselves negative the finding on the issue by it being res judicata in later proceedings. Similarly, as stated already, though Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code clearly contemplates the existence of two suits and the findings in the first being res judicata in the later suit, it is well established that the principle underlying it is equally applicable to the case of decisions rendered at successive stages of the same suit or proceeding. But where the principle of res judicata is invoked in the case of the different stages of proceedings in the same suit, the nature of the proceedings, the scope of the enquiry which the adjectival law provides for the decision being reached, as well as the specific provisions made on matters touching such decision are some of the material and relevant factors to be considered before the principle is held applicable."
534. Further in Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar (supra) Court said that there are different kinds of interlocutory orders; some like orders of stay, injunction or Receiver are designed to preserve the status quo pending the litigation and to ensure that parties might not be prejudiced by normal delay which the proceedings before Court usually take. They do not, in that sense, decide in any manner merits of controversy in issue in suit and do not, of course, put an end to it even in part. Such orders are certainly capable of being altered or varied by subsequent applications for same relief, though normally only on proof of new facts or new situations which subsequently emerge. As they do not impinge upon legal rights of parties to litigation the principle of res judicata does not apply to findings on which these orders are based, though if applications were made for relief on the same basis after the same has once been disposed of, Court would be justified in rejecting same as an abuse of process of Court. There are other orders which are also interlocutory, but would fall into a different category. These are not directed to preserve property pending the final adjudication, but are designed to ensure just, smooth, orderly and expeditious disposal of suit. They are interlocutory in the sense that they do not decide any matter in issue arising in the suit, nor put an end to the litigation.
535. In Erach Boman Khavar (supra) Court examining aforesaid aspect in para 39 of judgment said:
"39. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that to attract the doctrine of res judicata it must be manifest that there has been conscious adjudication of an issue. A plea of res judicata cannot be taken aid of unless there is an expression of an opinion on the merits. It is well settled in law that principle of res judicata is applicable between the two stages of the same litigation but the question or issue involved must have been decided at earlier stage of the same litigation."
536. The well established principle discussed in above judgements, however, in our view would have no application to present case and could not help appellant at all.
537. In Dadu Dayal Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) Vs. Mahant Ram Niwas and another, 2008(11) SCC 753 principle of res judicata and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC were sought to be applied having regard to an observation made by Supreme Court in a judgement. Appellant-Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha was a public trust registered under the Rajastha Public Trusts Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the "RPT Act, 1959"). Acquisition of Gaddi and Managment of said trust became a subject matter of dispute in suit. Mahant Mani Ram Swami was holder of said Gaddi. Mahant Ram Niwas claiming himself to be the Pota Chela of Mahant Mani Ram Swami, claimed his right to Gaddi and Management. Suit No. 295/2 of 1964 was filed by Mahant Ram Niswas in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Rohtak. Another Suit No. 46 of 1967 was filed by Mahant Mani Ram Sadhu Dadu Panthi. On both suits permanent injunction was prayed. Trial Court dismissed suit of Mahant Ram Niwas answering following issues against him:
"1. Whether the plaintiff is the Chela of Lahar Dass and Pota Chela of Mahant Mani Ram?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to succeed to Mahant Nitya Nand according to the custom and law as application to the succession of Nitya Nand as Mahant and owner of property?
3. Whether Nitya Nand made a valid will in favour of defendant No.1? If so, to what effect?
4. Whether the suit lies in the present form?
5-A. Whether defendant No.3 or defendant No.4 was the Chela of the late Mahant Mani Ram and is now the present Mahant of the institution?"
538. Appeal was dismissed by Additional Judge Judge, Rohtak though it reversed the finding of Trial Court in regard to Issue-4. Second appeal preferred before High Court was allowed by permitting production of register as additional evidence and reversing findings of Trial Court on Issue-1. Appeal preferred before Supreme Court was allowed vide order dated 02.02.1987 and order passed in appeal reads as under:
"Special leave granted. The appeal is heard.
Since the High Court has not and could not have in the circumstances of the case reversed the finding of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property on the date of the filing of suit, it could not have reversed the decree passed by the First Appellate Court and made a decree for injunction for which suit has been brought. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court and restore the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. This judgment will not come in the way of the plaintiff/respondent filing a suit for possession, if he is so advised."
539. In view of observations made by Supreme Court that there will be no restraint in the way of respondent-plaintiff in filing a suit for possession, second round of litigation commenced. Mahant Ram Niwas filed a fresh suit in which he included as second plaintiff-Gaddi Dadu Dawara Kalanaur through himself. Trial Court held second suit barred by principle of res judicata holding that issues arising therein being directly and substantially, between same parties in the previous suit, hence barred by principle of res judicata. First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of Trial Court holding that neither principle of res judicata nor Order 2 Rule 2 are attracted. High Court also dismissed appeal hence defendant preferred appeal before Supreme Court. In this backdrop Supreme Court in Dadu Dayal Mahasabha, Jaipur (supra) said in paras 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 34, 35, 42 and 43 held as under:
"19. A suit is filed on a cause of action. What would constitute a cause of action is now well settled. It would mean a bundle of facts which would be necessary to be proved by the plaintiff so as to enable him to obtain a decree. First Respondent's suit for possession was premised on a legal entitlement. Appellant herein also claimed its right over the Gaddi in question. The trial Court framed several issues. Its discussion centred round the respective pleas of the parties which had fully been gone into. The suit was dismissed. The first appellate Court not only went into the question of possession of the first respondent over the Gaddi, as on the date of institution of the suit, but the other questions.
20. Rightly or wrongly a decision was arrived at that the first respondent was held to be not entitled to hold the Gaddi and management of the same. A legal right of the appellant with regard thereto was found favour with the first appellate Court. On the aforementioned backdrop the implication of the observations of this Court must be noticed and considered.
21. The order of this Court is in four parts, i.e. -
i) The High Court could not have reversed the finding of the first appellate Court that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property on the date of the filing of the suit.
ii) In view of the said finding a decree for injunction for which the suit was filed could not have been granted.
iii) The judgment and decree of the first appellate Court shall be restored after setting aside the judgment and decree of the High Court.
iv) The said judgment would not come in the way of the plaintiff/respondent in filing a suit for possession, if he so is so advised.
22. The judgment of a Court, it is trite, should not be interpreted as a statute. The meaning of the words used in a judgment must be found out on the backdrop of the fact of each case. The Court while passing a judgment cannot take away the right of the successful party indirectly which it cannot do directly. An observation made by a superior Court is not binding. What would be binding is the ratio of the decision. Such a decision must be arrived at upon entering into the merit of the issues involved in the case.
23. If the judgment and order of the first appellate Court dated 2nd January, 1973 was restored by this Court in its order dated 2nd February, 1987, the finding arrived at by it attained finality. The issues determined therein would be, thus, binding on the parties.
24. Section 11 of the Code not only recognizes the general principle of res judicata, it bars the jurisdiction of the Court in terms of Section 12 thereof.
25. Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code extends the principle of res judicata stating that the reliefs which could have been or ought to have prayed for even if it was not prayed for would operate as res judicata. Section 12 thereof bars filing of such suit at the instance of a person who is found to be otherwise bound by the decision in the earlier round of litigation and in a case where the principle of res judicata shall apply.
26. We, however, are not unmindful of the principles of estoppel, waiver and res judicata, are procedural in nature and, thus, the same will have no application in a case where judgment has been rendered wholly without jurisdiction or issues involve only pure questions of law. Even in such cases, the principle of issue estoppel will have no role to play.
27. However, once it is held that the issues which arise in the subsequent suit were directly and substantial in issue in the earlier suit, indisputably Section 11 of the Code would apply.
28. Similarly the provisions of Order II Rule 2 bars the jurisdiction of the Court in entertaining a second suit where the plaintiff could have but failed to claim the entire relief in the first one. We need no go into the legal philosophy underlying the said principle as we are concerned with the applicability thereof.
32. Having noticed the effect of a stray observation made by a superior Court viz-a-viz applicability of the principle of res judicata we may also notice the applicability of the principle of issue estoppel.
34. The question which is, thus, required to be posed is what was in issue in the earlier suit.
35. The issue indisputably was the claim of entitlement to Gaddi by the first respondent and a plea contra thereto raised by the appellants. Once the issue of entitlement stood determined, the same would operate as res judicata. We may notice some precedents for appreciating the underlying principles thereof. Section 11 of the Code, thus, in view of the issues involved in the earlier suit, the provisions thereof shall apply.
42. Even in a case of title, Explanation IV to Section 11 would apply. (See also Sulochana Amma Vvs. Narayanan Nair: 1994 (2) SCC 14).
43. Furthermore in terms of Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 a suit for possession must be filed having regard to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the statute provides for the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that all the relevant provisions thereof shall apply. (See Shamu Suhara Beevi vs. G. Alex and another: (2004) 8 SCC 569) & Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. vs. Hede and Co.:2007 (5) SCC 614)." (emphasis added)."
540. In State of U.P. vs. Nawab Hussain, 1977(2) SCC 806 in paras 3 and 7, Court said:
"3. The principle of estoppel per rem judicatam is a rule of evidence. As has been stated in Marginson v. Blackburn Borough Council 1, it may be said to be "the broader rule of evidence which prohibits the reassertion of a cause of action". This doctrine is based on two theories: (i) the finality and conclusiveness of judicial decisions for the final termination of disputes in the general interest of the community as a matter of public policy, and (ii) the interest of the individual that he should be protected from multiplication of litigation. It therefore serves not only a public but also a private purpose by obstructing the reopening of matters which have once been adjudicated upon. It is thus not permissible to obtain a second judgment for the same civil relief on the same cause of action, for otherwise the spirit of contentiousness may give rise to conflicting judgments of equal authority, lead to multiplicity of actions and bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It is the cause of action which gives rise to an action, and that is why it is necessary for the Courts to recognise that a cause of action which results in a judgment must lose its identity and vitality and merge in the judgment when pronounced. It cannot therefore survive the judgment, or give rise to another cause of action on the same facts. This is what is known as the general principle of res judicata."
7. ....That, in turn, led the High Court to the conclusion that the principle of constructive res judicata could not be made applicable to a writ petition, and that was why it took the view that it was competent for the plaintiff in this case to raise an additional plea in the suit even though it was available to him in the writ petition which was filed by him earlier but was not taken. As is obvious, the High Court went wrong in taking that view because the law in regard to the applicability of the principle of constructive res judicata having been clearly laid down in the decision in Devilal Modi case, it was not necessary to reiterate it in Gulabchand case as it did not arise for consideration there. The clarificatory observation of this Court in Gulabchand case was thus misunderstood by the High Court in observing that the matter had been "left open" by this Court." (emphasis added)
541. In Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar, 2005(1) SCC 787 Court discussed the principles of "issue estoppel" and "constructive res judicata" and said in paras 29 and 30 as under:
"29. There is a distinction between "issue estoppel" and "res judicata". (See Thoday v. Thoday)
30. Res judicata debars a Court from exercising its jurisdiction to determine the lis if it has attained finality between the parties whereas the doctrine issue estoppel is invoked against the party. If such an issue is decided against him, he would be estopped from raising the same in the latter proceeding. The doctrine of res judicata creates a different kind of estoppel viz. estoppel by accord." (emphasis added)
542. The judgment in U.P. State road Transport Corporation Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2005(1) SCC 444 deals with applicability of res judicata between two stages in same litigation. Court relying on its earlier decision in Satyadhyan Ghosal Vs. Deorajin Debi (supra) in para 11 of the judgment said as under:
"11. The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. The principle which prevents the same case being twice litigated is of general application and is not limited by the specific words of Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure in this respect. Res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a Court, whether the trial Court or a higher Court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to re-agitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. (See Satyadhan vs. Smt. Deorajin Devi AIR 1960 SC 941)." (emphasis added)
543. Court found, when it had already held that draft scheme dated 13.02.1986 had not lapsed, the controversy stood already decided and High Court could not have taken a different view by re-examining the matter. In our view, this judgment does not help appellant for the issue in question in this appeal.
544. In order to attract principle of res-judicata, amongst others, two integral conditions are that former suit must have been between the same parties or under whom they or any of them claims and second conditions is that parties must have litigated under same title in the former suit.
545. Learned counsel for appellant contended that plaintiff pleaded that he was nominated by Swami Krishna Bodhashram before breathing last and, therefore, plaintiff claim his succession and installation to the Office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on the basis of nomination by Swami Krishna Bodhashram which was subsequently approved and accepted by various other religious bodies and Shankaracharyas of other Peethas. He submitted that the condition that earlier suit must have been between same party or parties under whom subsequent suit is claimed is well satisfied, hence, earlier suit would operate as res-judicata.
546. The plaintiff, however, has stated that neither the principle of res-judicata will be attracted in the case in hand nor the judgment in Original suit No. 36 of 1965 would have any binding effect or otherwise bar on plaintiff from raising any issue which he otherwise could have raised and he cannot be prevented from raising such an issue on the ground that the same has already been decided in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 for the reason that issue was personal and not to the estate and it died with the death of one of the parties since cause of action thereafter did not survive. He argued that the Office of Shankaracharya is a matter of status and not connected with property so as to attract principle of impleadment or substitution of legal representatives and, therefore, he submitted that appeal in fact became non prosecutable since cause of action was personal and nothing survived after death of one of the party. Therefore, said decision would be of no consequence against plaintiff. He also submitted that plaintiff cannot be said to be legal representative of Swami Krishna Bodhashram for the reason that his installation in the office of Shankaracharya is not by way of succession but it is a separate, individual, independent installation by learned Pandits, other Shankaracharyas and renowned persons having faith in Sanatan Dharm. Therefore, right and claim of plaintiff is totally independent of Swami Krishna Bodhashram. He referred to definition of ''legal representative' under Section 2(11) CPC and contended that by no stretch of imagination, plaintiff can be treated to be legal representative of Swami Krishna Bodhashram and cause of action was totally independent and it has nothing to do with installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram in the office and on his death therefore whatever litigation has been carried out between the appellant and Swami Krishna Bodhashram or others would have no consequence so far as right and claim of plaintiff is concerned. He also relied on certain authorities, which we would discuss at a later stage. Now, in the light of principle of res judicata, as discussed above, as also the effect of abatement of appeal when defendant-appellant has died, we would examine the defence set up by plaintiff as noticed above.
547. The seat of Shankaracharya, as such, is not testamentary in the sense that there is no line of succession in natural or statutory manner but outgoing Shankaracharya, following the customs and usages of nominating his successor, has right to nominate a successor and that is how successor gets installed on the seat of Shankaracharya. If no nomination is made by outgoing Shankaracharya and seat is vacated, either on account of his death or otherwise, only in such circumstances a new person can be selected and installed by Manishigans as propounded in the books of commands i.e. "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan", which we have already discussed above. However, for the purpose of attracting principle of res-judicata, it is not always necessary that there must be a relationship of legal representative. Since plaintiff does not claim himself to be legal representative of Swami Krishna Bodhashram, it cannot be said that earlier litigation will have no consequence so far as the plaintiff in the present case is concerned. This assumption is incorrect.
548. In our view, it is Explanation-VI of Section 11 CPC which would be attracted in the case in hand. Plaintiff apparently is claiming an occasion of his installation as Shankaracharya due to death of Swami Krishna Bodhashram on 10.09.1973. According to plaintiff, Swami Krishna Bodhashram was validly occupying seat of Shankaracharya since 25.06.1953 the same fell vacant after his death. He has also pleaded in the plaint that before death, Swami Krishna Bodhashram was ill and directed plaintiff to look after duties of Shankaracharya which he performed. Further Swami Krishna Bodhashram also recommended plaintiff's installation as Shankaracharya. This admission in the plaint negates plaintiff's contention that following Guru-Shishya Parampara, plaintiff was not nominated by Sri Krishna Bodhashram. It is not necessary that his nomination should have been by way of a 'Will' or by way of any other written document. In para 28 of plaint, plaintiff himself has pleaded that Swami Krishna Bodhashram appointed plaintiff to perform duties of seat of Shankaracharya. Plaintiff managed affairs of Peeth and at the time of death, when he breathed his last in Delhi on 10.09.1973, Swami Krishna Bodhashram, proposed name of plaintiff for the seat of Shankaracharya. Para 28 of plaint reads as under:
"28. That Late Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Krishna Bodhashram fell ill in September 1973. He appointed the plaintiff to perform the duties of the gaddi and to manage the affairs of the Peetha during the period of his illness. On 10.9.73 Swami Krishna Bodhashram breathed his last at Delhi, the late Shankaracharya proposed the name of the plaintiff for the Gaddi as now Shankaracharya Jyotish Peetha before his death."
549. This shows an unequivocal admission on the part of plaintiff that he was nominated by Swami Krishna Bodhashram. Therefore, plaintiff admittedly, in our view, claimed his installation as Shankaracharya pursuant to the nomination made by Swami Krishna Bodhashram. Explanation-VI to Section-11 C.P.C. provides a deeming fiction in respect of a person who is litigating in respect of a public or private right, common for themselves and others, and all persons interested in such right. Then it says that it should be "deemed to claim" under the persons so litigating. The right of plaintiff is founded on the condition that Swami Krishna Bodhashram was validly holding seat of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth since 25.06.1953 and on his death on 10.09.1973, seat fell vacant. Right which was being enjoyed by Swami Krishna Bodhashram after his death is being claimed by plaintiff. If Swami Krishna Bodhashram was not holding seat of Shankaracharya, question of acquiring any right by plaintiff after his death would not have arisen.
550. Swami Krishna Bodhashram already litigated with regard to his own right with Swami Shantanand and lost. Therefore, same issue could not have been raised by plaintiff, so as to confer validity upon Swami Krishna Bodhashram with regard to his right to hold seat of Shankaracharya.
551. At this stage, learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that his right is totally independent and has no connection with cause of action relating to Swami Krishna Bodhashram.
552. We find ourselves unable to agree with this submission. It is a bundle of facts, as we have already discussed, giving a cause of action as a result of death of Swami Krishna Bodhashram and plaintiff's assumption that seat of Shankaracharya fell vacant after his death.
553. There may be a little bit repetition but we find it necessary to discuss this aspect in detail to deal with the argument which has been vehemently advanced by learned Senior Counsel appearing for plaintiff.
554. The factum regarding nomination of plaintiff by Swami Krishna Bodhashram, as pleaded in para-28 of plaint, we have already noted above and para-28 has also been quoted.
555. Proceeding further, plaintiff states in para-29 and 30 that Shankaracharya of other Peeths, Pandits, learned men, Sanyasis etc. selected and appointed plaintiff as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and installation ceremony was held on 07.12.1973 at Delhi. Para 29 and 30 are reproduced as under:
"29. That once again the question of appointment arose and the remaining three Shankaracharaya of the different Peethas, the Pandits, learned men, Sanyasi and various religious and followers of the Peetha, selected and appointed the plaintiff as Shankaracharaya of Jyotish Peetha as he possessed all the qualifications prescribed in Mathamanaya and Mahanushashan.
30. That installation ceremony of the plaintiff was held at Delhi on 7/12/1973 in which Shankaracharaya of Sharda Peetha and Shankaracharya of Gowardhan Peetha personally offered pattabhishek to the plaintiff and the Shankaracharaya of Shringeri Peetha had sent his representatives who offered Patta Vastra on his behalf in the installation ceremony (as he could not come in the installation ceremony of the plaintiff due to some unavoidable cause). Apart from them, Sanyasis, Grahasts, Pandits and learned Scholars also participated in the ceremony. All the necessary religious ceremonies were performed."
556. He has also pleaded in para 40 and 42 that there cannot be more than one Jagadguru Shankaracharya in a Peeth, hence there cannot be any occasion for installation of two persons in one office of Jagadguru Shankaracharya. Para 40 and 42 reads as under:
"40. That according to the Rules and Regulations of Mathamanaya and Mahanushashan only one Sanyasi having requisite qualification to hold the office of Jagat Guru Shankracharaya is entitled to be selected and installed. There cannot be more than one Jagat Guru Shankaracharaya in a Peeth, hence in the State of plaintiff having been installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharaya of Jyotishmath as stated above the defendant can not be installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharaya. There is no vacancy in the office of Jagat Guru Shankaracharaya of Jyotirmath. Hence no question arises for installation of the defendant at the office of Jagat Guru Shankaracharaya of Jyotirmath."
"42. That defendant also does not possess the requisite qualification as provided in Mathamanaya and Mahanushashan for being installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharaya of Jyotirmath and there cannot be two persons to be installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharaya in a Peeth. On this accord too the defendant is not entitled to be installed as Shankaracharaya for Jyotirmath and hold and possess the danda chhatra chanwar and Singhasan which office is being held possessed and occupied in the plaintiff. It is the plaintiff who holds and possess the dand chhatra chanwar and Singhasan etc."
557. In the Replication also, plaintiff has pleaded that there cannot be two Shankaracharyas at one peeth. The relevant extract from para 6 is quoted below.
"6. ... The prohibition is that there cannot be two Shankaracharya on one peeth. Thus the plaintiff having been already installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath Badrikashram on 7/12/1973. The defendant can not be allowed to claim himself for being installed as jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath Badrikashram on this ground too. Apart from he being disqualified for being installed and appointment as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath as stated above."
558. Further in para-8 of Replication, plaintiff has pleaded that various gifts, donations, offerings are made by worshippers and followers to Shankaracharya of Peeth and all said offerings are to the Office and not in the individual capacity of person concerned. Therefore, such property vest in the Peeth and did not remain individual properties of person occupying the office. Para-8 of Replication to this effect reads as under:
"8. That all the gifts, donations and offerings etc. which were made by the worshippers, religious persons, and others concerned to Late Brhmanand Sarawswati formerly the Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath were made in the capacity of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath and not in his individual capacity, therefore all such properties vested in the peeth and did not remain as an individual property of any one. Including that of Brahmanand Saraswati. Allegations, contrary to this made in the written statement are absolutely incorrect and baseless and is also against the "Sanyas Dharam" and "Sanyasis' working and functioning who has left the worldly untilisations."
559. With regard to his installation, plaintiff has stated in para-12 of Replication that Swami Krishna Bodhashram was Chela of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati and installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 25.06.1953 whereupon performed duties of the said office. Plaintiff, disciple of Swami Krishna Bodhashram was installed as Shankaracharya on 07.12.1973. Para-12 and 14 of Replication are reproduced as under:
"12. That Late Swami Krishna Bodhashram was the Chela of Late Swami Brahma Nand Saraswati and he was installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath. He therefore performed his duties and obligations of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath as stated in the plaint. The allegations made contrary to this in the written statement are incorrect and baseless."
"14. That Swami Swaroopa Nand Saraswati was disciple of Late Swami Krishna Bodhashram. He is duly qualified for the office of Shankaracharya and he has been installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath on 7th Dec. 1973 and is discharging his functions duties and obligations of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath. Late on plaintiff has further been installed as Shankercharya of Dwarika Peeth as well. That shows the plaintiff's full fledged qualifications to hold the office of Shankaracharya of two peethas, i.e. one of Jyotirmath and another that of Dwarika Peeth. ..."
560. Besides, in various paragraphs of Plaint and Replication, plaintiff has specifically challenged factum of installation of Sri Ram Ji Tripathi (Swami Shantanand Saraswati) and Swami Vishnu Deva Nand Saraswati on various grounds including that ''Will' was forged, they were not qualified etc. PW-6 in his examination in chief (by way of affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC) in para-19, 20 and 21, has deposed that Swami Brahmanand Saraswati did not execute any ''Will' and alleged ''Will' is forged and fictitious. Thereafter, he has further said that persons nominated in the said ''Will' are not qualified and could not have been installed or appointed as Shankaracharya. However, in para 26 and 27 of his examination, he has stated that in accordance with ''Will' dated 18.12.1952 Sri Ram Ji Tripathi (Swami Shantanand Saraswati) declared his installation as Shankaracharya on 12.06.1953. Since, he was not eligible and did not fulfil requisite qualifications, learned Pandits, Sanyasis and members of B.D.M., VNS and K.V.P. and other Shankaracharyas did not accept installation of Swami Shantanand Saraswati and instead installed Swami Krishna Bodhashram as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 25.06.1953 at Gyanvapi, Varanasi. Swami Krishna Bodhashram then continued to discharge duties as Shankaracharya till death on 10.09.1973. He did not appoint any successor but only recommended and thereafter learned Pandits, Sanyasis of B.D.M., VNS and K.V.P. and other Shankaracharyas found plaintiff eligible and also taking the fact that Swami Krishna Bodhashram, when unwell, during that period plaintiff looked after functions of Shankaracharya and seat has fallen vacant after death of Swami Krishna Bodhashram, nominated installation of plaintiff on 12.09.1973. Still plaintiff said that he was not actually appointed by Swami Krishna Bodhashram. Para-26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of affidavit of plaintiff read as under:
^^26- ;g fd Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh egkjkt dh "kksM"kh gks tkus ds i'pkr~ fnukad 12-6-1953 bZ- dks jketh f=ikBh miuke Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh us mDr bPNk i= fnukad 18-12-1952 ds vk/kkj ij T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa vius dks vfHkf"kDr fd;s tkus o vius dks 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB dh ?kks"k.kk djk fn;kA^^ "26. That after the performance of 16th day ceremony (one of rituals performed after death of a person) of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati Maharaj, on 12.6.1953 AD, on the basis of the aforesaid Will dated 18.12.1952, Ramji Tripathi alias Swami Shantanand Saraswati got announced to be anointed himself as Jyotishpeethadhishwar and Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth." (English Trnaslation by Court) ^^27- ;g fd pwWafd jketh f=ikBh mQZ Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn eBkEuk; esa fyf[kr vkpk;Z in ds vgZrkvksa ds /kkjd ugha FksA vr% ihB dh ijEijk o eBkEuka; egkuq'kklue~ ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj lukru /kekZoyEch iafMrksa fo}kuksa] euhf"k;ksa] lnx`gLFkksa] laU;kfl;ksa us Hkkjr/keZ egke.My] rRdkyhu fo}Rifj"kr~] rRdkyhu vU; ihB ds 'kadjkpk;ksZa us] Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh ds lHkh fo}ku f'k";ksa o egke.Mys'ojksa us] jketh f=ikBh mQZ 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh dk fuxzg fd;k] mudks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj Lohdkj ugha fd;k x;k] vkpk;Z in gsrq okafNr vgZrkvksa ds /kkjd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dk T;ksfr"ihB dk 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vf/k"Bkiu fnukad 25-6-1953 dks Kkuokih okjk.klh esa rRi'pkr~ tks'kheB esa mlh rjg ls fd;k ftl rjg Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh dk vf/k"Bkiu fd;k x;k FkkA bl rjg jketh f=ikBh mQZ 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh dks T;ksfr"ihB ls eBkEuk; egkuq'kklue~ iqLrd esa fyf[kr fu;eksa o ihB dh ijEijk ds vuqlkj inP;qr dj fn;k x;kA Hkkjr/keZ egke.My] fo}rifj"kn] vU; rhu ihB ds 'kadjkpk;ksZa us] lk/kq] lU;klh] ln~x~`gLFk lukru/kehZ if.Mr o fo}ku] turk Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe dks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj muds czg~eyhu gksus rd ekurs vk,A^^ "27. That since Ramji Tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati was not the holder of the office of Acharya, as per eligibility qualifications prescribed in Mathamnaya; therefore, the Pandits believing in Sanatan Religion, scholars, intellectuals, noble Grihasthas (persons having families), Sanyasis, Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, the then Vidvatparishad, then Shankaracharyas of other Peethas, all scholar disciples of Swami Brahmand Saraswati and Mahamandleshwars remvoed Ramji Tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati in accordance with tradition of Peeth and the rules contained in Mathamnaya Mahanushasnam; he was not accepted as Jyotishpeethadhishwar; Possessor of requisite qualifications for the office of Acharya, Swami Krishnabodhashram was installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth in Gyanwapi Varanasi on 25.06.1953 and thereafter in Joshimath, in the same manner, as Swami Brahmananda Saraswati had been installed. In this way, Ramji Tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati was removed from the Jyotishpeeth in accordance with the rules prescribed in a book titiled Mathamnaya Mahanushasnam and the tradition of the peeth. Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Vidvatparishad, Shankaracharyas of the other three Peethas, Sadhu, Sannyasi, noble Grihasthas, believers of Sanatan Religion, Pandits, scholars and people continued to believe Swami Krishnabodhashram as Jyotishpeethadhishwar till his heavenly abode (Brahmaleen)." (English Trnaslation by Court) ^^28- ;g fd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe fnukad 10-9-1973 bZ- dks czg~eyhu gq, FksA^^ "28. That Swami Krishnabodhashram passed away (Brahmaleen) on 10.9.1973 AD."
^^29- ^^;g fd Lokeh d`".kcks?kkJe fnukad us viuk dksbZ mRrjkf/kdkjh ukfer ugha fd;k Fkk] muds dgus ls rFkk pwafd Hkkjr/keZ egke.My] fon~orifj"kn rFkk rRdkyhu txn~xq:vksa o fo}kuksa dh jk; esa eq>dks vkpk;Z ds fy;s ;ksX; ik;k x;k vr% eSaus mudh chekjh ds le; ls esjk vfHk"ksd gksus rd 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa dk;Z fd;k FkkA pwWfd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe us viuk dksbZ mRrjkf/kdkjh ukfer ugha fd;k Fkk] blfy;s T;ksfr"ihB iqu% fjDr gks x;hA vr% ihB dh ijEijk o eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu esa fyf[kr fof/k ds vuqlkj Hkkjr/keZ egkea.My o vU; ihB ds 'kadjkpk;ksZ dh lgefr o rRdkyhu fo}r~ifj"kn dh lgefr ls rFkk fo}kuksa o if.Mrksa us eq>dks fnukad 12-9-1973 bZ- dks dk'kh esa T;ksfreZB&T;ksfr"ihB ds fy;s ;ksX; iq:"k ?kksf"kr fd;kA T;kfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa esjk vkSipkfjd vfHk"ksd fd;kA fnukad 7-12-1973 bZ- dks fnYyh esa fof/k 'kkL= ds vuqlkj rFkk ihB dh ijEijk ds vuqlkj fof/kor esjk 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfreZB ds :i esa vfHk"ksd fd;k vkSj eq>dks 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfreZB ekukA ---^^ "29. That Swami Krishnabodhashram had not nominated any person as his successor. On his direction and since in the opinion of Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Vidvatparishad and then Jagadgurus as well as scholars, I had been found eligible for Acharya, I, therefore, functioned as Shankaracharya from the time of his illness till my installation. As Swami Krishnabodhashram had not nominated anyone as his successors, so the Jyotishpeeth was vacated again. Thus, in accordance with the tradition of the peeth and the mode prescribed in Mathamnaya Mahanushasnam, and with the consent of Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Shankaracharyas of the other Peethas, then Vidvatparishad, scholars and Pandits declared me eligible person for Jyotirmath-Jyotishpeeth in Kashi on 12.9.1973. I was formally anointed as Jyotishpeethadhishwar. As per jurisprudence and the tradition of peeth, they duly anointed me as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath in Delhi on 07.12.1973 and recognised me as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath. ..." (English Trnaslation by Court) ^^30- ;g fd eq>dks czg~eyhu Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe th egjkt us 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB fu;qDr ugha fd;k Fkk vkSj u rks eSa muds ek/;e ls vius dks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj gksus dk nkok djrk gWwA^^ "30. That neither Late Swami Krishnabodhashram Ji Maharaj had appointed me as Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth, nor I claim to be Jyotishpeethadhishwar myself through him." (English Trnaslation by Court)
561. He has deposed in para-50 that from 12.09.1973, he is continuously discharging duties of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and on 14/15.11.1989 there was no vacancy in the office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, hence appellant could not have been installed in the said office. Para-50 reads as under:
^^50- ;g fd eSa fnukad 12-9-1973 bZ- ls yxkrkj T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds vf/kdkjksa] drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu dj jgk gwwWA prq"ihB lEesyuksa esa tks'kheB 'kadjkpk;Z ds vf/kdkj ls Hkkx ysrk vk jgk gwWaa lHkh ihBksa ds 'kadjkpk;ksZa ds ijLij lg;ksx ,oa fopkj foe'kZ ls vk| xq: 'kadjkpk;Z ds v}Sr n'kZu dk izpkj&izlkj dj jgk gwWaA lukru /keZ dk izpkj o izlkj dj jgk gwWA eq>dks fo}ku] iafMr] lukru fgUnw lekt] n'kukeh lU;klh lk/kq] v[kkM+k] Hkkjr /keZ egke.My fo+}Rifj"kr~] vU; ihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z] ea=h] iz/kkuea=h] jk"Vªifr] vf/kdkjh] usiky ujs'k vkfn lHkh 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB ekursa gSa vkSj 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB ds :i esa eq>dks mn~?kksf"kr djrs vk jgs gSaA bl izdkj fnukWaad 14@15 uoEcj 1989 dks ihB fjDr ugha FkhA eSa T;ksfr"ihB dk dk;Zjr 'kadjkpk;Z Fkk] vkSj vkt Hkh gw¡A^^ "50. That, I have been continuously exercising powers and discharging duties of Jyotishpeethadhishwar since 12.9.1973. I have been participating in conferences of four Peethas in the capacity of Jyotishmath Shankaracharya. In consultation with Shankaracharyas of all Peethas and with their mutual cooperation, I am propagating Adwait philosophy of Adi Guru Shankaracharya. I am propagating Sanatan Dharm. Scholars, Pandits, Sanatan Hindu society, Dashnami Sanyasi saints, Akhara (a group of particulars sect of Sanyasi), Bharat Dharm Mahamandal, Vidvatparishad, Shankaracharyas of other Peethas, Ministers, Prime-minister, President, Officers, King of Nepal and all others recognize and treat me as Jyotishpeeth Shankarachaya. Thus, the Peeth was not vacant on 14/15 November, 1989. I was acting as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth and even today I am".
562. In the cross-examination also he has said:
^^'kkUrkuUn us tSls gh vius dks 'kadjkpk;Z ?kksf"kr fd;k mlh le; fuxzg dh izfdz;k 'kq: gks x;hA ;g izfdz;k d`".kcks/kkJe ds vfHk"ksd rd pyhA d`".kcks/kkJe dk tks'kheB esa vfHk"ksd gqvk FkkA** "As soon as Shantanand declared himself as Shankaracharya, process of abandonment/restriction commenced. This process continued till the installation of Shri Krishnabodhashram. Installation of Krishnabodh-ashram was performed at Joshimath." (English Translation by Court) ^^esjs igys T;ksfr"ihB esa d`".kcks/kkJe 'kadjkpk;Z Fks mudk uke vk;k gSA 36 lu~ 65 esa eq>s irk gh ugha fd dkSu&dkSu i{kdkj Fks D;ksafd eSa i{kdkj ugha FkkA ;g eqdnek ihB ls lEcfU/kr Fkk ;k ugha eq>s irk ughaA djik=h th dk miuke gfjgjkuUn ljLorh FkkA eq>s Kku gS fd bl eqdnesa esa vfUre :i ls dksbZ fu.kZ; ugha gqvkA eq>s irk ugha gS fd bl eqdnesa esa vfUre :i ls dksbZ fu.kZ; ugha gqvkA eq>s irk ugha gS fd bl eqdnesa esa d`".kcks/kkJe dks vius dks 'kadjkpk;Z ?kksf"kr djus ls vfUre :i ls jksd fn;k x;k FkkA eSaus bl eqdnes dh i=koyh dks eSaus ugha ns[kk gSA** "Krishnabodhashram was Shankaracharya at Jyotishmath, and his name has been mentioned prior to me. I do not know who were the parties in Case no. 36 of 1965, because I was not a party therein. I do not know whether this litigation pertained to the Peeth or not. The sub-name of Karpatri Ji was Hariharanand Saraswati. I know that no final decision was given in this case. I don't know whether any final decision has been taken in this case. I don't know that in this case, Krishnabodhashram had permanently been refrained from declaring himself as Shankaracharya. I have not seen the file of this case." (English Translation by Court) ^^esjk tc T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa vf/k"Bkiu gqvk rc T;ksfr"ihB fjDr FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjk tc vf/k"Bkiu gqvk rks ml le; 'kkUrkuUn T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa fojkteku Fks ,oa xn~nh fjDr ugha FkhA** "When I was enthroned as Jyotishpeethadhishwar, the seat of Jyothispeeth was vacant. It is wrong to say that when I was installed, Shantanand had already been holding the seat as Jyothishpeethadhishwar at that time, and the seat was not vacant." (English Translation by Court)
563. From the aforesaid pleadings and depositions of witnesses, it is evident that plaintiff's entire claim is founded on the fact that Swami Krishna Bodhashram was installed in the office of Shankaracharya on 25.06.1953 and died on 10.09.1973. After his death seat of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth fell vacant giving a cause of action for appointment of a new Shankaracharya whereupon plaintiff was installed.
564. Plaintiff, therefore, founded his claim in the seat left by Swami Krishna Bodhashram. Plaintiff claimed a right, whether called public or private, in respect of an office which is common to Swami Krishna Bodhashram also and unless Swami Krishna Bodhashram held the seat, question of his causing any vacancy could and would not have arisen. Therefore, cause of action in the entire matter is a chain of events wherein factum of installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram as Shankaracharya, his continuity in the seat and on his death, occurrence of vacancy, is a substantive aspect, in absence whereof, plaintiff would have no claim at all.
565. A 'cause of action' is a bundle of facts giving rise to a dispute and cannot be read in isolation from one or the other facts, here and there. What a "cause of action" would mean here, we may consider in the light of authorities since it has not been defined as such.
566. Generally speaking, as recognized in various authorities, a cause of action is a "bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable, gives a plaintiff a right to relief against the defendants." (See: Dhanajishaw Vs. Fforde (1887) ILR 11 Bom 649; Musa Vs. Manilal (1905) ILR 29 Bom 368; Raghoonath Vs. Gobindnarain (1895) ILR 22 Cal. 451)
567. 'A cause of action' means a situation or a state of facts that entitle a party to maintain action in a Court or a Tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more basis for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in Court from another person. It means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court.
568. "Cause of action" denotes whole bundle of material facts based on which plaintiff's relief, prayed for, is based. It is not a piece of evidence of events, but a bundle of events. Neither it has any relation with the evidence set up by defendant nor depends upon character of relief prayed for. It generally consists of facts and situation which gives a party, a right to file a suit and obtain a remedy from another person, with the help of Court. It gives rise to enforcement of a right through Court of law. The "cause of action" thus consists of bundle of facts which give right to enforce legal injury for redress in a Court of law.
569. The concept of cause of action is a "bundle of facts required to be proved to show the reason for which plaintiff was impelled to go for litigation in Civil Court for recovery of individual rights or redressal of individual wrong etc." In other words, a cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining relief. Thus valid installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram was an integral part of cause of action in this case.
570. The issue with regard to valid installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram was already determined and adjudicated by a competent Court of law, in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965, vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.1970. Issue 5 in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 was in regard to installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram and read as under:
"5. Whether defendant no. 1 was installed as Shankaracharya of the Jyotir Mutt on 25.06.1963 as alleged by him in his written statement and if so has he perfected his right as Shankaracharya by adverse possession as pleaded in para 41 of the written statement?"
571. The findings recorded by Sri B.P. Shukla, Civil Judge, Allahabad in the judgment dated 15.01.1970, with respect to Issue-5 are as under:-
"Now, I discuss the evidence relating to the installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram, defendant no. 1. Ex. A 2 is the copy of the proceedings of Vidwat Parishad Prabandh Karini Samiti, dated 8.6.53 at Varanasi twelve persons participated at this meeting. The proceeding indicates that Secretary of the meeting informed that on 7th June, 1953 at the time of the Bhandara of deceased Jagatguru Ji, it was known in Pandit Sabha that Sri Ramji Tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati claims himself to be the successor of the late Jagadguru on the basis of certain will. It is mentioned that on talking he appeared to be unqualified so it was decided that a delegation of Pandits should meet Swami Karpatriji and request him to occupy the seat of Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya. As shown by Ex. A 3 on 9.6.53 another meeting of Vidwat Parishad Prabandh Karini Sabha took place in which fifteen persons participated. The delegation had met Swami Karpatriji but he declined to the office of Shankaracharya. It is also mentioned in the proceedings that Swami Karpatriji gave a suggestion that Swami Krishna Bodhashram is a qualified Mahatma and he may be requested to accept the office of Shankaracharya. Thereafter on 10.6.53 as shown by Ex. A 4 the same body again met and after the consent of Swami Krishna Bodhashram, 26th June, 1953 was fixed for installation ceremony of Swami Krishna Bodhashram. It would thus appear that Kashi Vidwat Parishad took the historical decision to install Swami Krishan Bodhashramji. This decision of Vidwat Parishad is alleged to be according to the direction of Adi Shankaracharya to the effect that a non-qualified occupant was liable to be removed. Aaj a daily Varanasi dated 26th June, 1953 has given the news item that the installation ceremony of Sri Krishna Bodhashram took place at 10 O'clock near Gyan Wapi and the function was attended by Shankaracharya of Sharada Peeth as well. In this paper it is further mentioned that after the death of late Shankaracharya, the Pandits and assembly of Sadhus elected Sri Krishna Bodhashram for the said office. It is also mentioned in this paper that according to the will of late Shankaracharya, Swami Shantanand was installed on the said office.
The question is whether there could remain two Shankaracharya of Jyotir Mutt after the death of Swami Brahmanand. It is noteworthy that according to the will Swami Shantanand had already taken over as Shankaracharya on 12.6.53. Under these circumstances, in my opinion the will having been acted upon, the office of Shankaracharya was already got occupied and there could be no other Shankaracharya in the manner a few section of Pandits of Varanasi wanted to install a Shankaracharya. The defendant Swami Sri Krishna Bodhashram is not a disciple of Swami Brahmanand and that way not connected with Jyotir Mutt, so he cannot have a preferential claim over the disciple plaintiff whom his Guru wanted to be the Shankaracharya. The right of the plaintiff is so secure that even being a Junior Chela he could be the Shankaracharya in preference to the senior Chelas. In this approach I am fortified by Indian Law Reports Volume 42, Calcutta, paged 748, which lays down as under:-
"It is consonance with the principles of Hindu law relating to Maurusi Mutt that the senior Chela should succeed in the absence of valid nomination by the resigning mahant."
Moreover, there was three more other persons as nominee in the will and even if for a second Shanta Nand's claim is ignored and also the second nominee Grihasth ignored the qualification of nominee nos. 3 and 4 given in the will of Brahmanandji should have been considered by the elective body. What I mean to say is that initially the choice successor could be made from among the disciples of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati and if no disciple was found to be suitable then other alternative of letting in Sanyasis of occupant of the seat of Jyotir Math. According to the following shloka of Mahanushasan in the presence of a worthy disciple outsider should not have been allowed to be elected. The operation of the Shloka relied in para 28 of the written statement would come into existence only when none was found to be suitable out of nominated people or out of the disciples of Swami Brahmanand Shankar Digvijai Ex. A 106 page 614 Shloka 12 also give similar direction, Viz. Uk tkrq eBeqfPNU|nf/kdkfj.;qifLFkrsA fo/ukukefi ckgqY;kns"k /kEeZ% lukru%AA I have perused the evidence on behalf of the defendants and find that nothing is said as to why the claims of the other nominee were overlooked and why in preference to a disciple of Swami Brahmanand a non-disciple was sought to be installed. No doubt, the evidence of Sri Niranjan Deo Tirth Ji, Shankaracharya Puri, D.W. 1, Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya, D.W. 2 Abhinav Sachchidanand Tirth D.W. 3 Sri Narottam Ashram, D.W. 7 Sri Ram Nath Mishra, D.W. 9, Pandit Ram Govind Shukla, goes to indicate that on 25.6.53 ceremony of installation of the defendant no. 1, Sri Krishna Bodhashram took place. I believe what they have said on this point but the above mentioned ceremony is wholly insufficient to clothe the defendant no. 1 with the legal title of Shankaracharya of Jyotir Mutt. The reason is that dejure Shankaracharya Swami Shantanand Saraswati had already been installed on 12.6.63 as Shankaracharya on the strength of the will of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. The office of Shankaracharya having already been filled up the ceremony dated 25.6.53 cannot be the foundation forth acquisition of the title of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath by defendant no. 1. The plaintiff is already in possession in the capacity of Shankaracharya and there is no room for the defendant no. 1 being characterised as Shankaracharya by adverse possession as alleged. According to the first resolution of the interim committee of the disciples of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati the will was produced before interim committee. Initially, it was decided to install the plaintiff as Shankaracharya. Later on Pandit Sabha decided that the plaintiff was not a fit person and Sri Krishnabodhashram defendant no. 1 should be installed. The said pandit sabha in my opinion could not sit in appeal over the judgment of Sri Brahmanand Saraswati who nominated his disciple plaintiff Sri Shantanand Sarawati, 108 Dandi Swami as successor nominee no. 1. It is patent that the Bharat Dham Maha Mandal which did Punaruddhar restoration of Jyotishpeet by installing Sri Brahmand Saraswati could have the residuary right of appointing successor provided of course the reigning Shankaracharya had not nominated any one. The fluctuating body of Pandit Sabha consisting of a few persons cannot be considered to be any legal authority to determine the question, upset the decision of the late Jagadguru. Muthamanay is silent on the point as to who is to select the successor. A perusal of the spirit of the judgment of section 92 C.P.C. case shows that if the line of disciple is extinct Maha Mandal has a right to nominate. It was impliable even from that the succession will be from Guru to Chela and Guru must have some right to nominate. The Guru having found the adhikari Uttaradhikari, it will present a chaos if fluctuating body of Pandits of various places in India choose to go on selecting persons of their choice in utter disregard to the wishes of the previous occupant. That is why the decision of section 92 C.P.C. case was required. That is in favour of the plaintiff. The Court under section 92 C.P.C. had a vast power and when it has not exercised the power of removing the present occupant, he has to continue office till actually removed. In my opinion, the general public could have the power to elect a man only when the line of disciple was extinct then they could appoint a high qualified person according to book of command shlokas mentioned in para 28 of the written statement. There is no evidence that the entire line of disciples of late Jagatguru is extinct. So a non-disciple like defendant no. 1 could not be appointed as Shankaracharya in preference to disciple. Even if for a second the will in favour of defendant No. 1 is held to be illegal, there is the will in favaour of Swami Sri Karpatriji & others. That will become operative. Thus, the Pandit Sabha having not considered the claim of the other disciples apart from Sri Karpatriji who declined the offer, it did not lie within the competence of the Pandit Sabha to change the line of Succession which has been form Guru to Chela since ages. In Ex. A 91 page 24, Dwarka Jagatguru Shankaracharya writes "According to Math tradition there four Maths have an unbroken tradition handed from one Acharya to another for last 2,000 years or more". Thus, the claim of adverse possession of defendant no. 1, cannot at all be sustained." (emphasis added)
572. The above judgment attained finality after dismissal of appeal as abated. So far as Swami Krishna Bodhashram is concerned, the said issue attained finality in the light of judgment given by Civil Judge. The consequence is that in law, Swami Krishna Bodhashram was not holding seat of Shankaracharya at the time of death. Hence, question of causing any vacancy on his death also would not arise. In our view, this issue could not have been agitated again by plaintiff and it is barred by principle of res judicata as well as a result of finality attached with the judgment and decree dated 15.01.1970 passed by Civil Judge in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 after abatement of appeal filed by defendant appellant, Swami Krishna Bodhashram.
573. Hence on 10.9.1973, i.e. on the date of Swami Krishna Bodhashram or when alleged nomination was made by B.D.M., VNS, K.V.P. and others with respect to plaintiff Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati or when formal installation took place, throughout it is Swami Shantanand Saraswati who was continuously holding office/position/status of Shankaracharya and since there was no vacancy of Shankarcharya, question of installation of plaintiff did not arise at all, particularly, considering admission on the part of plaintiff himself that in one Peeth there cannot be two Shankaracharyas.
574. The principle of res judicata is applicable with respect to the issue as well as the suit, both. The issue whether Swami Shantanand Saraswati was validly installed as Shankaracharya and discharge functions of the said office in 1973 and whether Swami Krishna Bodhashram was installed in the said office on 25.06.1953 and functioned in the said office till his death, attained finality between aforesaid parties in view of judgment and decree dated 15.01.1970 passed in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965. That being so, plaintiff, who is admittedly claiming his right of installation on account of alleged vacancy caused due to death of Swami Krishna Bodhashram, is bound to fail for the reason that his claim is common and dependent on Swami Krishna Bodhashram. Once Swami Krishna Bodhashram himself was not holding the said office, question of causing any vacancy giving any occasion to plaintiff to get installed on the said seat, does not arise.
575. Now coming to the question of alleged removal of Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati and valid installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram, though we have already held that judgment in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 decided on 15.01.1970 attained finality after first appeal preferred by defendant-appellant, Swami Krishna Bodhashram, abated, and, even otherwise, operated as res judicata on the validity of installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram; still we proceed to satisfy ourselves whether Swami Brahmanand was not competent to nominate his successor through 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 and, if yes, after installation of Swami Shantanand on 12.06.1953 whether he was removed from the position of Shankaracharya so as to cause a vacancy in which Swami Krishna Bodhashram could have been installed as Shankaracharya on 25.06.1953.
576. Declaration of trust deed dated 11.05.1941 while recognizing Swami Brahmanand Saraswati as duly installed Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, dedicated entire property, documents whereof made part of trust-deed, to the aforesaid Shankaracharya and declared that he would be a 'Trustee' thereof and in future pupils of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, traditionally, as per his authorized succession, shall be called Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. It restrained transfer of property, made part of the aforesaid trust deed, as not transferable and further declared that in future if in teacher-pupil tradition, seat falls vacant, then only B.D.M., VNS shall have right to fill in the said vacancy. The relevant extract of trust-deed is reproduced as under:
^^iwT;okn Jh 108 Lokeh Jh czgekuUn ljLorh th egkjkt Åij dfFkr ;ksX;rkvksa ls lq'kksfHkr gksus ds dkj.k Jh Hkkjr /keZ egke.My us iwoZ dfFkr J`MsjheB] 'kkjnk eB vkSj xkso/kZueB ds izfr ekuuh; czEghHkwr 'kadjkpk;ksZ ds 'kqHk ladYi ds vuqlkj mDr Jh 108 Lokeh th egkjkt dk Jh dk'khiqjh esa ;Fkk'kkL= vkSj ;Fkkfof/k Jh T;ksfreZB ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vfHk"ksd djds mudks ihBkf/kifr :i ls ekuk gS vkSj ftldh ?kks"k.kk pS='kqDy prqFkhZ Lkaor 1998 eaxyokj dks egkjktf/kjkt lj dkes'oj flag cgknqj ds0 lh0 vkbZ0 bZ0 ,y0 ,y0 Mh0 Mh0 fyV0 vf[ky Hkkjro"khZ; lukru /keZ egklEesyu ds lHkkifr us dh vkSj pS='kqDy iPpeh laor 1998 cq/kokj dks egkjkt cgknqj Hkkjr/keZ jRu fo|kHkw"k.k Jheku lnkf'ko jko iaokj egksn; vf[ky Hkkjr o"khZ; lukru /keZ egklEesyu ds lHkkifr us mDr 'kadjkpk;Z th egkjkt dk lHkk esa ;Fkksfpr Lokxr vkSj lRdkj fd;kA tks iwoZ dfFkr tehu xouZes.V dh enn ls laxzg dh xbZ Fkh vkSj ftudk ;g ihB fo|eku gS og lc tehu ftuds nLrkost vkfn bl U;k; i= esa lfEEkfyr gS os lc iwT;ikn Jh 108 'kadjkpk;Z Lokeh Jh czgekuUn ljLorh th egkjkt dks HkfDriwoZd viZ.k fd;s tkrs gSA Jh 108 egkjkt orZeku xouZesUV ds fu;ekuqlkj blds VªLVh gksaxs vkSj muds f'k"; ijEijk :i ls os rFkk muds vf/kdkjh mRrjkf/kdkjh Jh T;ksfreZB ds 'kadjkpk;Z dgyk;saxsA bl frfFk dh lax`ghr lc tehus dHkh cSph ugha tk;sxkA Jh Hkxoku ,slk ugh djsa ;fn dHkh Jh T;ksfreZB esaa f'k"; ijEijk esa vkpk;Z xn~nh fjDr gks rks Jh Hkkjr /keZ egke.My dks vf/kdkj jgsxk fd blh vf/kdkj ls ml fjDr LFkku dh iwfrZ djsaA iwT;ikn Jh vkfn 'kadjkpk;Z izHkq dh vfUre yhyk Hkwfe vkSj egkrhFkZ dk ;g LFkku lukru /keZ dk iwtuh; rhFkZ cuk jgsxkA bl xn~nh ds orZeku vkpk;Z izHkq rFkk muds mRrjkf/kdkjh vkpk;Z izHkqx.k Hkkjr[k.M ds lc izkUrksa ds lukru /keksZ jktk iztk ds vknj.kh; vkSj iwtuh; gksaxs tSlk fd .... rhuks czgehHkwr 'kadjkpk;Z izeq[kksa dh 'kqHkokluk Fkh ftldks Jh fo'oukFk dh d`ik ls Jh Hkkjr /keZ egke.My iw.kZ djds vius dks d`rd`R; le>rk gSA JheRizHkw iwT;ikn 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfreZBkf/kifr dh ,d xn~nh tks dk'kh esa jgsxh mlds lEcU/k esa Jh egke.My dk o:.kk unh ds rhj ij ,d vkJe ftldh pkSgn~nh vkSj dkxtkr blds lkFk fn;s x;s gS og Hkh mudks viZ.k fd;k tkrk gSA vr,o mi;qZDr Lotkrh; /keZ dk;ksZA ds fl);FkZ ;g U;k; i= fy[k fn;k tkrk gS fd izek.k jgsA** "Because of Pujyavad Shri 108 Swami Shri Brahmanand Saraswati ji Maharaj being adorned with the aforementioned attributes, Shri Bharat Dharm Mahamandal, as per the pledge of Respected Brahmibhoot Shankaracharyas of aforesaid Shringeri math, Sharda Math and Govardhan math, has considered the said Shri 108 Swami Ji Maharaj as Pithadhipati after anointing him in Kashipuri as Shankaracharya of Shri Jyotirmath as per the religious scriptures and as per law; the declaration of which was made on Chaitrashukla Panchami Samvat 1998, Tuesday, by Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshvar Singh Bahadur K.C.I.E.L.L.D.D.Lit., Chairman of the Akhil Bharatvarshiya Sanatan Dharm Mahasammelan and on Chaitrashukla Panchami Samvat 1998 Wednesday, Maharaja Bahadur Bharatdharma Ratna Vidyabhusan Shriman Sadashiva Rao Panwar, the Chairman of Akhil Bharat Varshiya Sanatan Dharma Mahasammelan duly welcomed and respected the said Shankaracharya Ji Maharaj in the meeting. That earlier mentioned land, which had been acquired with the help of the Government and on which this Peeth stands erected and all those lands, papers etc which are annexed to this deed, are hereby donated out of devotion to Pujyapad Shri 108 Shankaracharya Swami Shri Brahmanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj. Shri 108 Maharaj shall be its trustee as per the law of the present Government and he and his successors shall be known as the Shankaracharyas of the Shri Jyotiramath as per disciple-tradition. All the land collected on this date shall never be sold. It may not happen by grade of God, if at anytime the Seat of Acharya falls vacant in Shri Jyotirmath in disciple-tradition (shishya prampara) , then Shri Bharat Dharma Mahamandal shall have the right to fill that vacant place by virtue of this deed itself. This last Leela land and place of heavenly abode of Pujyapad Shri Adi Shankaracharya Prabhu shall continue to be the holy pilgrim of the Sanatan religion. The present Acharya Prabhu of this seat and his heir Acharyas shall be respectable and venerable to the Kings and subjects of all the provinces of India following Sanatan religion, as was the auspicious wish of all the three preceding Brahmibhoot Shankaracharyas and by fulfilling which by the grace of Shri Vishvanath, Shri Bharat Dharma Mahamandal feels honored. In relation to one seat of Shrimatprabhu Pujyapad Shankaracharya Jyotimathadhipati, which shall be located in Kashi, one Ashram of Shri Mahamandal on the bank of Varuna river, dimensions and documents whereof have been given herewith, is also being donated to him. Therefore, this Nyaya Patra (deed) is being executed for the fulfillment of the aforesaid swajaatiya (co-followers of the religion) religious works, so that proof remains." (English Translation by Court)
577. It is admitted position that Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth after such installation and continued to function till he breathed last on 20.05.1953. Before his death, he executed a 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 in which, he gave, in alternative, four names to succeed him as Shankaracharya. The said names were in following order:
(i) Ramji Triapthi (subsequently known as Shanta Nand Saraswati),
(ii) Dwarika Prasad Shastri,
(iii) Swami Vishnu Deva Nand Saraswati,
(iv) Swami Parmanand Saraswati.
578. Plaintiff challenged aforesaid 'Will' by filing an objection in Misc. Case No. 44 of 1953 filed by Swami Shantanand Saraswati for succession certificate. The objection of plaintiff was rejected and succession certificate was issued to Swami Shantanand Saraswati. Thereafter this 'Will' was challenged by Swami Krishna Bodhashram in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965, wherein Issue-16 was with respect to validity of aforesaid 'Will". It was answered in favour of Swami Shantanand. Trial Court held the said 'Will' valid.
579. Same issue was raised in Suit No. 3 of 1954 filed under Section 92 CPC by four plaintiffs, namely, Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati, Nagesh Upadhyay, Mahadev Shastri and Sudarshan Lal Bajpai, impleading Swami Shantanand Saraswati (Ramji Tripathi) as sole defendant. Issue-5 formulated therein was with regard to correctness of 'Will'. There also it was answered against plaintiffs (in that case), i.e., 'Will' was held validly executed.
580. Even in the present case, Court below while adjudicating Issues- 1 and 1/2, declined to go into the question of validity of 'Will' on the ground that it was already upheld thrice and it would not be permissible to allow challenge to the said 'Will', by plaintiff, in the suit in question. Relevant extract of judgment in question reads as under:
^^mijksDr rhuksa fu.kZ;ksa ls ;g Li"V gS fd olh;r fnukad 18&12&52 fof/kd :i ls fuLrkfjr gq;h gS --- oknh }kjk bl okn esa Hkh olh;r fnuakd 18&12&52 dks pqukSrh nh gS tc fd U;k;ky; bl okn esa bl ij fu.kZ; nsuk mfpr ugha le>rh gS vkSj u gh 1952 dh olh;r dks bl okn esa pqukSrh nh tk ldrh gS** "It is clear from all the three aforesaid judgments that the Will has been executed as per law on 18-12-52. ... The Will dated 18-12-52 has been challenged by the plaintiff in this case also whereas in this case neither the Court finds it appropriate to pass a judgement on it nor the will of 1952 can be challenged." (English Translation by Court) (emphasis added)
581. The above facts are writ large to show that under the deed of trust dated 11.05.1941, body of learned Pandits, B.D.M., VNS etc., while installing Swami Brahmanand Saraswati as Shankaracharya so as to revive extinguished Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth after almost 165 years, followed Teacher-Pupil custom/tradition (Guru-Shishya Parampara) for future succession of Shankaracharyas. It was clearly mentioned that pupil of reigning Shankaracharya, nominated by him, would succeed the seat of Shankaracharya and shall be known as such. It is only when no such nomination is available and seat is extinct, i.e., a situation as it was in 1941 when Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was installed, the same procedure by which Shankaracharya was installed in 1941, may be followed by B.D.M., VNS and other learned Pandits, Shankaracharyas etc. Since Ramji Tripathi (Swami Shantanand Saraswati) was first in the order of merit nominated by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati to succeed him as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, he was entitled to become Shankaracharya and was rightly installed on 12.06.1953.
582. Further, whether Swami Shantanand Saraswati suffered any disqualification and for that reason was removed from the office of Shankaracharya and Swami Krishna Bodhashram was installed by the body of learned Pandits, KVP etc., we have to find a positive act of alleged removal, first. Court below though in the judgment in question, has recognized authority of learned Pandits etc. for removal of a person who gets occupied to the seat of Shankaracharya though not qualified or lacks eligibility or has otherwise committed an act so as to disqualify him to continue as Shankaracharya, but thereafter has not recorded any finding, how and in what manner Swami Shantanand Saraswati was removed from the office. Court below has taken the factum that Swami Krishna Bodhashram, since was installed on 25.06.1953, this by necessary implication would have the effect of displacement/removal (nigrah) of Swami Shantanand Saraswati from the seat of Shankaracharya.
583. We have already discussed meaning of word 'Nigrah' used in "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan" A person not eligible or otherwise disqualified could have been removed from the office of Shankaracharya. We agree that the word 'Nigrah' means 'removal' or 'termination'. This requires a positive act of declaring a person holding seat of Shankaracharya as unqualified or disqualified or ineligible and thereafter a positive act of his removal from such position so as to cause a vacancy in which another person could have been installed. Installation to the seat of Shankaracharya is not a licence which can be revoked at any time. Here removal has to precede a condition of disqualification. When a person was already holding the said status, there was no vacancy in which another person could have been brought in. Therefore, unless and until there is evidence to show that Swami Shantanand Saraswati was removed from the position or status of Shankaracharya, question of installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram could not have arisen. Even if any formal installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram had taken place, that would have no legal and valid consequence and would not confer status of Shankaracharya upon Swami Krishna Bodhashram. It has to be ignored in law. No document or otherwise evidence has been placed before us to show that any conscious decision was taken to declare Swami Shantanand Saraswati as lacking requisite qualification so as to disqualify him to remain as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth and thereupon competent body, i.e., Manishigan removed him and thereafter in the resultant vacancy, installed Swami Krishna Bodhashram.
584. Even before Trial Court, neither there was any such issue, nor evidence nor it has been adjudicated by giving reasons.
585. Moreover, Swami Shantanand is/was not a party in present suit. Therefore also Trial Court had no occasion to look into the issue of alleged disqualification and removal of Swami Shantanand Saraswati. Secondly, in absence of any material, in our view, on pure conjectures and surmises, it could not have held Swami Shantanand Saraswati as lacking qualification to hold the status of Shankaracharya, and, that too, on the basis of a judgment in which suit was dismissed against Swami Shantanand Saraswati and another judgment in which his installation as Shankaracharya was maintained and installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram was declared invalid. The conjectures on the part of Trial Court in this regard is evident from following extract of judgment (at the pain of repetition reproduced again) :
^^okn la[;k 3@54 o 36@65 ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd mUgs laLd`r dk Kku ugha FkkA okn la[;k 36@65 ds voyksdu ls Hkh mUgsa laLd`r dk Kku Fkk bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ fu"d"kZ ugha gSA --- ysfdu U;k;ky; dks bl Lrj ij ;g fu.khZr ugha djuk gS fd Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn dks laLd`r dk Kku gS ;k ughA ysfdu okn la[;k 3@54 o okn la[;k 36@65 ls vo/kkj.kk yh tk ldrh gSS fd mUgsa laLd`r dk Kku ugh FkkA ;gh dkj.k gS fd fo}kuksa euh"khx.k us eBkEuk; egkuq'kklue~ ds izko/kkuksa ds v/khu mudk fuxzg dj Lokeh d`".k cks/kkJe dks 'kadjkpkk;Z ds in ij vklhu djk;kA vU;Fkk vkSj dksbZ dkj.k Lokeh d`".k cks/kkJe dks vf/k"Bkfir djus dk ugha FkkA** "It is clear from the perusal of Suit No. 3/54 and 36/65 that he didn't possess the knowledge of Sanskrit. No conclusion can be drawn of the fact as to whether he had knowledge of Sanskrit, even by perusal of Case No. 36/65. ... But at this stage, the Court has not to decide that whether Swami Shantanand has knowledge of Sanskrit or not. But this can be presumed on the basis of Case No. 3/54 and Case No. 36/65 that he didn't had the knowledge of Sanskrit. This is the reason why Learned wise men abandoned him and anointed Swami Krishna Bodhashram as Shankaracharya as per the provisions of Mathamnay Mahanushashnam. Else, there was no other reason for anointing (Adhishthapit) Swami Krishan Bodhashram." (English Translation by Court)
586. Trial Court has also taken formal order of abatement passed by First Appellate Court on 29.08.1982 rendering judgment dated 15.01.1970 not final on the ground that appeal is continuation of suit, forgetting basic principle of law that abatement of a proceeding is by operation of law. The mere fact that formal order was passed by Court after a long time will not result to a consequence that appeal was pending. After death of defendant-appellant and non substitution of legal representatives, appeal already abated after expiry of 150 days (90 days+60 days). Swami Krishna Bodhashram admittedly having died on 10.09.1973, first appeal against judgment dated 15.01.1970 in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 abated on 10.02.1974. Moreover, abatement of appeal would relate back as if appeal was not filed rendering judgment of Trial Court final which would have the effect in law that Swami Shantanand was holding office of Shankaracharya validly and Swami Krishna Bodhashram had no right to the said status. Here also, Trial Court has given a very strange reasoning that in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965, installation of Swami Shantanand was found valid and installation of defendant, Swami Krishna Bodhashram, was found to have taken place though invalid for three reasons, namely, he was not pupil of Swami Brahmanand; he could not have been appointed in the custom of Guru-Shishya Parampara; and, Pandit Sabha could not have appointed any outsider, but since appeal was pending and no formal order of abatement was passed and in the meantime Swami Swaroopanand, plaintiff in the present case, was installed on 07.12.1973, therefore, he (Swami Swaroopanand-plaintiff) was validly installed. This approach, reasoning and finding is wholly absurd and perverse. This is patently illegal.
587. We therefore, have no hesitation in reversing entire findings as aforesaid, namely, regarding alleged disqualification of Swami Shantanand, his removal and also about valid installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram. Impugned judgment on Issues-2, 3, 4, 1 and 2/1, in respect of aforesaid findings is hereby reversed. Answer (Sixth Point):
In view of above, we answer the point for determination no. 6 in negative holding that Swami Shantanand Saraswati was not removed from the office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth after his installation on 12.06.1953.
Answer (Seventh Point):
Point for determination no. 7 is answered in negative holding that alleged installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram in the seat of Shankaracharya on 25.06. 1953 was invalid, illegal and contrary to the customs, traditions and usages laid down in relevant religious scriptures having force of law, as discussed in this judgment.
Answer (Eight and Ninth Points):
Points of determination no. 8 and 9 are answered in affirmative holding that judgment dated 15.01.1970 passed in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 attained finality and would operate as res judicata. Hence the issue regarding valid installation of Swami Shantanand Saraswati in the seat of Shankaracharya and that he was qualified for such installation and that Swami Krishna Bodhashram was not validly installed on 25.06.1953 would also operate as res judicata and the said judgment attained finality after appeal abated, in view of judgments of Supreme Court, which we have already discussed above.
588. The Tenth point for determination would be "whether plaintiff has claimed any independent right in the office of Shankaracharya or his claim is connected with the issue of installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram? Answer (Tenth Point):
This question we have already discussed above while discussing points for determination no. 6, 7, 8 and 9 and in view of above discussion, this question is answered in negative and against plaintiff, i.e., in favour of appellant.
589. The next two points for determination, i,e. points for determination no. 11th and 12 are:
(11) "whether plaintiff has proved that a ceremony for his installation as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth was held on 07.12.1973?"; and, (12) "whether the alleged installation of plaintiff in the seat of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth in the ceremony held on 07.12.1973 conferred a right upon him to hold the said office and can be said to be a valid installation, particularly when we have already held that Swami Shanta Nand Sarawati was holding the said office in 1973 and Swami Krishna Bodhashram having not been validly installed in the seat of Shankaracharya on 25.06.1953 did not cause any vacancy on his death on 10.09.1973?"
590. The Issue with regard to installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya on 7.12.1973 was Issue no.1 before Trial Court but with regard to question of installation of appellant as Shankaracharya, Trial Court has not framed any issue. Instead, it has considered directly whether his installation was illegal and against Rules, presupposing that ceremony of installation was not disputed but only validity was to be considered. Issue-1 has been considered by Trial Court alongwith Issue 2/1, whether installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya was in accordance with Rules or not.
591. At this stage, first we will consider whether plaintiff and appellant respectively were able to prove their claim with regard to installation as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Trial Court examined this aspect with regard to installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya, in the judgment, at pages 282 to 320. It has recorded its conclusion that plaintiff was installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 7.12.1973 and has been discharging duties and functions since then. Court below has simply referred to various evidence, oral and documentary, adduced on behalf of plaintiff without discussing oral evidence with reference to cross-examination as to whether evidence was credible or not. We may reproduce relevant extract of findings with respect to issue No.1 as under :
**oknh dh vksj ls vius vf/k"Bkiu ds lEcU/k esa rFkk crkSj 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB fnukad 07-12-1973 ls dk;Z djus o rhuksa ihBksa ds ekuuh; txn~xq: 'kadjkpk;ksZ] Hkkjr /keZ egke.My] dk'kh fo}r ifj"kn ds fo}kuksa rFkk muds izfrfuf/k;ksa] xzgLFkksa] lU;kfl;ksa o vfr fof'k"V O;fDr;ksa ls ekU;rk izkIr gksus ds lEcU/k esa lwph 88lh fnukafdr 05-10-1998 ls dkxt la[;k 89lh prq"ihB lEesyu lans'k i= fnukafdr 01-5-1979 tks prq"ihB ds 'kadjkpk;kZsa }kjk gLrk{kfjr gSA --- dkxt la[;k 137lh QSlyk eqdnek uEcj 1320@65 Lokeh ijekuUn cuke jke th nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA ---
"Paper no. 89C dated 01.5.1979, resolution of Conference of Four Peethas, filed on behalf of plaintiff, vide Index 88-C dated 05.10.1998, is signed by Shankaracharyas of Four Peethas and relates to his installation and functioning as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth since 07.12.1973 and approved by Reverend Jagat Guru Shankaracharyas of Three Peethas, Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Sdholars of Kashi Vidvat Parishad and their representatives, Grihasthas, Sanyasis and and eminent personalities. .....Paper no. 133-C, judgment in Case No.1320 of 1965 Swami Parmanand vs. Ramji has been filed.
oknh dh vksj ls vius vf/k"Bkiu 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa dk;Z o ekU;rk dks lkfcr djus ds fy;s iqLrdsa] if=dk;sa] ?kks"k.kki=] i=kpkj] QksVksxzkQ] vfHkuUnu i= vkfn dks lwph 327x@1 yxk;r 327x@6 ls dkxt la[;k 328d c`gnkjj.; dksi fu"kn izdk'kd xksfoUn dkuu dk;kZy; xhrk iszsl xksj[kiqj ist 126 ls 127] dkxt la[;k 329d txrxq: xkSjo izdk'ku] /keZla?k esjB ¼f}rh; laLdj.k½ dkxt la[;k 330d bZ'kk|oksRrj 'krksifu"kn izdk'kd pkS[kEHkk fo|k Hkou okjk.klh --- dkxt la[;k 343d@78 i= Jh ekuo dY;k.k vkJe gfj}kj fnukad 18-08-05 nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA ---
"In order to prove his consecration, functioning and recognition as Shankaracharya, the plaintiff vide index 327C/1 to 327C/6 has filed books, magazines, declaration letters, correspondence, photographs, felicitation letters etc, paper no. 328 Ka, page 126 to 127 of Brihadaranya Kope Nishad published by Govind Kaanan Office Gita Press Gorakhpur, Paper No. 329Ka, Jagatguru Gaurav Publication, Dharmsangh Meerut (Second Edition ), Paper no 330 Ka- Ishagyavottar Shatopnishad published at Chaukhamba Vidya Bhavan Varanasi and Paper no 343 Ka/78, letter of Shri Manav Kalyan Ashram Haridwar dated 18.08.05.
oknh dh vksj ls lwph 352x ls dkxt la[;k 353d@1 ls 353d@10 i= lsdzVjh bUpktZ Jh Hkkjr/keZ egke.My }kjk iafMr ckyd`".k feJ fyf[kr fnukad 11-05-1941 tks fnukad 27-07-75 dks lR;kfir] dkxt la[;k 353d@11 i= Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh fnukad 16-11-62] dkxt la[;k 353d@12 i= eqfLye lEesyu fnukad 05-10-03] dkxt la[;k 353d@13 i= vkpk;Z lHkk fnukad laor 2056] dkxt la[;k 353d@14 izek.k i= dk'kh fo'oukFk eafnj esa dk'kh fo|r ifj"kn ds vkpk;ksZ ds gLrk{kj] dkxt la[;k 353d@15 i= iafMr jes'k pUnz lnkf'ko oS'; fnukad 07-09-05] dkxt la[;k 353d@16 ls dkxt la[;k 353d@19 i= t;iky flag iwoZ x`g ea=h e/; izns'k fnukad 02-01-93] dkxt la[;k 353d@20 i= Hkkjr /keZ egke.My fnukad 07-04-01 nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA Vide index paper no. 352-C, Papers no 353 Ka/1 to 353 Ka/10, letters written by Secretary Incharge Shri Bharat Dharma Mahamandal through Pandit Balkrishna Mishra dated 11.05.1941 certified on 27.07.75, letter of Swami Shantanand Saraswati dated 16.11.62 which is paper no. 353 Ka/11, letter of Muslim Conference dated 05.10.03 which is paper no. 353 Ka/12, letter of Acharya Sabha dated Sanvat 2056 which is paper no. 353 Ka/13, Certificate signed by acharyas of Kashi Vidvat Parishad in Kashi Vishvanath Temple which is paper no. 353 Ka/14, letter Pandit Ramesh Chandra Sadashiv Vaishya dated 07.09.05 which is paper no. 353 Ka/15, letter of Jaipal Singh erstwhile Home Minister Madhya Pradesh dated 02.01.93 which are paper no. 353 Ka/16 to 353 Ka/19, letter Bharat Dharma Mahamandal dated 07.04.01 which is paper no 353 Ka/20 , have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
oknh dh vksj ls T;ksfrZeB o }kjdk ihBk/kh'oj ds dk;Z djus ds lEcU/k esa QksVksxzkQ] i=] i=kpkj] ?kks"k.kki= vkfn dks lkfcr djus ds fy;s lwph&2 ds Qkby la[;k 2@1 ds dkxt 1&91 ds dkxt ftlesa dkxt la[;k&540x@16 txn~xq: 'kadjkpk;Z egklaLFkkue~ nf{k.kEuk; Jh 'kkjnk ihBe~ Ja`xsjhihB dk i= fnukad 28-08-2006 tks ch0vkj0 xkSjh'kadj ds }kjk txn~xq: dh rjQ ls Lokeh vfoeqDrs'ojkuUn ljLOkrh dks Hkstk x;k Fkk] ftUgkasus ;g fy[k dj lwfpr fd;k fd ebZ 1979 ,oa 1993 ds fMDys;js'ku QksVksxzkQ lfgr Hkstk gSA ---
In order to prove the photographs, letter, correspondence, manifesto etc with regard to functioning of Jyotirmath and Dwarka Peethadheeshwar, paper number 540Ga/16, letter of Jagadguru Shankaracharya Mahasansthanam Dakshimnaaya Sri Sharda Peetham Shringeripeeth dated 28.08.2006, sent by BR Gaurishanker on behalf of Jagadguru to Swami Avimuktshwaranand Saraswati, informing in writing that declaration of May 1979 and 1993 has been sent along with the photograph, have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff vide Index-2, File no.2/1, Papers 1-91.
oknh dh vksj ls }kjdk ihBk/kh'oj o T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa ekU;rk fn;s tkus lEcU/k esa jftLVj esa dkxt la[;k 343@1 vFkkZr ,&1 yxk;r ,&78 esa ewy dkxtkr gS ftlds }kjk Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh dks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ,oa }kjdk 'kkjnkihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa ekU;rk fn;k x;k gSA dkxt la[;k ,&8 yxk;r ,&11 vfHkuo lfPpnkuUn rhFkZ dh olh;r fnuakd 11-01-1980 gS ftlds }kjk Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh dks }kjdk ihB dk 'kadjkpk;Z ukfer fd;k x;k izLrqr fd;s x;s gSaA---
Papers number 343/1, i.e. A-1 to A-78, contained in the register, filed on behalf of plaintiff are the original documents relating to recognition being accorded to Dwarka Peethadhishwar and Jyotishpeethadheeshwar, whereby Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati has been recognized as Jyotishpeetheeshwar and Dwarika Peeethadheeshwar. Papers number A-8 to A-11 are the Will of Abhinav Sachhidanand Teerth dated 11.01.1980 whereby Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati has been nominated Shanakaracharya of Dwarika Peeth...."
oknh dh vksj ls dqEHk esyk esa T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa muds jgu lgu o 'kksHkk ;k=k dks lkfcr djus ds fy;s lwph 927x@1 rk 927x@3 ls dkxt la[;k 927x@4 iqLrd Hkwfe vkcaVu dqaHk esyk gfj}kj mRrjk[k.M lsDVj 12] fo'ks"k dk;kZf/kdkjh dqaHk esyk }kjk lR;kfir] dkxt la[;k 927x@5 lwpuki= fnukad 31-07-2012 }kjk yksd lwpuk vf/kdkjh Jh cnjhukFk dsnkjukFk efUnj lfefr] dkxt la[;k 927x@6 lwph lnL;x.kksa dh Jh cnjhukFk dsnkjukFk efUnj lfefr lu~ 2009&10] dkxt la[;k 927x@7 izekf.kr izfr Hkwfe vkoaVu }kjk dk;kZy; esykf/kdkjh dqEHk esyk 2010 esyk fu;a=.k Hkou gfj}kj fnukad 08-02-10] dkxt la[;k 927x@8 izekf.kr izfr Hkwfe vkoaVu }kjk dk;kZy; esykf/kdkjh dqEHk esyk 2010 esyk fu;a=.k Hkou gfj}kj fnukad 08-02-10] dkxt la[;k 927x@9 izekf.kr izfr dk;kZy; vkns'k 08-03-2010 dk;kZy; esykf/kdkjh] dqEHk esyk gfj}kj] dkxt la[;k 927x@10 yxk;r 927x@15 izekf.kr izfr txrxq: 'kadjkpk;Z Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th egkjkt ds 'kksHkk;k=k eas rSukr iqfyl cy dh lwph nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA In order to prove his lifestyle and Shobhayatra (Procession) as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar during Kumbh Mela, the plaintiff vide list 927Ga/1 to 927Ga/3, has filed papers number 927Ga/4, booklet regarding land allotment, Kumbh Mela Haridwar, Uttarakahand Sector 12, certified by the Officer on Special Duty, Kumbh Mela, paper number 927Ga/5 the information letter dated 31.07.2012 by the Public Information Officer,Sri Badrinath Kedarnath Mandir Samiti, paper number 927Ga/6, list of the Members of Sri Badirnath Kedarnath Mandir Samiti of the year 2009-10, paper no.927 Ga/7, certified copies of allotment of land by the office of Meladhikari Kumbh Mela 2010, Mela Niyantran Bhawan, Haridwar dated 08.02.10, certified copy of the paper no. 927Ga/9, office order of the office of the Meladhikari, Kumbh Mela Haridwar, dated 08.03.2010, paper number 927Ga/10 to 927Ga/15 certified copy of list of the police force deployed during the Shobhayatra of the Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Ji Mahraj. oknh dh vksj ls vius dks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj lkfcr djus ds fy;s] tykfHk"ksd] iV~VkfHk"ksd] prq"ihB lEesyu o vU; ihBk/kh'oj 'kadjkpk;ksZ ds lkFk ijLij lkeatL; o vfr fof'k"V O;fDr;ksa o fof'k"V lU;kfl;ksa }kjk ekU;rk dks lkfcr djus ds fy;s fofHkUu QksVksxzkQ ls lEcfU/kr jftLVj Mh nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA --- QksVksxzkQ la[;k Mh&77 vfXu v[kkM+k ds lHkkifr }kjk oknh dk pj.k iwtu] nwljk QksVksxzkQ esa Mk0 fo'oukFk 'kkL+=h }kjk oknh dk vfHkuUnu] rhljh QksVksxzkQ esa twuk v[kkMs+ ds eU=h gfjfxjh ds }kjk oknh dk vfHkUkUnu] QksVksxzkQ la[;k Mh&80 NRrhlx<+ ds eq[;ea=h vthr tksxh }kjk oknh dk vfHkuUnu djrs gq;s ds QksVksxzkQ nkf[ky fd;s x;s gSaA For the purpose of proving himself as Head of Jyotishpeeth as well as performance of Jalabhishek (consecration), Pattabhishek (coronation), Chatushpeeth Sammellan (conference of four Peethas) and cohesion with other Peethadheeshwar Shankarcharyas and also to prove the recognition by eminent dignitaries and Sanyasis, register D, containing various photographs has been filed. ....Photograph No. D-77 exhibits Charan Pujan (feet worshiping) of the plaintiff by the President of Agni Akhada, in second photograph, felicitation of the plaintiff by Dr. Vishwanath Shashtri, in the third photograph the felicitation of the plaintiff is being done by the Secretary (Mantri) of Joona Akhada Harigiri, in photograph No. D-80 felicitation of the plaintiff by the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh Ajit Jogi. bl izdkj oknh ds xokgksa }kjk Hkh oknh ds vf/k"Bkiu dks vius l'kiFk lk{; }kjk lkfcr fd;k x;k gSA oknh }kjk vf/k"Bkiu ds ekSds ij Hkkjr /keZ egke.My] dk'kh fo}r ifj"kn] rhuksa ihBksa ds 'kadjkpk;Z o muds izfrfuf/k] fo}kuksa] xzgLFkksa] lU;kfl;ksa dh mifLFkfr dks lkfcr fd;k gSA oknh }kjk Hkkjr /keZ egke.My] dk'kh fo}r ifj"kn] rhuksa ihBksa ds 'kadjkpk;Z o muds izfrfuf/k] fo}kuksa] xzgLFkksa] lU;kfl;ksa fof'k"V rFkk vfrfof'k"V O;fDr;ksa ds leFkZu rFkk ekU;rk dks Hkh lkfcr fd;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr oknh }kjk vius T;ksfr"ihB ij 'kadjkpk;Z ds in ij vf/k"Bkiu ds ckn ihB ds fdz;k dykiksa o ihB ds dk;ksZ ds lEiknu dks QksVksxzkQ] i=ksa] lekpkj i=] if=dk o ekSf[kd lk{; ds ek/;e ls lkfcr fd;k x;k gSA vU; txgksa ds QksVksxzkQ] lekpkj i=] i= vkfn Hkh ;g lkfcr djrs gS fd oknh T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa dk;Z dj jgs gSaA Thus, installation of plaintiff has been proved by his witnesses by their evidence on oath. Presence of Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Kashi Vidwat Parishad, Shankaracharyas of all the three Peethas and their representatives, scholars, Grihasthas and Sanyasis on the occasion of installation, has been proved by plaintiff. Approval and recognition accorded by Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Kashi Vidwat Parishad, Shankaracharyas of all the three Peethas and its representatives, scholars, Grihasthas, Sanyasis, eminent and high dignitaries, have been proved by the plaintiff. Besides, activities and discharge of affairs of Peetha after his installation in the office of Shankaracharya of the Jyotishpeeth, have been proved by the plaintiff through photographs, letters, newspapers, magazines and oral evidence. Photographs of other places, newspapers, letters etc also prove that the plaintiff is functioning as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar. lekt ds lHkh oxksZ] fo}kuksa] dk;Zikfydk rFkk fo/kkf;dk ds 'kh"kZ inksa ls tqMs+ yksxksa rFkk izfl) jktusrkvksa dh muds lkFk ekStwnxh Hkh mUgsa T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa ekU;rk ns jgh gSA The presence of the people from all class of the society, intellectuals, executives and people associated with the high offices of the Legislature; Executive and eminent statesmen with him, is also according recognition as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar. dqEHk esyk esa Hkh muds T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa mifLFkfr] prq"ihB lEesyuksa esa Hkh mudh mifLFkfr Hkh ;g lkfcr djus ds fy;s Ik;kZIr gS fd vU; ihBksa ds 'kadjkpk;ksZ }kjk Hkh mUgsa gh 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa ekU;rk nh x;h gSA His presence as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar in Kumbh Mela, in conferences of Chatushpeeth is sufficient to prove that Shankaracharyas of other Peethas have also recognized him as Shankaracharya. oknh }kjk vius vf/k"Bkiu dks ekSf[kd lk{;] nLrkosth lk{;] QksVksxzkQ] i= if=dk vkfn ls lkfcr fd;k x;k gSA Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh o Lokeh fo".kqnsok uUn ljLorh rFkk Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh }kjk u rks oknh ds vf/k"Bkiu dks jksdus gsrq dksbZ dk;Zokgh dh u gh muds T;ksfr"ihB 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa dk;Z djus ls mUgsa jksdk x;kA tc fd oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr okn 513@89 esa izfroknh Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh dks vUrfje fu"ks/kkKk }kjk vius dks 'kadjkpk;Z mn~?kksf"kr djus rFkk rn~uqlkj dk;Z djus ls jksdk x;k gSA The plaintiff has proved his installation through oral and documentary evidence, photographs, letters, magazines etc. Swami Shantanand Saraswati, Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati and Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati neither took any action to stop his installation nor he was stopped from functioning as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth while the defendant Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati, by means of interim injunction issued in Suit No. 513/89 filed by the plaintiff, has been restrained from declaring himself as Shankaracharya and functioning accordingly. vr% i=koyh ij ekStwn ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; ds vk/kkj ij U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWph gS fd oknh dks 07-12-1973 dks T;ksfr"ihB ds txn~xq: 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa LFkkfir fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk og rc ls T;ksfr"ihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds dk;Z ,oa drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu dj jgs gSaaA** "Hence on the basis of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Court has reached the conclusion that plaintiff was installed as Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth on 07.12.1973 and since then he is discharging his functions and duties as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth." (English Translation by Court)
592. Learned counsel for appellant has contended that documents relied by Court below having not been proved, should not have been taken to prove installation of plaintiff as Shakracharya and even oral evidence was contradictory, therefore, findings are incorrect.
593. So far as documentary evidence is concerned, same cannot be said "not proved" and "inadmissible" at the stage of appeal as we have already decided this issue. Therefore, arguments otherwise advanced on behalf of appellant is rejected.
594. However, so far as oral evidence is concerned, we may refer to relevant evidence adduced on behalf of plaintiff in support of his plea of installation on 7/12/1973 as Shakracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and would also examine whether there is anything to discredit such evidence or not.
595. Sri Sundar Bajpai PW1 claims to be follower of principle of monism, propounded by Adi Guru Shankryacharya and is associated with Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth since long. He is an Ayurvedic medical practitioner and is not expected to have expertise in historicity of Adi Guru Shakracharya or his principles or otherwise religious matters. Still in his examination-in-chief he has given details of installation of Maths by Adi Guru Shankracharya, establishment of four Peethas and thereafter backdrop of installation of Shankrachayas in Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth since installation of Brahmanand Saraswati and thereafter. His examination in chief is on record in volume-6, pages 2784-2790 of plaintiff-respondent's paper book. Relevant extracts thereof reads as under:
**jke th f=ikBh mQZ Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh us fnukad 12@06@1953 dks T;ksfr"ihB 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa viuk vf/k"Bkiu ?kksf"kr fd;k FkkA fo)r ifj"kn o Hkkjr /keZ egke.My] lukru /kekZuq;k;h fo}ku iafMr o x`gLFk lHkh us ;ksX; ik= Lokeh d`".kcks/kJke dks T;ksfr"ihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa fnukad 25@06@1953 dks vf/k"Bkiu dh lgefr vU; ihB ds txrxq: us Hkh fn;kA d`".k cks/kkJe dk vf/k"Bkiu djds jke th f=ikBh mQZ Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh ds vf/k"Bkiu dk fuxzg fd;k x;k FkkA T;ksfr"ihB ds fu;e ijEijk o jhfr ds vuqlkj jke th f=ikBh mQZ 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh dks T;ksfr"ihB ds ihBk/kh'oj in ls inP;qr dj fn;k x;kA mudks vU; ihB ds 'kadjkpk;ksZ us T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa dHkh ekU;rk ugha nhA** ¼isij ua0&455 d] ist&2786&2787½ "Ram Ji Tripathi alias Swami Shantanand Saraswati had announced his investiture as Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth on 12/06/1953. Vidwat Parishad, Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, followers of Sanatan Dharma along with scholars, learned and Grihasths (who are having families), all accorded consent/approval along with the Jagatgurus of other Peethas for installation of a competent incumbent, Swami KrishnabodhShram as Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth on 25.06.1953. By anointing Krishnabodhashram as Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth, the investiture of Ram Ji Tripathi alias Swami Shantanand Saraswati was rendered nugatory. Ram Ji tripathi alias Shantanand Saraswati was removed from the office of Peethadheeshwar of the Jyotish Peeth in accordance with the rules, tradition and custom. Shankaracharyas of other Peethas never recognized him as Peethadheeshwar of Jyotish Peeth. (Paper no. 455 Ka, Page 2786-2787)(English Translation by Court) ^^Lokeh Jh d`".k cks/kkJe th egkjkt us viuk dksbZ mRrjkf/kdkjh fu;qDr ugha fd;k FkkA mUgksaus Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th egkjkt dks T;ksfr"ihB ds fy;s ;ksX; ik= ik;k FkkA vr% tc os chekj Fks] rks ml dky og oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuUn th egkjkt ls 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB ds dk;ksZa dks viuh rjQ ls djok;k djrs FksA "Swami Shri Krishna Bodhashram did not appoint anyone as his successor. He found Swami Swarupanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj as suitable candidate for Jyotish Peeth. Therefore, during the period, he was unwell, he used to get the functions of Joyisthpeeth performed by plaintiff Swarupanand Saraswati on his behalf" (English Translation by Court) Lokeh d`".k cks/kkJe th egkjkt ds czg~eyhu gksus ds ckn fo}kuksa us Hkkjr /keZ egke.My ls tqM+s iafM+rksa o fo}kuksa us] fo}r ifj"kn ls 'kkadj n'kZu dks ekuus okys fo}kuksa o iafM+rksa us] vU; rhu ihBksa ds rRdkyhu txrxq:vksa dh lgefr rFkk Lokeh d`".k cks/kkJe th ds lq>ko dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh dk T;ksfr"ihB ij 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vkSipkfjd inkfHk"ksd fnukad 12@9@1973 dks dk'kh esa fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk o`gn o 'kkL= fof/k ds vuqlkj vfHk"ksd fnukad 7@12@1973 dks fnYyh esa fd;k FkkA** ¼isij ua0&455 d] ist&2787&2788½ After the death (brahmleen) of Swami Krishna Bodhashram Ji Maharaj, scholars and pandits associated with Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, scholars and pandits of Vidwat Parishad, believing in Shankar Philosophy, the then Jagatgurus of other three Peethas bearing in mind the suggestion of Swami Krishna Bodhashram, formally consecrated Swami Swarupanand Sarawati as Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth on 12/9/1973 in Kashi and on 7/12/1973, in Delhi extensively according to rituals contained in Scriptures. (Paper no.-455 Ka, Page 2787-2788) ^^oknh dk tc 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB cnfjdkJe fgeky; ds :i esa vfHk"ksd fd;k x;k Fkk] eSa ekStwn FkkA^^ "I was present when plaintiff was consecrated as Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth Badrikashram Himalaya."
oknh dk T;ksfr"ihBk'oj ds :i esa tc ls vfHk"ksd gqvk gS rc ls os yxkrkj T;ksfr"ihBk/k'oj ds :i esa dk;Z djrs vk jgs gSa vkSj rc ls gh og izfro"kZ Jh cnzhdkJe tkdj og dikV [kqyokus dk dk;Z Lo;a ns[krs gSa vFkok viuk izfrfuf/k Hkstrs gSa] tks ogkWa ij mifLFkr jgrk gSA ---¼isij ua0&455 d] ist&2788½ Since the plaintiff has been installed as Jyotishpeethadhishwar, he is continuously discharging his duties as such, and since that very time, he personally supervises the task of opening the Doors of Shri Badrikashram every year or sends his representative who remains present there. (Paper No.-455 Ka, Page-2788) (English Translation by Court) ^^oknh dk T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa vfHk"ksd gksus ds i'pkr 01 ebZ 1979 dks gq, prq"ihB lEesyu esa oknh T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa T;ksfr"ihB dk izfrfuf/kRo fd;k FkkA 'ks"k rhuksa ihBksa ds txrxq: 'kadjkpk;Z oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh dks T;ksfr"ihBk/k'oj ds :i esa ekU;rk nsrs vk jgs gSaA --- fnukad 17-05-07** ¼isij ua0&455 d] ist&2789½ "The plaintiff represented Jyotish Peeth in the capacity of Jyotish Peethadheeshwar at the Chatushpeeth Sammelan (Conference of Four Peethas) which took place on 01 May 1979 after his consecration as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar. Jagatguru Shankaracharyas of remaining three Peeths have been recognizing plaintiff Swami Swarupanand Saraswati as Jyotish Peethadheeshwar since then. (Paper No.-455 Ka, Page-2789" (English Translation by Court)
596. However in his cross-examination he has said that he does not remember the year in which Swami Swaroopanand was installed. On the question relating to Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan, which he claims to have read, he could not give any specific reply and at times, said he will have to look into that document. He has also admitted his ignorance of procedure of selection of a person for installing as Shankracharya. Some relevant extracts from his cross-examination are reproduced as under. ^^eSaus eBkeuk; egkuq'kklu i<+k gSA --- eq>s pkjks ihBksa ds 'kadjkpk;ksZa ds tks fu;e egkeuk; egkuq'kklu fy[ks x;s gSa os ;kn gSa] --- orZeku 'kkjnkihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th gSaA^^ ¼isij ua0 455d@2] ist&56½ "I have read 'Mathamanay Mahanushasan'. I can recall the rules for Shankaracharyas of all four Peethas as provided in 'Mathamanay Mahanushasan'. Present Shankaracharya of Sharadapeeth is Swami Swaroopanand Sarswati Ji." (Paper No. 4558A/2, Page-56)(English Translation by Court) ^^eSa flQZ d`".kcks/kkJe th dk gh f'k"; gwWaA --- eq>s ;kn ugha fd eSaus fdl ls nh{kk yhA --- eq>s ;kn ugha gS fd Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th dk iV~VkfHk"ksd dgkWa gqvk Fkk] ij eSa ekStwn FkkA^^ ¼isij ua0 455d@3]ist&57½ "I am a disciple only of Krishnabodhashram... I cannot remember from whom I took deeksha (initiation). I cannot remember where pattabhishek (investiture with sash) of Swami Swaroopanand Sarswati Ji was performed, but I was present there." (English Translation by Court) ^^eq>s ;kn ugha fd eSa tc oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuUn th dk iV~VkfHk"ksd gqvk Fkk mlesa lfEefyr gqvk Fkk ;k ughaA --- eSa 'kkUrkuUn th dks ;ksX;rk ,oa v;ksX;rk ds lEcU/k esa dqN ugha tkurkA ¼isij ua0 455d@4]ist&58½ "I cannot recall whether or not I had participated at the pattabhishek (investiture with sash) of Swami Swaroopanand Sarswati, when it was performed.... I know nothing about Shantanand Ji's qualification or disqualification." (Paper no. 455A/4, Page-58)(English Translation by Court) ^^eq>dks ;g fcYdqy ;kn ugha gS fd Lokeh Lo:ikuUn th dk iV~VkfHk"ksd fdl lu~ esa gqvk FkkA --- prq"ihB lEesyu fdl lu~ esa gqvk FkkA ;kn ugha gSA fp= eSaus ns fn;k gS tks nkf[ky fd;k x;k gksxkA --- prq"ihB lEesyu ds lEcU/k esa eBkeuk; egkuq'kklu esa dksbZ fo/kku gS ;k ugha ns[kdj crk;saxsA** ¼isij ua0 455d@5]ist&59½ "I cannot remember at all in which year installation of Swami Swaroopanand Ji was performed ... and in which year conference of four Peethas had taken place. I cannot recall. I have given photograph which might have been submitted. As to whether there is any provision in Mathamanay Mahanushasan with respect to Chatushpeeth Sammelan, I will tell only after going through it." (English Translation by Court) ^^eq>s ekywe ugha fd Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh dks fdlh in ls P;qr fd;k x;k Fkk fd ughaA --- eq>s ;kn ugha fd fo}r ifj"kn uke dh laLFkk Fkh ;k ughaA Hkkjr /keZ egke.My dk uke eSaus lquk gSA --- Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe th ds f'k"; ugha FksA Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe th ds uke ds i'pkr vkJe fy[kk gqvk gSA blfy, ljLorh gksus dk iz'u gh ugha gSA --- eq>s irk ugha fd pkjks eB ekS:lh eB dgykrs gSa ;k ughaA xq:&f'k"; ijEijk ugha gS ;g iz'u fujFkZd gS D;ksafd ;fn ,d xq: ds pkj f'k"; gS rks pkjks 'kadjkpk;Z ugha gksrs gSaA in p;u dSls gksrk gS ekywe ughaA --- eq>s ugha ekywe fd Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh dksbZ olh;r fy[kk FkkA eq>ss ;g ugha ekywe fd Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh th ds czg~eyhu gksus ds i'pkr vUrfje lfefr xfBr dh x;h Fkh vkSj ml vUrfje lfefr ds v/;{k Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th FksA fnukad 4-8-07^^"¼isij ua0 455d@6] ist&60&62½ "I don't know whether or not Swami Shantanand Sarswati had been removed from any office. ... I do not remember whether there existed any body titled 'Vidwat Parishad'. I have heard the name of 'Bharat Dharma Mahamandal'. ... Swami Swaroopnand Sarswati was not a disciple of Swami Krishnabodhashram. At the end of the name of Swami Krishnabodharsham, the word 'Ashram' is written. Hence, there is no question of his being a 'Sarswati'. .... I don't know whether all four peethas are known as 'Maurusi Math' or not. The question that there does not exist tradition of Guru-Shishya (Teacher-disciple relationship), is meaningless, because if there are four disciples of a Guru (master/Teacher), all the four cannot be appointed 'Shankaracharya'... I don't know how selection for the office of Shankaracharya is made... I don't know whether Swami Brahmanand Sarswati had executed any Will (vasiyat) or not. I don't know whether any interim committee was constituted after the heavenly abode of Swami Brahmanand Sarswati and the President thereof was Swami Swaroopnand Sarswati Ji."(Paper No. 455A/6, Page - 60-62) (English Translation by Court)(English Translation by Court)
597. Deposition of PW-1 shows a self contradiction and apparent falsity on the part of witness. It also shows that contents of affidavit filed by way of examination-in-chief are not based on information or knowledge of PW-1 but have been written by the person who drafted affidavit. That is why in cross-examination, witness showed total ignorance or made contradictory statements in respect of certain facts which he otherwise authoritatively stated in his examinatin-in-chief by way of affidavit. On the one hand, he stated that Swami Shantanand Saraswati had no knowledge of Sanskrit and ineligible for installation as Shankaracharya but in cross-examination admitted that he has no knowledge about eligibility of Swami Shantanand Saraswati. Similarly in respect of installation of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati as Shankaracharya, he specifically said that he was formaly installed at Kashi on 12.09.1973 and thereafter held a large function of Abhishek on 07.12.1973 at Delhi but in cross-examination he said that he is not aware, where Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati was installed though he was present. Then he said further that he does not remember whether he was present at the time of installation of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati or not. He also said that he does not remember when or in which year Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati was installed. Then he also said that he does not know as to how a person is selected and installed as Shankaracharya. These contradictory statements of PW-1 render this witness totally unreliable, uncreditworthy and untrustworthy, hence we find no evidentiary value of deposition of PW-1 either in support of case of plaintiff or otherwise. We may also observe at this stage that statement made by PW-1 with regard to alleged disqualification and removal from position of Shankaracharya, of Swami Shantanand could not have been admitted in evidence for the reason that Swami Shantanand was not a party in the suit and, therefore, no pleading and evidence which invite finding against the position of Swami Shantanand could have been admit ted in his absence. Hence this evidence was inadmissible in absence of Swami Shantanand as party in suit.
598. PW-2 Challa Lakshman Shastri, though originally belonged to village Indupalli of Amlapuram Taluq, district Godavari, Andhra Pradesh but his predecessors shifted Varanasi in 1902, and since then are residing thereat and working as Teerth Purohit. He claimed that he was accepted as Rajguru by King of Vijaya Nagaram, Andhra Pradesh and still is enjoying the said status. His examination-in-chief is contained in Volume 6 page 2792-2794 Plaintiff Paper Book. He claims to be a witness of installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya on 7.12.1973 and said as under:
^^eSaus Ja`xsjhihB ds orZeku 'kadjkpk;Z iwT;ikn Lokeh Hkkjrh rhFkZ th egkjkt ds ije xq: JhePpUnz'ks[kj Hkkjrh egkLokehth ls bZ- lu~ 1953 esa eaU= nh{kk xzg.k dh FkhA --- nh{kk xzg.k ds ckn ls gh eSa J`axsjhihB ds dk;ksZ ls lfdz; :i ls tqMk jgk gwWaA I received Mantra Deeksha (Knowledge of Mantra) in 1953 from great Guru Shimachhandrashekhar Bharti Mahaswami, the Guru (Master) of the present Shankaracharya of Shringeri Peeth namely reverend Swami Bharti Teerth Ji. I remained actively associated with the affairs of Shringeri Peeth after receiving Deeksha.
--- lu~ 1973 esa tc iwT;ikn Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th egkjkt dk T;ksfr"ihB ij iV~VkfHk"ksd gksus okyk Fkk mlh lanHkZ esa vius izfrfuf/k ds :i esa Hkstus ds iwoZ rRdkyhu J`axsjh ihBk/kh'oj txn~xq: 'kadjkpk;Z Lokeh JhvfHkuo fo|krhFkZ th egkjkt us eB&eqnzkf/kdkjh dk vf/kdkj iznku fd;k FkkA --- 7 fnlEcj lu~ 1973 dks fnYyh esa vk;ksftr T;ksfr"ihB iV~VkfHk"ksd egksRlo ds fy;s eSa eB&eqnkzf/kdkjh ds :i esa J`axsjhihB ds 'kadjkpk;Zth dk izfrfuf/k cudj Ja`xsjh ls lh/ks gh fnYyh igqWapk FkkA --- eSaus iwT;ikn Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th egkjkt ds T;ksfr"ihBkf/kjksg.k iV~VkfHk"ksd egksRlo esa J`axsjh ihB ds izfrfuf/k ,oa eB&eqnzkf/kdkjh ds :i esa Hkkx fy;k Fkk vkSj J`axsjhihB ds vksj ls fn;s x;s lans'k dks ekbd ij crk;k Fkk vkSj J`axsjhihB ds 'kadjkpk;Zth }kjk fn;k x;k iV~VoL= vks<+kdj Ja`xsjh 'kadjkpk;Z th ds Lo;a u vk ldus dh vifjgk;Zrk dk mYys[k djrs gq, mudh rjQ ls iwT;ikn Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th dks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa Lohdkj djus rFkk mUgha ls T;ksfr"ihB{ks=h; /keZ&fu.kZ; izkIr djus dh ?kks"k.kk dh FkhA In the year 1973 when installation of reverend Swami Swarupanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj as head of Jyotish Peeth, was to be performed, with reference, thereto, the then Shringeri Peethadheeshwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Shri Abhinav Vidyateerth Ji Maharaj before sending his representative (in the installation ceremony), conferred on him the right of Math-Mudradhikari (Authority to stamp and seal on behalf of the Math) As representative of Shankaracharya of Shringeri Peeth, from Sringeri Peeth, I straightaway reached Delhi on 7 December 1973 as Math Mudradhikari (officer authorized to stamp and seal on behalf of Math) for the ceremony of installation of Jyotishpeeth organized at Delhi. As Math-Mudradhikari (an officer having authority for stamping and sealing) and representative of Shringeri Peeth, I had participated in the ceremony of installation of Jyotishpeethadhishwar of reverend Swami Swarupanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj. On mike, I announced the message of Shringeri Peeth on its behalf and wrapped the pattvastra (cloth for such installation) provided by Shankaracharya Ji of Shringeri Peeth, stating the unavoidable circumstances for the absence of Shringeri Shankaracharya, recognized reverend Swami Swarupanand Saraswati Ji as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar on his behalf and made an announcement for getting decisions on regional religious matters concerning Jyotishpeeth from him (Swami Swarupanand Saraswati) only.
bl lekjksg esa rRdkyhu }kjdk 'kkjnkihBk/kh'oj txn~xq: 'kadjkpk;Z Lokeh vfHkuo lfPpnkuUn rhFkZ th ,oa rRdkyhu iqjhihBk/kh'oj txn~xq: 'kadjkpk;Z Lokeh fujatunso rhFkZ th egkjkt Lo;a mifLFkr Fks vkSj mUgksaus gh iwT; Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th dk T;ksfr"ihB ij vfHk"ksd fd;k Fkk rFkk bl vk'k; dk ,d ?kks"k.kk i= Hkh izdkf'kr fd;k Fkk] ftl ij mu nksuksa ds gLrk{kj vafdr FksA In this ceremony the then Dwarka Shardapeethadheeshwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Teerth Ji and the then Puripeethadheeshwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Niranjandev Teerth Ji Maharaj were present in person and who consecrated reverend Swami Swarupanand Saraswati as Head of Jyotish Peeth and a declaration letter to this effect was also published bearing signature of both of them.
prq"ihB&lEesyu esa tks izLrko ikfjr gq, Fks muesa ;g Li"V mYys[k Fkk fd 'kadjkpk;Z ihB pkj gh gSa vkSj ml izLrko i= ij pkjksa 'kadjkpk;ksZa us gLrk{kj fd;s Fks] ftUgsa eSa igpkurk gwWaA ml izLrko ij T;ksfr"ihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa Lokeh Jh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th egkjkt us gLrk{kj fd;k FkkA** ¼isij ua0&424 d] ist&2793½ It is clearly mentioned in the resolutions passed at Chatushpeeth Sammelan that there are only four Shankaracharya Peethas and the said resolution was signed by all four Shankaracharyas, which I recognize. Swami Shri Swarupanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj signed on that resolution as Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth." (Paper no.-424 Ka, Page-2793)(English Translation by Court) ^^J`axsjhihB ds rRdkyhu vkSj orZeku 'kadjkpk;ksZa us T;ksfr"ihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa igys iwT; Lokeh Jh d`".kcks/kkJe th ,oa muds ckn iwT; Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th egkjkt dks gh ekU;rk nh gSA --- Ja`xsjh ihB dh rjQ ls dHkh Hkh Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn th vFkok Lokeh fo".kqnsokuUn th rFkk Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh th dks T;ksfr"ihB dk 'kadjkpk;Z u rks tkuk x;k u gh ekuk x;k vkSj u gh dksbZ O;ogkj bl :i esa fd;k x;kA --- dk'kh fo)rifj"kn~ us czg~eyhu Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe th dks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ekuk] muds vf/k"Bkiu dk leFkZu fd;k vkSj Lokxr fd;kA** ¼isij ua0&424 d] ist&2794½ "The then and present Shankaracharyas of Shringeri Peeth recognised only reverend Swami Shri Krishnabodhashram Ji and thereafter reverend Swami Swarupanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj as Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth. ... On behalf of Shringeri Peeth, Swami Shantanand Ji or Swami Vishnudevanand Ji or Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati ji were never recognized or sanctified as Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth nor any such treatment was meted out to them by Sringeri Peeth. ... Kashi Vidwat Parishad recognised Late Shri Krishnabodhashram Ji as Jyotishpeeth-adheeshwar, corroborated his installation and welcomed it. (Paper no-424 Ka, page- 2794) (English Translation by Court)
599. In cross-examination (PW 2's) (volume 1 page 68-75 of plaintiff-respondent's paper book), we find nothing which may discredit his evidence. On the contrary, he has reiterated his statement about installation of plaintiff as Shankracharya. Relevant extract of his cross examination reads as under:
Lo:ikuUn ljLorh dk vkSipkfjd iV~VkfHk"ksd dk'kh esa gqvk FkkA --- iV~VkfHk"ksd jkt/kkuh gksus ds dkj.k gfLrukiqj esa Hkh fd;k tk ldrk gSA** ¼isij ua0 424] ist&71½ "Formal installation of Swaroopanand Sarswati was performed at Kashi. ......The installation can also take place at Hastinapur, being a capital." (Paper No. 424, Page-71) (English Translation by Court)
600. Pw-4 Anand Bahadur Singh claims that he is an Ex-Zamindar and from family of Raja Todarmal, friend of Goswami Tulsidas. His educational qualification is Acharaya and honorary Ph.D. He is Founder of Tulsi Library and Kashi Patrakar. He is also a member of Executive Body of Akhil Bhartiya Dharma Sangh. In substance, he is a Journalist and Follower of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. When he (Brahmanand Saraswati), came to Varanasi in 1945, PW-4 became his pupil. He claimed to be a member of KVP and was present on 12.9.1973 when meeting of KVP took place and plaintiff was proposed and nominated for installation as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. In this regard, relevant extract of his statement contained in Volume-6 page 2802-2805 of Plaintiff's Paper Book read as under. ^^--- d`".kcks/kkJe th us vius fdlh mRrjkf/kdkjh dks ukfer ugha fd;k Fkk blfy, fo}ku if.Mr] laU;klhx.k] x`gLFk] lukru/kehZ fgUnw turk] fo}Rifj"kn o Hkkjr /keZ egke.My us Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th egkjkt dks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds fy, euksuhr fd;kA muds euksu;u esa Lokeh gfjgjkuUn ljLorh] Lokeh egs'kkuUn ljLorh vkfn fo}ku euh"kh ekStwn FksA eSa Hkh ekStwn FkkA --- Hkkjr /keZ egke.My o dk'kh fo}Rifj"kn lukru fgUnw /kfeZ;ksa dh laLFkk gSA mDr nksuksa laLFkk,Wa oknh dks gh T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ekurs gSaA --- dk'kh fo}Rifj"kn --- dk eSa Hkh lnL; gwWaA --- dk'kh fo}Rifj"kn dh fnukad 12-9-1973 dks cSBd gqbZ FkhA ml cSBd esa eSa Hkh mifLFkr FkkA bl cSBd esa fo}Rifj"kn ds mifLFkr lnL;ksa us oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh dks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa euksu;u dk leFkZu djus dk izLrko ikfjr fd;k FkkA** ¼isij ua0&427 d] ist&2802&2803½ "...Krishnabodhasram has not nominated any person as his successor, therefore learned Pandits, Sanysis, Grihasthas, Hindu people believing in Sanatan religion, Vidwatparishad and Bharat Dharm Mahamandal nominated Swami Swaroopanand Sarswati Ji Maharaj as Jyotishpeethadhiswar. At the time of his nomination, Swami Hariharanand Sarswati, Swami Maheshnand Sarswati and other learned scholars were present there. I was also present..... Bharat Dharm Mahamandal and Kashi Vidwatparishad are institutions of believers of Sanatan Hindu religion. The aforesaid two institutions consider the plaintiff only as Jotishapeethadhiswar.. Kashi Vidwat-parishad .... I am also a member of that......... Meeting of Kashi Vidwatparishad was held on 12.9.1973. I was also present in that meeting. In that meeting, members of Vidwatyaparishad present there, had resolved for supporting nomination of the plaintiff Swami Swaroopanand Sarswati as Jhotishapeethadhiswar. (Paper no.-427ka, page-2802-2803) (English Translation by Court) ^^mDr cSBd esa mifLFkr lnL;x.k v}Sr er ds vuq;k;h] cqf)eku] 'kS{kf.kd {ks= esa vius fo"k; ds fo}ku FksA --- Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th egkjkt dk T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa vfHkuUnu lEiw.kkZuUn laLd`r fo'ofo|ky; ds v/;kid] vf/kdkjh] Nk= o deZpkfj;ksa us fd;k FkkA --- eSa Hkh i=dkj ds :i esa gkftj FkkA**¼isij ua0&427 d] ist&2804½ "The members present in the aforesaid meeting were followers of Adwait Philosophy, intellectual and scholars of their subject in education field. Felicitation of Swami Swaroopanand Sarswati Ji as Jotishapeethdhiswar was performed by Teachers, Officers, Students and Employees of Sampuranand Sanskrit University. I was also present there as Journalist." (Paper no.427ka, page-2804) (English Translation by Court)
601. In his cross-examination (Volume-1 page 86-92 of Plaintiff Paper Book), PW 4 has said that he was present at the time of installation of Krishnabodhashram but not aware whether he got possession or not. He further admits that he had not signed documents which are referred to in his affidavit. Relevant extract of his cross-examination is as under:
^^czg~ekuUn th d`".kcks/kkJe th 'kadjkpk;Z gq,A mudk iV~VkfHk"ksd dk'kh esa Kkuokih esa gqvkA mudk iV~VkfHk"ksd Lokeh lfPpnkuUnkuUn rhFkZ th rFkk /keZlezkV Lokeh djik=h th egkjkt rFkk LFkkuh; egkRekvksa us fd;k FkkA eSa iV~VkfHk"ksd esa ekStwn FkkA T;ksfr"ihB eas d`".kcks/kkJe th dk iV~VkfHk"ksd gqvk Fkk eSa ugha tkurk fd mudks ogkWa ij dCtk feyk Fkk ;k ughaA** ¼isij ua0 427 d] ist&87½ "Brahmanand Ji and Krishnabodhashram Ji became Shankaracharyas. Their installation took place at Gyanvyapi, Kashi. Their enthronement was performed by Swami Sachchidanand Teerth Ji, Dharmsamrat Swami Karpatri Ji Mahraj and local saints. I was present in the installation ceremony. Installation of Krishnabodhashram Ji was performed at Jyotispeeth but I do not know whether or not he got possession thereof. (Paper No. 427 ka, Page 87) (English Translation by Court) ^^iV~VkfHk"ksd ds lEcU/k esa Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ds iV~VkfHk"ksd dk fjdkMZ ns[kk gSA --- dk'kh fo}r ifj"kn dh lHkk gqbZ FkhA mlesa vfHk"ksd dk izLrko ikfjr gqvk FkkA ^gj gj egknso* dgdj izLrko ikfjr fd;k x;k FkkA** ¼isij ua0 427 d] ist&88½ "In the context of coronation, I have seen the record of installation of Swami Krishnabodhashram. .... A meeting of Kashi Vidwat Sabha was convened, where a resolution for coronation was passed with acclamations of ''Har Har Mahadev'..." (Paper No. 427 ka, Page 88) ^^ --- ftu dkxtkrksa dk mYys[k eSaus gyQukek esa fd;k gS mu ij esjk gLrk{kj ugha gSA lkjs vfHkuUnu i= dh dqN izfr;kWa lqjf{kr gS dqN ugha gSA --- pwWafd 'kkUrkuUn th dks dk'kh dks fo)ku 'kadjkpk;Z ugha ekurs Fks eSa Hkh ugha ekurk FkkA muds ijEijk tks yksx vius dk 'kadjkpk;Z dg jgs gSa mudks Hkh eSa 'kadjkpk;Z ugha ekurkA** ¼isij ua0 427 d] ist&91½ "..... The documents which I have referred to in the affidavit, do not bear my signatures. Some of copies of the ''Abhinandan Patras' (felicitation letters) are preserved but some are not. ...Since scholars of Kashi did not recognize Shantanand Ji as Shankaracharya, I also did not recognize. I do not recognize as Shankaracharya, the persons of his tradition, professing themselves to be Shankaracharyas. (Paper No. 427 ka, Page 91) (English Translation by Court)
602. However, with regard to installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya on 07.12.1973, we find no statement in deposition of PW-4 hence his deposition is irrelevant on this aspect. He only said about nomination on 12.09.1973 at Kashi.
603. PW-5 Harihar Prasad Pandey is a teacher in Teek Mani Sanskrit College, Shakarkand Gali, Varanasi. He claims to be a member of KVP. He was also associated with Swami Brahmanand Saraswati being his pupil and with Jyotishmath/Jyotishpeeth since then. He stated that on 25.06.1953 Swami Krishna Bodhashram was installed as Shankracharya and there after on 12.09.1973, plaintiff was proposed and nominated by KVP and thereafter installed as Shankaracharya. Relevant extracts from his examination-in-chief (volume-6,page 2807-2810)read as under:
fnukad 25-6-1953 dks Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe th dk T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa Kkuokih esa vf/k"Bkiu fd;kA Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe ds vf/k"Bkiu esa eSa ekStwn FkkA --- Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe th egkjkt us vius fdlh mRrjkf/kdkjh dks ukfer ugha fd;k FkkA** ¼isij ua0&426 d] ist&2808½ "Installation of Swami Krishnabodhasram ji, as Jyotishpeethadhishwar, was performed in Gyanwapi on 25.6.1953. I was present at the time of installation of Swami Krishnabodhasram.... Swami Krishnabodhasram had not nominated any of his successor". (English Translation by Court) ** --- oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh dks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa vf/k"Bkfir fd, tkus ds leFkZu ds lEcU/k esa fn- 12@9@1973 bZ- dks Jhdk'kh fo}r~ ifj"kn~ dh cSBd dh xbZ FkhA --- mDr cSBd esa eSa Hkh mifLFkr FkkA leFkZu ds lEcU/k esa ikfjr izLrko ij eSaus viuk gLrk{kj cuk;k FkkA --- fo}r~ ifj"kr~ us v;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij jketh f=ikBh mQZ 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh dk T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa fd, x, vf/k"Bkiu dk fojks/k fd;k Fkk vkSj ;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe vkSj Lokeh Lo:ikuUn th egkjkt dk T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa fd, x;s vf/k"Bkiu dk leFkZu fd;kA Jhdk'kh fo}r ifj"kr~ oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuun th egkjkt dks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa ekU;rk nsrk vk jgk gwWa vkSj mUgha dks 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB ekurk gSA** ¼isij ua0&426 d] ist&2810½ "........ With regard to the installation of the plaintiff Swami Swaroopanand Sarswati as Jyotispeethadhiswar, a meeting of Shrikashi Vidwatparishad was held on 12/9/1973...... I was also present in that meeting. I had put my signature on the resolution passed in respect of support........... Vidwatparishad had objection to installation of Ramji Tripathi @ Shantanand Sarswati as Jhotispeethdhishwar, on the ground of ineligibility and supported the installation of Swami Krishnabodhashram and Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj as Jhotispeethdhishwar on the ground of eligibility. Sri Kashi Vidwatparishad has been recognizing Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj as Jhotispeethdhishwar and consider him only as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth". (Paper no.-426ka, page-2810) (English Translation by Court)
604. In cross examination (volume-1 page 93-105 of plaintiff respondent's paper book.), PW 5 has admited that affidavit was got prepared by shri Rajendra Mishra and it was read to him by Notary whereafter, he signed the same. He also admits that plaintiff is also a member of KVP but in this regard his statement is contradictory at two places. At one place he has said:
^^dk'kh fo}r ifj"kn es Lokeh Lo:ikuUn Hkh lnL; gSaA^ "Swami Swaroopanand also is a member in Kashi Vidwat Parishad." (English Translation by Court)
605. At another place he stated:
^^Lokeh Lo:ikuUn th fo}r ifj"kn ds lnL; ugha FksA Lokeh Lo:ikuUn dHkh Hkh fo}r ifj"kn dh cSBd esa ugha vk;s FksA **¼isij ua0&426 d] ist&101½ "Swami Swaroopanand Ji was not a member of the Vidwat Parishad. Swami Swaroopanand never attended the meeting of Vidwat Parishad." (paper no. 426 ka,page101) (English Translation by Court)
606. However with regard to nomination of plaintiff for installation as Shankaracharya on 07.12.1973 there is nothing in his statement, hence it is also irrelevant on this aspect.
607. PW 6 Swami Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati is plaintiff himself. In his examination-in-chief he said that Swami Krishna Bodhashram passed away on 10-09-1973, whereafter B.D.M. VNS, KVP and other Shankaracharyas, etc, found him suitable for installation as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and he was so declared. Formal installation took place on 12-09-1973 at Kashi and actual installation with observance of all formalities, religious traditions and customs was held at Delhi on 07-12-1973. Relevant extracts of his examination-in-chief (Vol. 6 Page 2812-2829 of plantiff-respondat's paper book) read as under:
^^Hkkjr/keZ egke.My] fon~orifj"kn rFkk rRdkyhu txn~xq:vksa o fo}kuksa dh jk; esa eq>dks vkpk;Z ds fy;s ;ksX; ik;k x;k vr% eSaus mudh chekjh ds le; ls esjk vfHk"ksd gksus rd 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa dk;Z fd;k FkkA pwWfd Lokeh d`".kcks/kkJe us viuk dksbZ mRrjkf/kdkjh ukfer ugha fd;k Fkk] blfy;s T;ksfr"ihB iqu% fjDr gks x;hA vr% ihB dh ijEijk o eBkEuk; egkuq'kklu esa fyf[kr fof/k ds vuqlkj Hkkjr/keZ egkea.My o vU; ihB ds 'kadjkpk;ksZ dh lgefr o rRdkyhu fo}r~ifj"kn dh lgefr ls rFkk fo}kuksa o if.Mrksa us eq>dks fnukad 12-9-1973 bZ- dks dk'kh esa T;ksfreZB&T;ksfr"ihB ds fy;s ;ksX; iq:"k ?kksf"kr fd;kA --- esjk vkSipkfjd vfHk"ksd fd;kA fnukad 7-12-1973 bZ- dks fnYyh esa fof/k 'kkL= ds vuqlkj rFkk ihB dh ijEijk ds vuqlkj fof/kor esjk 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfreZB ds :i esa vfHk"ksd fd;k vkSj eq>dks 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfreZB ekuk A--- lHkh vkt rd leFkZu djrs pys vk jgs gSa] vkSj eq>dks gh 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB ds :i esa ekurs vk jgs gSa rFkk ekU;rk nsrs vk jgs gSaA ".......In the opinion of Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Vidvatparishad and the then Jagadgurus as well as scholars, I was found eligible for Acharya. I, therefore, had functioned as Shankaracharya from the time of his illness, till my installation. As Swami Krishnabodhashram had not nominated anyone as his successor, so the Jyotishpeeth was vacated again. Thus, in accordance with the tradition of the Peeth and the mode prescribed in Mathamnaya Mahanushasnam, and with the consent of Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Shankaracharyas of the other Peeths, the then Vidvatparishad, scholars and Pandits declared me eligible person for Jyotirmath-Jyotishpeeth on 12.9.1973 in Kashi. ...formally anointed me. As per the jurisprudence and the tradition of the Peeth, they duly anointed me as Shankaracharya Jyotirmath in Delhi on 07.12.1973 and recognized me as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath .... they all continue supporting me till today, and have been considering and recognizing me only as Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth. ..."
esjk iV~VkfHk"ksd fnukad 7-12-1973 dks fof/k 'kkL= ds vuqlkj fnYyh esa fd;k x;k Fkk -----T;ksssfr"ihB dh lEifRr ij 'kadjkpk;Z T;ksfr"ihB ds vf/kdkj v/;klu esa gwWaA T;ksfr"ihB 'kadjkpk;Z ds dk;ksZa dk o drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu yxkrkj fnukad 12-09-1973 ls djrk pyk vk jgk gwWaA --- ** ¼isij ua0&423 d] ist&2819&2820½ "My installation took place in Delhi on 07.12.1973 in accordance with the jurisprudence. ... I am in possession and have right over the properties of Shankaracharya, Jyotishpeeth. I have persistently been discharging functions of Jyotishpeeth Shankaracharya since 12.09.1973. ..." (Paper no. 423Ka, pages-2819-2820)(English Translation by Court) ^^eSa vuojr fnukad 12-9-1973 ls T;ksfr"ihB dk oS/k 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa dk;Z dj jgk gwWaA 'kadjkpk;Z ds drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu izfroknh dh iw.kZ tkudkjh esa dj jgk gwWA izfroknh ds }kjk dHkh fojks/k ugha fd;k x;kA ---¼isij ua0&423 d] ist&2826½ " I have persistently been functioning as a legitimate Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth since 12.9.1973. I am discharging duties of Shankaracharya in full knowledge of the defendant. The defendant never objected to it. ..." (Paper No.423Ka, page 2826)(English Translation by Court)
608. There is long cross examination of plaintiff but we do not find anything therein to discredit his deposition with regard to holding of ceremonies for installation on 7.12.1973 at Delhi. He has also said that he is not claiming possession through Swami Krishnabodhashram for the reason that Swami Krishna Bodhashram did not make any nomination of his successor. Therefore, plaintiff was selected and nominated by bodies of renowned Pandits, other Shankaracharyas etc., though he admits that occasion for his installation arose after death of Swami Krishnabodhashram, who according to plaintiff was holding position of Shankaracharya till his death on 10.09.1973. With regard to Swami Krishna Bodhashram, in his cross examination (Volume 1, page 106-138 of plaintiff-respondent's paper book) plaintiff has said:
^^d`".kcks/kkJe dk tks'kheB esa vfHk"ksd gqvk FkkA --- ;g ckr lgh gS fd esjs 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vfHk"ksd gksus ds igys 'kadjkpk;Z dk dk;Z fd;k FkkA **¼isij ua0&423 d ist&132½ "The installation of Krishnabodhashram took place at Joshimath. ... It is true that before my installation as Shankaracharya, I had done the work of a Shankaracharya.." (Paper No. 423A, Page- 132) ^^---------------- esjk tc T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa vf/k"Bkiu gqvk rc T;ksfr"ihB fjDr FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjk tc vf/k"Bkiu gqvk rks ml le; 'kkUrkuUn T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa fojkteku Fks ,oa xn~nh fjDr ugha FkhA**¼isij ua0&423 d ist&137½ "...... When I was enthroned as Jyotishpeethadhishwar, the seat of Jyothispeeth was vacant. It is wrong to say that when I was enthroned, Shantanand had been installed as Jyothishpeethadhishwar at that time, and the seat was not vacant." (Paper No. 423A, Page- 137)(English Translation by Court)
609. PW-8, Sri Deep Narayan Sharma, was a co-editor of research magazine Sarswati Shusma, published by Sampurnanand Sanskrit University. He was Sahityacharya, MA (Sanskrit), Ph.D. and Yogacharya. With regard to installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya he said:
^^oknh dk fo}kuksa ds }kjk tc dk'kh esa T;ksfr"ihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z gsrq euksu;u fd;k x;k Fkk] rc dbZ fo}ku mifLFkr gksdj oknh ds mDr euksu;u dk leFkZu fd;k Fkk] eSa Hkh mifLFkr FkkA** ¼isij ua0&482 d] ist&2840½ "When in Kashi, the plaintiff was nominated as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth, many scholars present there had supported the aforesaid nomination of plaintiff, I also was present there".
(Paper no.-482ka, page-2840) ^^lHkh fo}kuksa us oknh dks T;ksfr"kihB dk 'kadjkpk;Z gsrq lU;klh ikdj T;ksfr"k ihBk/kh'oj gsrq oknh ds mDr euksu;u dk leFkZu fd;k FkkA** ¼isij ua0&482 d] ist&2844½ "Finding the plaintiff a sanyasi for Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth, all the Scholars had supported the aforesaid nomination of the plaintiff for Jyotish Peethadheeshawar,."
(Paper no.-482ka, page-2844)
610. His statement is for nomination of plaintiff at Kashi on 12.09.1973 but not relevant about installation on 07.12.1973.
611. PW-9, Kailash Nath Dwivedi is a Grahastha Pupil of Swami Bramhanand. He came in his contact in 1948 and got Diksha in 1950. About factum of Sanyas taken by plaintiff and his installation on 07.12.1973 as Shankaracharya, he said:
^^Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th Hkh czg~eyhu Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh ds f'k"; gSaA --- Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh --- fnukad 09-01-1951 dks dydRrk esa lU;kl] n.M fy;k Fkk] rFkk muls lU;kl nh{kk fy;k FkkA --- Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th us tc Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh th ls lU;kl nh{kk o lU;kl n.M dydRrk esa fy;k Fkk] rc eSa ekStwn FkkA**¼isij ua0&484 d] ist&2846½ "Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati also is a disciple of Late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati..... Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati ...had taken Sanyas and Dand (stick) at Calcutta on 09.01.1951 and had also taken Deeksha of Sanyas from him. I was present at the time when Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati had taken Sanyas Deeksha and Sanyas Dand from Swami Brahmanand Saraswati in Calcutta."(Paper no.-484 ka, page-2846) ^^oknh dks Lo:ikuUn ljLorh dk uke Lokeh czg~~ekuUn th us gh fn;k FkkA --- Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh th egkjkt us oknh dks n.M fn;k] n.M Hkh esjs lkeus fn;k Fkk] oknh us ladYi fy;k fd lkjk lalkj vHk; izkIr djsA --- oknh dk lU;kl ysus ds igys cpiu dk uke iksFkhjke mik/;k; Fkk --- oknh dks czg~eyhu Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh ds f'k"; ds :i esa tkuk tkrk gSA "It was Swami Brahmanand who had given the name of "Swaroopanand Saraswati" to the plaintiff. Swami Brahmanand Saraswatiji Maharaj had given Dand (stick) to the plaintiff. He had given Dand in my presence. Plaintiff had pledged a resolution that whole world may obtain fearlessness. Childhood name of plaintiff was Pothiram Upadhyay before taking Sanyas. Plaintiff is known as the disciple of Late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati."
^^oknh dk fnYyh esa tc fnukad 07-112-73 dks c`gn :i ls iV~VkfHk"ksd rFkk T;ksfr"kihB ds :i esa 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa vf/k"Bkiu fd;k x;k Fkk rks ml le; Hkh eSa ekStwn FkkA**¼isij ua0&484 d] ist&2847&2848½ "I was also present when on 07/12/73, Pattabhishek of plaintiff was performed at large scale and his Adhishthapan (installation) as Shankracharya of Jyotishpeeth had been performed in Delhi. (Paper no.-484 ka, page-2847-2848)
612. In cross-examination he reiterated about installation of plaintiff on 07.12.1973 and said:
**d`".kcks/kkJe ds fu/ku ds ckn mlds ,d eghus ds ckn izfr"Bkiu gqvk FkkA igyk izfr"Bkiu dk'kh esa gqvk Fkk fQj fnYyh eas gqvk FkkA mleas eSa FkkA --- lu~ 73 eghuk twu rkjh[k ugha ;kn gS dk'kh esa izfr"Bkiu gqvk Fkk fnlEcj lu~ 73 rkjh[k 7 Fkh fnYyh esa izf"Bkiu gqvk FkkA --- eq>s xokgh nsus ds fy, Lokeh Lo:ikuan th us dgkA** ¼isij ua0&482 d] ist&154½ "Installation took place after one month of the death of Krishanbodhashram. The first coronation was performed in Kashi and thereafter in Delhi. I was present there. The Installation was performed in Kashi in June in the year 73 but I do not remember the date. The installation was performed in Delhi on 7th December, 73. Swami Swaroopanand Ji had asked me to tender testimony."(Paper no. 482 Ka, Page-154)
613. PW-11, Ashwin Bhai Purohit is a resident of Dwarka (Gujarat) and General Secretary of Sri Khsetra Dwarka Guggali Brahmin 505 Management Committee. Supporting plaintiff on his installation as Shankaracharya he said:
^^oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th egkjkt tc T;ksfr"k ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa lu 1973 bZ0 esa vf/k"Bkfir dj fn;s x;s Fks] rRi'pkr oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th egkjkt 1973 esa }kjdk esa vk;s FksA }kjdk esa vkus ij Jh {ks= }kjdk xqXxqyh czkg~e.k 505 tkfr dh mDr lHkk us oknh dk T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa HkO; Lokxr fd;k FkkA ml le; eSa mDr czkg~e.k lHkk dk lnL; FkkA**¼isij ua0&486 d] ist&2859½ "When the plaintiff Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati had been installed as Jyotish Peethadhishwar in the year 1973 A.D., thereafter plaintiff Swami Swaroopanand Saraswatiji Maharaj had visited Dwarka in 1973.... The aforesaid association of Sri Kshetra Dwarka Gugguli Brahmin, 505 caste had given a grand welcome to the plaintiff as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar on his arrival to Dwarka. At that time, I was the member of aforesaid Brahmin association." (Paper no. 486 Ka, Page-2859)
614. In cross-examination, however, he said that plaintiff visited Dwarka as Shankaracharya where he was felicitated and honoured but who nominated him and whether he was actually installed in Delhi is not known to him. His statement in cross-examination says:
**Lo:ikuUn th tc T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj gksus ds ckn 1973 esa }kfjdk vk;s FksA eq>s irk ugha fd mUgsa T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj fdlus ukfer fd;k Fkk ;k ugha--- eq>s Kkr ugha gS fd Lokeh Lo:ikuUn th dk iV~VkfHk"ksd T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa fnYyh esa gqvk FkkA** ¼isij ua0&486d] ist&173½ "When Swaroopanand Ji visited Dwarika in 1973 after installation as Jyotispeethadheeshwar, I do not know as to who had nominated him as Jyotispeethadheeshwar. I am not aware whether the installation of Swami Swaroopanand as Jyotispeethadheeshwar was performed in Delhi." (Paper No 486 ka, Page 173)
615. This witness did not prove the factum of installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya on 07.12.1973 but supports that in the capacity of Shankaracharya, plaintiff when visited Dwarka, was felicitated and honoured with his staus as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth.
616. PW-12, T.N. Yagyanarayan, proved installation of plaintiff on 07.12.1973 and in his examinatin-in-chief said:
**oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th egkjkt dk tc T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa vf/k"Bkiu fnukad 7-12-1973 bZ0 dks fd;k x;k Fkk rc Hkh eS Lokeh vfHkuo lfPpnkuUn rhFkZ th egkjkt tks ml le; }kjdk 'kkjnkihBk/kh'oj Fks] ds lkFk lsod ds :i esa fnYyh x;k FkkA oknh ds mDr vf/k"Bkiu esa Lokeh vfHkuo lfPpnkuUn rhFkZ th egkjkt }kjdk 'kkjnkihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa lfEefyr gq, FksA** ¼isij ua0&487,] ist&2869½ "When Swami Swaroopanand Saraswatiji Maharaj had been installed as Jyotipeethadheeshwar on 7.12.1973 A.D., even then I had gone to Delhi as Sewak (Servant), with Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Teerthji Maharaj who was the then Dwarka Shardapeethadheeshwar. Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Teerthji Maharaj had participated in the aforementioned installation of the plaintiff in the capacity of Dwarka Shardapeethadheeshwar." (Paper no.-487A, Page 2869) **lHkh us Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh dks T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa fd;s x;s vfHk"ksd dk vfHkuUnu o Lokxr fd;k FkkA --- dkxt dzekad ,&1 gSA --- dkxt dzekad ,&12 gSA --- dkxt dzekad ,&7 gSA** ¼isij ua0&487,] ist&2870½ "All had welcomed and felicitated the installation of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar..... It is paper no. A-1..... It is paper no. A-12.... It is paper no. A-7." (Paper no.-487A, Page 2870)
617. In cross-examination, his statement in examinatin-in-chief could not be discredited and on the contrary he reiterated stating as under:
^^Lokeh Lo:ikuUn th dk T;ksfr"k ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa tykfHk"ksd] iV~VkfHk"ksd vfHk"ksd o vf/k"Bkiu fnukad 7-12-1973 dks fd;k FkkA** ¼isij ua0&487d] ist&182½ "The consecration (sanctification with water), installation (vesting with sash), Abhishek (investiture) and Adhisthapan (enthronement) of Swami Swaroopanand as Jyotish Peethadheeshwar was performed on 7.12.1973." (Paper No 487 ka, Page 182)
618. PW-13, Sri Vasant Gadgil, is a Journalist and Editor of Sharda Sanskrti Patrika and engaged in propagation of Sanskrit Language. He did not make any statement with regard to installation on 07.12.1973 but stated about his participation in Chatushpeeth conference as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth.
619. PW-14, Jonny Pellegreeni, an Italian, undergoing Vedic study also did not say anything about installation but stated about his meeting with plaintiff treating him as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth.
620. Similarly, PW-15, Radheyshyam Goswami also did not make any statement about installation but said that he was felicitated/ honoured when visited Jabalpur in the capacity of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth.
621. To the same effect is the statement of PW-16, Somnath Tiwari, who also said that plaintiff was felicitated/ honoured as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth in Pragwal Sabha on 23.01.1974.
622. PWs-18 and 19, Dilawar Khan and Gauri Shankar Tiwari also stated about felicitation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth in Madhy Pradesh.
623. PW-20, C.V. Giridhar Shastri, a Teacher from Shringeri, District Chik Mangloor, Karnataka, also did not say anything about installation but stated that plaintiff participated as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth in the meeting of Shankaracharyas of four Peeths.
624. PW-21, Balram Pandey made statement about felicitation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya on 29.09.1975 at Varanasi.
625. PW-22, Bramhachari Subudhanand is Personal Secretary of plaintiff and made statement with regard to installation as under:
^^oknh dk tc fnukad 7&12&1973 dks fnYyh esa T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa iV~VkfHk"ksd fd;k x;k Fkk] rc mDr iV~VkfHk"ksd esa fuEckdzkZpk;Z Jh th egkjkt dks mifLFkr gksuk FkkA** ¼isij ua0&499 d] ist&2931½ "Nimbarkacharya Sri Ji Maharaj had to be present in the installation ceremony when the plaintiff was installed as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar in Delhi on 7-12-1973." (Paper no. 499 Ka, Page-2931)
626. He has not deposed that he was present when installation was held on 07.12.1973. Rest statement is clearly hearse. ^^eSa jkeefUnj esa gq, vfHk"ksd ds oDr eSa mifLFkr ugha FkkA --- vfHk"ksd Lokeh Lo:ikuUn th dk vfHk"ksd Lokeh egs'ojkuUn] dk'kh ds oSfnd fo}kuksa us o djik=h th us fd;k FkkA tks yksxksa us vfHk"ksd fd;k Fkk mlesa ls dksbZ T;ksfr"kihB ds ihBk/kh'oj ugha FksA --- oknh tc 'kadjkpk;Z gq, rc 1973 esa mUgksaus eq>s viuk lfpo fu;qDr fd;kA** ¼isij ua0&499d] ist&261½ "I was not present when the installation was performed at Ram Mandir... The installation of Swami Swaroopanand Ji was performed by Swami Maheshwaranand, Vedic scholars of Kashi and Karpatri Ji. Out of the persons who performed installation of Peethadheeshwar of Jyotishpeetha, none was Peethadheeshwar of Jyotishpeeth. ...When the plaintiff became Shankaracharya, he appointed me as his secretary in the year 1973." (Paper No. 499Ka, Page 262)
627. PW-23, Nijanand Brahmchari, stated that he was present at the time of installation on 07.12.1973 at Delhi and said:
**oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th dk T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa vf/k"Bkiu o iV~VkfHk"ksd fnukad 07-12-1973 bZ0 dks dksBh ua-&7 esVdkQ jksM flfoy ykbu] fnYyh ftldks vc 'kadjkpk;Z ekxZ ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gS] es fd;k x;k Fkk] rc eSa ekStwn FkkA** ¼isij ua0&500 d] ist&2943½ "Installation and coronation of the plaintiff Swami Swarupanand Ji as Jyotishpeethadheeshwer was materialized on 7.12.1973 at House no.-7, Metkaaf Road, Civil Lines, Delhi which is now known as Shankaracharya Marg. I was present at that time." (Paper No.-500Ka, Page no. 2943).
^^fnukad 7-112-1973 dks 'kkL= lEer oknh dk T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa tykfHk"ksd o in~VkfHk"ksd fd;s tkus ds i'pkr~ caxyk ua0&7 ls 'kksHkk;k=k fudkyh x;h Fkh tks vtey [kkWa ikdZ esa ,df=r gq;h FkhA** ¼isij ua0&500 d] ist&2944½ "After installation and coronation of the plaintiff Swami Swarupanand Ji as Jyotishpeethadheeshwer in accordance with religious jurisprudence/scriptures, a procession (Shobhyatra) was taken from house no. 7 which assembled at Ajmal Khan Park." (Paper No.-500 Ka, Page no. 2944)
628. In cross-examination also we find nothing to discredit above statement. In fact he has fortified his deposition as under:
**eB esa dksbZ flagklu ugha gS tks og oknh ds lkFk esa gSA flagklu eSaus ns[kk gS flagklu pkanh dk cuk gqvk gSA eudkes'oj esa dksbZ flagklu ugha gSA flagklu oknh ds lkFk esa pyrk gSA T;ksfr"kihB dk flagklu ;gh gS tks oknh ds lkFk esa pyrk gSA** ¼isij ua0&500d] ist&285½ "There is no throne in the Math. The throne which exists is with the plaintiff. I have seen the throne. It is made of silver. There is no throne in Mankameshwar. The throne accompanies the plaintiff. This is the same throne of Jyotishpeetha that accompanies the plaintiff wherever he goes." (Paper No. 500Ka, Page 285) **ftl le; fnYyh esa oknh dk vfHk"ksd gqvk Fkk mldh QksVks [khaph x;h Fkh** ¼isij ua0&500d] ist&286½ "When the Abhishek of the plaintiff was performed in Delhi, its photographs were taken." (Paper No. 500-Ka, Page 286)
629. PW-24, Acharya Mahamandaleshwar Brahmarishi Ram Krishnanand, did not say anything about the factum of installation of plaintiff but stated that he was being recognized by said Agni Akhada as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth. Though in cross-examination he said that plaintiff was installed in 1973 but not being a witness to installation as such, the deposition of PW-24 on this issue is of no assistance to plaintiff.
630. PW-25, Kaivalya Nand Brahmachari, a Preecher and resident of Raj Anandpur, District Puschim Singhbumi (Jharkhand), said that he was present at the time of nomination of plaintiff for Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth and also at the time of installation. His deposition reads as under:
^^oknh Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh th egkjkt dk T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa vkSipkfjd vfHk"ksd fnukad 12-09-1973 bZ0 dks /keZ la?k f'k{kk e.My ds lHkkxkj esa nqxkZ dq.M] okjk.klh esa fd;k x;k FkkA mDr vkSipkfjd vfHk"ksd esa] eSa mifLFkr FkkA** ¼isij ua0&505 d] ist&2985½ "The formal consecration of the plaintiff Swami Swaroopanand Sarasawati ji Maharaj as a Jyotishapeethadheeshwar was conducted on 12.09.1973, in the auditorium of Dharm Sangh Shikchha Mandal, Durga Kund, Varanasi. I was present in that formal consecration." (Paper no-505 Ka, Page-2985) ^^fnYyh esa fd;s x;s mDrvfHk"ksd ds deZdk.M esa eSa ekStwn Fkk] vkSj deZdk.M dks ns[kk FkkA --- jftLVj ^^Mh** ds dkxt la[;k&Mh&3 dk f}rh; fp= ml volj dk QksVks gS] tc fnukad 07-12-1973 bZ0 dks J`axsjh ihBk/kh'oj dh rjQ ls vkpk;Z pYyk y{e.k 'kkL=h th us oknh dks oL= vks<+k;k FkkA bl fp= esa --- dkxt la[;k Mh&4 dk f}rh; QksVks oknh dk fnYyh esa T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa fd;s x;s fnukad 7-12-1973 dks iV~VkfHk"ksd ds volj dk fp= gSA** ¼isij ua0&505 d] ist&2985½ In the rituals of the above consecration performed in Delhi, I was present and had witnessed it. Second photograph of paper no-D-3 of Register-D is the snapshot of that occasion when on 07.12.1973, Aacharya Challa Laxman Shastri ji had covered the plaintiff with ceremonial cloth on behalf of Sringeri Peedthadheeshwar. In this photograph ... second photograph of paper no-D-4 is of the occasion of Pattabhishek of the plaintiff as Peethadheeshwar in Delhi on 7.12.1973." (Paper no-505 Ka, Page-2985)
631. He has also proved various photographs taken at the time of installation on 07.12.1973 and thereafter on various occasions when plaintiff visited different places, and was treated and recognized as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth. In cross-examination he proved factum of his presence on 12.09.1973 and also having signed register of KVP. He said:
**jftLVj esa eSaus 1973 esa gLrk{kj fd;k FkkA** ¼isij ua0&505d] ist&317&318½ "I had put my signature on the register in 1973." Paper No. 505A, Page - 318) **fn0 12-9-73 dks dk'kh eas ,d vk;kstu gqvk FkkA ;g vk;kstu dk'kh fo}r ifj"kn }kjk fd;k x;k FkkA --- vk;kstu dh ?kks"k.kk dk'kh fo}r ifj"kn us gh dh FkhA ml le; dk'kh fo}r ifj"kn ds egkea=h jktukjk;u 'kqDy FksA ml vk;kstu esa izeq[k ia0 dkyhizlkn feJ] ia0 iV~VkfHkjke 'kkL+=h] ia0 cnzhukFk 'kqDy] ia0 ';kek pj.k f}osnh] ia0 HkkypUnz f}osnh] ia0 jsok izlkn f}osnh] ia0 f=ukFk 'kekZ] ia0 pUnznso f}osnh] ia0 jekxksfoUn f=ikBh] ia0 JhukFk oSfnd] ia0 tks"k.k jke ik.Ms;] ia0 gfjgj izlkn ik.Ms; vkfn izeq[k yksx izeq[k FksA bu yksxksa us jftLVj eas nLr[kr fd;k FkkA og jftLVj dk'kh fo}r ifj"kn ds dk;kZy; esa vkt Hkh gksxkA --- fo}r ifj"kn dk izLrko gqvk vkSj fOk}kuksa us oknh ds p;u dh ?kks"k.kk dhA** ¼isij ua0&505d] ist&319½ "A programme was organised at Kashi on 12.09.1973. This programme was organised by Kashi Vidwat Parishad. .... The declaration with respect to the programme was made by Kashi Vidwat Parishad. At that time, Raj Narayan Shukla was the General Secretary of Kashi Vidwat Parishad. Prominent personalities among those in the programme were: Pt. Kaliprasad Mishra, Pt. Pattabhiram Shastri, Pt. Badrinath Shukla, Pt. Shyama Charan Dwivedi, Pt. Bhalchandra Dwivedi, Pt. Rewa Prasad Dwivedi, Pt. Trinath Shrama, Pt. Chandradev Dwivedi, Pt. Ramaagovind Tripathi, Pt. Shrinath Vaidik, Pt. Joshan Ram Pandey, Pt. Harihar Prasad Pandey and others. All of these persons had put their signatures on the register. The register will still be at the office of Kashi Vidwat Parishad. ... On the proposal of the Vidwat Parishad, the scholars declared the selection of the plaintiff." (Paper No. 505A, Page - 319) **vkSipkfjd vfHk"ksd esa dksbZ 'kadjkpk;Z mifLFkr ugha FksA fn0 12-9-73 dks dsoy fo}ku o n.Mh Lokfe;ksa ds vykok dksbZ egke.Mys'oj o vk[kkM+k ifj"kn mifLFkr ugha gqvk FkkA** ¼isij ua0&505d] ist&320½ "In the formal installation, no Shankaracharya was present. Except scholars and Dandi Swamis, no Mahamandaleshwar and Akhara Pariashad turned up on 12.09.1973." (Paper No. 505A, Page - 320)
632. PW-26, Acharya Jitendra has deposed about participation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth in Rashtirya Ganga Mukti Sammelan on Magh Krishna Chaturdashi 2063 (2006) but he is not a witness to the factum of installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya.
633. PW-27, Brahmchari Turiyanand, is also a witness about felicitation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth when he visited Jalaun on 01.11.1975.
634. PW-32, Nand Kishore Nautiyal, is a witness to the functioning of plaintiff as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth and not a witness to his installation.
635. PW-34, Pandit Raj Shri Rajnarayan Shastri, at the time of deposition was General Secretary of KVP and has proved certain documents of KVP and not himself is a witness to installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya.
636. PW-35, Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi, is in the occupation of Priesthood and in the company of plaintiff since 1964. He stated that he was present at the time of installation on 07.12.1973 and said:
**tc fnukad 7-12-73 dks oknh dk T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj ds :i esa iV~VkfHk"ksd fnYyh esa fd;k x;k Fkk] eSa ekStwn FkkA**¼isij ua0&586d] ist&3073½ "When installation of the plaintiff as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar was performed in Delhi on 7.12.73, I was present. (Paper No. 586 Ka, Page - 3073)
637. In his cross-examination also we find nothing to discredit his statement.
638. PW-39, Swami Harinayananand Ji, Founder-General Secretary of Bharat Sadhu Samaj, also deposed about functioning of plaintiff as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth and not a witness to the factum of installation.
639. Similar is the statement of PW-40, Mahant Prakash Puri Guru Kapil Maha Muni Ji and PW-41, Shankardev Chaitanya Brahmachari. Therefore, these statements also have no relevance so far as factum of installation of plaintiff is concerned.
640. Therefore, statement of PWs 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 32, 34, 39, 40 and 41 are not at all creditworthy or relevant on the factum of installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya on 07.12.1973.
641. With regard to functioning of plaintiff as Shankaracharya, we find some support from appellant's witnesses also as is evident from statements of DWs-1 and 37. DW-1-Swami Vimaldevashram eSa Lokeh Lo:ikuUn th dks ns[kk gwWaA pkjksa ihBksa ds 'kadjkpk;ksZa ds lEesyu esa Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh Hkkx fy;k djrs gSA"
I have seen Swami Swaroopanand Ji. Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati used to attend the conferences of Shankaracharyas of all the four peethas.
DW-37-Brahhmchari Atmanand ^^}kfjdk 'kkjnkihB esa ,d rks Lo;a Lokeh Lo:ikuan ljLorh Lo;a ;g 'kadjkpk;Z gS] nwljs ;ksxs'jnRr rhljs jktjkts'ojh vkJe Hkh vius dks }kfjdk 'kkjnkihB dk 'akdjkpk;Z dgrs gSa ftls /kkfeZd turk lHkh dks leku :i ls lEeku nsrs gSaA** ¼isij ua0&981d] ist&752½ "At Dwarka Sharadapeeth, firstly Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati himself is Shankaracharya; secondly Yogeshwar Dutt and thirdly Rajrajeshwari Arshram too call themselves Shankaracharya of Dwarika Sharadapeeth, due to which religious people pay equal respect to all of these." (Paper No. 981Ka, page-752) ^^eSa rhuksa yksxksa dks leku :i ls iz.kke djrk gWw D;ksafd mDr rhuksa yksx n.Mh Lokeh gSA ** ¼isij ua0&981d] ist&753½ "I equally salute all the three persons because the aforesaid three persons are Dandi Swami." (Paper No. 981Ka, page-753)
642. The deposition of PWs-2, 6, 9, 23, 25, 35 and DWs-1 and 37 and above discussion show that a ceremony of installation of plaintiff to place him in the seat of Shankaracharya on 07.12.1973 was held at Delhi and therefore tenth point for determination is answered in favour of plaintiff.
643. However, as we have held that seat was already occupied by Swami Shantanand in 1973 and alleged installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram on 25.06.1953 was invalid and nullity hence there was no resultant vacancy caused on 10.09.1973 when Swami Krishna Bodhashram died. Therefore the alleged installation of plaintiff as Shankaracharya is of no consequence. It is wholly invalid and a nullity in the eyes of law. We answer point no. XI against plaintiff and in favour of appellant.
644. In view of above, Questions No.-11 and 12 are answered by holding that there is evidence on record to show that ceremony was held for installation of plaintiff in the seat of Shankaracharya on 07.12.1973, but his installation is invalid. The finding of Trial Court taking an otherwise view, therefore, to that extent is reversed accordingly.
645. With regard to the installation of appellant in the seat of Shankaracharya and holding of ceremony on 14/15.11.1989 no issue has been framed before Court below, hence it does appear that with regard to such ceremony, there is no dispute but what has been argued is that installation of appellant on 14/15.11.1989 in the seat of Shankaracharya was invalid. Hence, now we have to consider this aspect but before it an incidental issue has been raised that suit, as instituted by plaintiff, rendered infructuous after installation of appellant on 14/15.11.1989 and same we propose to consider at this stage.
646. Point for determination-13, therefore, would be "whether suit in question filed by plaintiff rendered infructuous after installation of appellant in the seat of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 14/15.11.1989?"
647. Sri Goel, learned counsel for appellant at the outset has argued that suit could not have continued after installation of appellant on 14/15.11.1989. It rendered infructuous and, therefore, all subsequent proceedings are illegal. He submitted that amendment sought to be made by application filed on 1.9.2006, having been rejected, would go to show that very relief for which suit for injunction was filed, had rendered infructous on 14/15.11.1989, after installation of defendant-appellant as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, hence, impugned judgment having failed to consider this aspect in accordance with law is clearly erroneous and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. He urged that this ground goes to the very root of the matter and renders entire subsequent proceedings inoperative, illegal and of no consequence in law.
648. Admittedly, when suit in question was filed, plaintiff initially, vide plaint dated 09.11.1989, sought following reliefs :
"A. The defendant may be restrained by means of permanent injunction decree from being installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath Badrika Ashram Himalaya and proclaim himself as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath Badrika Ashram and to hold Dand, Chhatra, Chhawar and Singhasan of the office of Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeetha.
B. Costs of the suit be awarded in favour of the plaintiff, against the defendant.
C. Any other reliefs which deems fit and proper may be awarded in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant."
649. Record shows that it was registered on 10.11.1989. Appellant claimed that he was actually installed as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 14/15.11. 1989 at Brahmaniwas, Alopi Bagh, Allahabad i.e. when the suit became pending.
650. Plaintiff filed amendment application on 1.9.2006 and besides others, he intended to add following relief:
"A/1. It be declared that the alleged installation of the defendant as Jagatguru Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth Badrikashram, Himalaya Purporting to be done and performed on 14.11.1989/15.11.1989 at Braham Niwas 7, Alopibagh, Allahabad, is invalid, ineffective, illegal and void and the defendant got no right and title to hold the office of Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth, Badrikashram, Himalaya and to function as Jagatguru Shankaracharya of the said peeth."
651. This amendment was rejected by order dated 22.12.2006 though some part of amendment of plaint was allowed but that is not material. We are concerned with part of relief which was admittedly rejected by Court below. Sri Goel, learned counsel for appellant contended that rejection of amendment of plaint shows that challenge to installation of appellant as Shankaracharya by way of amendment of suit was declined by Court below and that having been done, no further relief could have been granted, hence suit as framed and remained pending had already rendered infructuous and ought to have been dismissed for this reason alone. He said that the Court below in failing to appreciate this aspect and granting injunction by the impugned judgment and decreeing the suit has clearly erred in law.
652. Learned counsel for plaintiff respondent sought to argue that there were three parts of relief in the plaint as it was filed: (i) for restraining defendant-appellant from installing as Shankaracharya (ii) to restrain him from proclaiming himself as Shankaracharya and (iii) for restraining from holding Dand, Chhatra, Chanwar and Singhasan of the office of Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth. Therefore, relief as framed in the plaint covered every aspect of the matter and even if first part of relief, due to any subsequent event, could not have been granted in the same terms, second and third part of relief covered subsequent events also and hence it cannot be said that the entire suit has rendered infructuous. Then he submitted that pleadings and language used by parties in the plaint or written statement are not to be read as statute but they have to be given natural permissible amplitude. Anything which is not included therein, may not be included but if something on its own is covered within the language used by draftsman of the plaint, it has to be read therein and there is no reason to read it strictly or in a pedantic manner.
653. The alleged installation of defendant appellant took place on 14/15.11.1989 when suit was duly instituted, registered in Court below and was sub judice. The prayer in the plaint, as we have already noticed, can be read to have three parts of relief as under:
(i) for restraining defendant-appellant from installing as Shankaracharya;
(ii) to restrain him from proclaiming himself as Shankaracharya; and
(iii) for restraining from holding Dand, Chhatra, Chanwar and Singhasan of the office of Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth.
654. So far as second and third parts are concerned, even if plaintiff has occupied seat of Shankaracharya, as claimed, having been installed on 14/15.11.1989, still there is prayer that he should be restrained from proclaiming himself as Shankaracharya and to hold Danda, Chhatra Chanwar and Singhasan of office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. The aforesaid two reliefs cover a situation where incumbent, if had already come to the office, still, if justified, such injunction could have been granted. Whether such injunction would be granted or not is a question to be decided in the light of evidence but the mere factum of installation of appellant on 14/15.11.1989 will not render the aforesaid second and third part of reliefs, infructuous. To this extent we are unable to agree with Sri Goel and reject his submission.
655. Even with respect to first part of prayer, we find that an injunction restraining defendant-appellant from installation as Shankaracharya implied within itself that unless a person is installed validly and in accordance with law, in the eyes of law, there is no installation as Shankarcharya. Hence, even first part of relief can be said to have rendered infructuous only when it is proved before Court, in a Trial, that party concerned has been installed validly and in accordance with law and only then first part of relief can be said to have rendered infructuous and not otherwise.
656. In other words, in our view, mere claim of installation on 14/15th November 1989 cannot be read to have effect of rendering entire suit infructuous for the reason, when prayer is made for permanent injunction restraining parties from doing or not doing something, it implicates such action to be taken or not to be taken, in accordance with law. Therefore, in order to hold first part of relief as having rendered infructuous, it is necessary to examine whether alleged installation had taken place in accordance with law. If there is no installation in accordance with law, it is no installation in the eye of law. Therefore, such invalid installation cannot be taken sufficient to render the suit infructuous.
657. Judicial review for adjudication of matter cannot be to shut a claim on the ground that what is sought to be restrained, has already taken place, unless what has taken place, is in accordance with law. If alleged installation of appellant was not valid, plaintiffs are entitled to pray for injunction restraining him (defendant-appellant) and also to restrain from exercising powers of office by using other symbols etc. of such office which are also part of prayer in the plaint. Therefore, for the mere fact that defendant-appellant claims to have been installed in the office of Shankaracharya, after filing of suit, we find it difficult to hold that suit in its entirety has rendered infructuous and liable to be dismissed unless we find that installation of appellant is valid and in accordance with law.
658. Therefore, the question no. XIII whether entire suit has rendered infructuous after alleged installation of defendant-appellant as Shankaracharya on 14/15.11.1989 has to be answered against appellant for the reason that the second and third part of relief, as noted above, was open to be considered by Court and in respect of even first part, unless a finding is recorded that alleged installation was valid and in accordance with law, even that part of relief cannot be said to have rendered infructuous. We, therefore, answer Question No.-XIII in negative and against appellant holding that suit did not render infructuous as pleaded by appellant.
659. Now we have to examine capacity of appellant to become Shankaracharya, which has been answered in negative by Court below holding him ineligible, unqualified for installation in the seat of Shankaracharya. Points of determination no. XIV and XV are as under:
"(XIV) Whether appellant is disqualified, lacking essential qualification/eligibility to become Shankaracharya of an Amanya Peeth and in particular Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth?"
"(XV) Whether pleadings lack material facts or relevant particular pointing out the alleged disqualification on the part of appellant and Court below erred in law by proceeding to consider this aspect despite lack of appropriate pleading on this aspect?"
660. We propose to consider Question-XV first and thereafter will proceed to discuss Question-XIV.
661. Sri Goel raised a preliminary objection that there is no specific pleading and material facts are lacking in the plaint with regard to alleged disqualification or eligibility of appellant to hold the seat of Shankaracharya. Therefore, same cannot be gone into and Court below also erred in law in looking into this aspect. He contended that in the plaint, there was no material fact pleaded with regard to alleged disqualification or lack of qualification on the part of appellant to be installed or appointed as Shankaracharya, therefore, on the basis of averments contained in replication or subsequent evidence adduced by plaintiff, qualification of appellant to hold the seat of Shankaracharya cannot be examined. He also submitted that by way of amendment plaintiff intended to bring on record specific pleadings with regard to alleged qualification/ disqualification of appellant for installation as Shankaracharya but proposed amendment having been rejected by Court below, same could not have been allowed to be examined, indirectly.
662. In other words, Sri Goel, learned counsel for appellant, contended that a highly belated amendment of plaint was sought by plaintiff vide amendment application dated 01.09.2005. Amendment was sought in certain paragraphs of plaint as well as addition of relief. Amendment application vide order dated 22.12.2006, was largely rejected and certain minor amendments in the plaint were allowed. Since amendment for addition of prayer was specifically rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation, meaning thereby, the facts which plaintiff desired to bring on record as a part of pleadings having been rejected, neither by permitting parties to lead evidence nor otherwise, in respect of those facts, any finding could have been recorded and Trial Court to this extent has erred in law.
663. Sri Shashi Nandan, per contra, argued that pleadings, already available, if cover a particular aspect, same could not have been ignored and evidence adduced in this regard could not be refused on the ground that detailed pleadings are not available. The argument is that by way of evidence, an issue raised can be clarified and expanded. Suggestion that mere rejection of amendment application will exclude all those facts sought to be made part of the pleadings by way of amendment, is misconceived, for the reason that on most of the aspects, basic pleadings were available and plaintiff only wanted to bring on record some detailed facts which Court did not permit, since it was not necessary.
664. Amendment application (paper 366-Ka) is at page 59 of Aappellant's Paper Book, Volume-I. It is dated 01.09.2005. It shows that application was filed when parties were yet to adduce evidence before Court below. Delay was sought to be explained with reference to disposal of ad-interim injunction application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. and interim injunction was granted on 22.02.1999 restraining appellant from proclaiming himself Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Thereagainst appellant preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 41 of 1999, which was dismissed on 27.04.2000 by VII Additional District Judge, Allahabad. Thereagainst, appellant preferred writ petition no. 24085 of 2000, wherein an interim order was passed on 22.05.2000 and parties were directed to maintain status quo. Writ petition was finally decided by judgement dated 23.01.2004 whereagainst both parties preferred Civil Appeal No. 4613 of 2005 before Apex Court. Vide order dated 02.08.2005, Court directed parties to maintain status quo. Aforesaid proceedings caused delay in filing amendment which also became necessary due to subsequent events and claim made by appellant regarding installation as Shankaracharya on 14/15.11.1989 i.e. after filing of suit. Amendment was, therefore, requested in the plaint as well as replication. Plaintiff requested for addition of paragraphs 44/1 and 44/2 in plaint and 22 grounds challenging installation of appellant on the ground of lack of qualification, ineligibility etc. He also prayed for addition of relief A/1 after prayer A already made. Prayer A/1 sought to be added in the plaint reads as under:
"A/1. It be declared that the alleged installation of the defendant, as Jagatguru Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth Badrikashram, Himalay Purporting to be done and performed on 14.11.1989/15.11.1989 at Braham Niwas 7, Alopibagh, Allahabad, is invalid, ineffective, illegal and void and the defendant got not right and title to hold the office of Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth, Badrikashram, Himalaya and to function as Jagatguru Shankaracharya of the said Peeth."
665. Minor amendment in paragraphs 12 and 14 of replication was prayed i.e. addition of word "Krishna Bodhashram" and deletion of certain words from para 12. Trial Court decided this application vide order dated 22.12.2006. It held that relief sought to be added was clearly barred by time, hence, in view of law laid down in Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh and Others, AIR 1996 SC 2358: 1996 (7) SCC 486, amendment cannot be allowed. Addition of para 44/1 was allowed but addition of 22 grounds was rejected. Similarly, amendments sought in replication were also rejected.
666. Sri Goel argued that plaintiff has failed to plead material facts with regard to alleged disqualification of appellant, for holding office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, hence it could not have been gone into, and for that reason alone, Trial Court ought to have rejected it. He placed reliance on Raj Narain Vs. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and another (1972) 3 SCC 850; Shri Udhav Singh Vs. Madhav Rao Scindia (1977) 1 SCC 511; Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another (2004) 6 SCC 254; Mahadeorao Sukaji Shivankar Vs. Ramaratan Bapu and others (2004) 7 SCC 181; Anil Basudev Salgaonkar Vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar (2009) 9 SCC 310 and Jitu Patnaik Vs. Sanatan Mohakud and others, (2012) 4 SCC 194.
667. All the aforesaid authorities relied by Sri Goel had arisen from election dispute except Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. (supra) which was an appeal decided by Supreme Court, arising from a judgment of High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
668. In Raj Narain vs. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi (supra) matter had come up before Highest Court from an election dispute of Lok Sabha Constituency of Rai Barelilly held in March 1971. Election petition was filed by Raj Narain, challenging election of returned candidate Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi from Rai Bareli Constituency of Lok Sabha in General Elections held in March 1971. After completion of pleadings and framing of issues, election petitioner moved an application under Order 11 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") for leave to deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of respondent Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi. It was objected by respondent contending that Order 11 C.P.C. is not applicable to election petitions and reserving her right to object to interrogatories sought to be served at a later stage. Justice Broome vide order dated 14.09.1971 allowed application and granted leave to election petitioner to deliver interrogatories for examination of respondent and rejected objections raised by respondent. During pendency of appeal respondent filed an application before this Court under Order 11 Rule 7 C.P.C. praying that the interrogatories served on her may be set aside as they were "unreasonable, vexatious, oppressive, unnecessary and irrelevant". 31 interrogatories were served on respondent. All the interrogatories related to Issues 1 to 3. Entire arguments before Trial Court in election petition were founded on the ground that election petitioner did not disclose corrupt practices which were the subject-matter of Issues 1 to 3. Contention of respondent found favour with Election Judge and it set aside some of interrogatories served upon respondent. Proceeding further Court also struck out issues 1 to 3. Thereafter Raj Narain, election petitioner moved an application for amendment of paragraphs 2 and 5 of election petition by giving better particulars. This application was also rejected by Election Judge on the ground that amendment in question sought to add to material facts and cannot-be accepted after the period of limitation for filing election petition. Earlier appeal filed against the order dated 14.09.1971 before the Supreme Court, against the order setting aside the interrogatories served on respondent and striking out of Issues 1 to 3 was registered as Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1972 and appeal against the order rejecting amendment application was registered as Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1972 and these two matters were decided in the aforesaid judgment dated 15.03.1972. Supreme Court found that out of three issues, Issue 2 was not pressed, Issue 3 was largely consequential to Issue 2. Therefore Court examined only Issue 1 and after going through pleading, observed that while corrupt practice has got to be strictly proved but from that it does not follow that a pleading in an election proceeding should receive a strict construction. Even a defective charge does not vitiate a criminal trial unless it is proved that the same has prejudiced accused. If a pleading on a reasonable construction, could sustain the action, the Court should accept that construction. Courts are reluctant to frustrate an action on technical grounds. Charge of corrupt practice in an election is a very serious charge. Purity of election is the very essence of real democracy. The charge in question was denied by the respondent. It has yet to be proved. It may or may not be proved. Allegations made against election petitioner may ultimately be proved to be wholly devoid of truth. However, Court should not refuse to enquire into allegations merely because election petitioner or someone who prepared his brief did not know the language of the law and could not draft election petition artistically. Court said that it will not non-suit a person for such technical reason. Referring to Sections 83(1) Clauses (a) and (b) and Section 86(5) of Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "R.P. Act, 1951"), Court held that if the allegations made regarding a corrupt practice do not disclose the constituent parts of the corrupt practice alleged, the same will not be allowed to be proved and further those allegations cannot be amended after the period of limitation for filing an election petition; but the Court may allow particulars of any corrupt practice alleged in the petition to be amended or amplified. It further observed that the petition must contain a concise statement of material facts on which petitioner relies and fullest possible particulars of corrupt practice alleged. 'Material facts' and 'particulars' may overlap but the word 'material' shows that the ground of corrupt practice and facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Function of particulars is to present as full a picture of the cause of action as to make the opposite party understand the case, he will have to meet. If corrupt practice is alleged in the petition, particulars of such corrupt practice may be amended or amplified for ensuring a fair and effective trial, that is, more and better particulars of the charge may be given later, even after the period of limitation; but if a corrupt practice is not previously alleged in the petition, an amendment which will have the effect of introducing particulars of such a corrupt practice will not be permitted, after the period of limitation, since, it will tantamount to making a fresh petition. In other words, Court held that facts stated in the petition relating to any corrupt practice must be sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The facts must bring out all the ingredients of corrupt practice alleged. If the facts stated fail to satisfy that requirement, then they do not give rise to a triable issue. Such a defect cannot be cured by any amendment after the period of limitation for filing the election petition. But even if all the material facts are stated in the election petition, for a proper trial, better particulars may still be required. If those particulars are not set out in the election petition, they may be incorporated into the election petition with the permission of the Court even after the period of limitation. Having said so, Court said :
"Rules of pleadings are intended as aids for a fair trial and for reaching a just decision. An action at law should not be equated to a game of chess. Provisions of law are not mere formulae to be observed as rituals. Beneath the words of a provision of law, generally speaking, there lies a juristic principle. It is the duty of the Court to ascertain that principle and implement it."
669. In the aforesaid facts since sheet anchor was Section 86(5) of R.P. Act, 1951, considering the same, Court in Raj Narain Vs. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and another (supra) has held as under :
"What then is the principle underlying Section 86(5)? In our opinion the aim of that section is to see that a person accused of a corrupt practice must know precisely what he is accused of so that he may have the opportunity to meet the allegations made against him. If the accusation made is nebulous and is capable of being made use of for establishing more than one charge or if it does not make out a corrupt practice at all then the charge fails at the very threshold. So long, as the charge levelled is beyond doubt. Section 86(5) if satisfied; rest is mere refinement. They either pertain to the region of particulars or evidence. That section is not designed to interdict a mere clumsy pleading like the petition before us. The purpose of that section is to see that every charge of corrupt practice should be brought before the Court before the prescribed period of limitation and none thereafter so that the trial of the case may not be converted into a persecution by adding more and more charges or by converting one charge into another as the trial proceeds." (emphasis added)
670. Consequently, Supreme Court allowed appeal by setting aside judgment of Election Judge in regard to Issue 1 and some part of Issue 3. Court also set aside order rejecting amendment and allowed appeal of Election Petitioner in this respect but with regard to interrogatories, some of which were found irrelevant by Supreme Court, to that extent judgment of High Court was upheld.
671. In Shri Udhav Singh Vs. Madhav Rao Scindia (supra), again question arose about "material facts" and "material particulars" in the context of language of Section 83(1)(a) and (b) of R.P. Act 1951. Dispute had arisen of General Elections of Lok Sabha from Guna Parliamentary Constituency, held in March 1971. Respondent Madhav Rao Scindia was declared elected. Election petition was filed by Udhav Singh, an elector of the Constituency, on 26.04.1971, challenging election of respondent on two grounds. Firstly, elected candidate had incurred or authorized expenditure in excess of limit of Rs. 35,000/- prescribed under Section 77(3) of R.P. Act 1951 read with Rule 90 of Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. Second ground was that workers of elected candidate threatened electors with bodily injuries and criminally intimidated them not to vote for Shri Deorao Krishnarao Jadhav the Congress candidate. After completion of pleadings and examination of about 12 witnesses, an application was filed on behalf of respondent that election petitioner in para 11 (iv) of election petition has alleged commission of corrupt practice within meaning of Section 123(2) of R.P. Act 1951 by Sri Shiv Pratap Singh, another candidate but was not impleaded, therefore, petition was liable to be dismissed under Section 86 for non-compliance of mandate of Section 82(b). This objection was upheld and election petition was dismissed. Hence, the matter went to Supreme Court. Court found that Shiv Pratap Singh was one of the candidates, whose papers were found in order by Returning Officer but he withdrew his nomination subsequently. However, he was a 'candidate' for the purpose of relevant provisions of R.P.Act 1951. One of objections raised before Supreme Court on behalf of election petitioner was that objection with regard to non-joinder was not taken in written statement but raised for the first time after 14 months and that too, after examination of witnesses by election petitioner, hence it amounts to waiver. It was pleaded that in view of mandate of Order 8 Rule 2 C.P.C., all pleas showing petition to be not maintainable should have been taken in written statement. That having not been done, objection with regard to non impleadment of Shiv Pratap Singh could not have been taken at advanced stage. Court held that after considering issues in the light of Section 82(b), a charge of corrupt practice against candidate, if established, entails serious penal consequences. It has effect of debarring him from being a candidate at an election for considerably a long period, therefore, provision of impleadment of a person against whom allegations of corrupt practice are made in election petition has been made in Section 82 and it is consistent with fundamental principles of natural justice, i.e. nobody should be condemned unheard. Court observed that requirement of Section 82(b) is nothing but an obligation cast upon election petitioner to join to his petition a candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in election petition and its disobedience inexorably attracts Section 86 which commands the High Court in equally imperative language to dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 82. This requirement cannot be consented or express or tacit, so as to waive or condone such non compliance. Court said:
"Even inaction, laches or delay on the part of the respondent in pointing out the lethal defect of non-joinder cannot relieve the Court of statutory obligation cast on it by Section 86 . As soon as the non-compliance with Section 82(b) comes or is brought to the notice of the Court, no matter in what manner and at what stage, during the pendency of the petition, it is bound to dismiss the petition in unstinted obedience to the command of Section 86." (emphasis added)
672. Having said so, Court in Udhav Singh Vs. Madhav Rao Scindia (supra) held that respondent was neither obliged to raise this objection in written statement nor precluded from raising the objection at a subsequent stage after close of election petitioner's evidence. It observed that Rule 2 of order 8 CPC is rule of practice and convenience and justice. This procedural rule is to subserve and not enslave the cause of justice. Referring to language of order 8 rule 2 and in particular, the words "all such grounds of defence as, if not raised would be likely to take the opposite party by surprise", Court said that these words denote broad test for determining whether a particular defence plea or fact is required to be incorporated in the written statement. If the plea or ground of defence 'raises issues of fact not arising out of the plaint', such plea or ground is likely to take the plaintiff by surprise, and is therefore required to be pleaded. If the plea or ground of defence raises an issue arising out of what is alleged or admitted in the plaint, or is otherwise apparent from the plaint, itself, no question of prejudice or surprise to the plaintiff arises. Nothing in the Rule compels the defendant to plead such a ground, nor debars him from setting it up at a later stage of the case, particularly when it does not depend on evidence but raises a pure question of law turning on a construction of the plaint. Thus, a plea of limitation that can be substantiated without any evidence and is apparent on the face of the plaint itself, may be allowed to be taken at any stage of the suit. Referring general principles of pleadings, Court said that cardinal canon of interpretation is that a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context, in isolation. It is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words, or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered, primarily, from the tenor and terms of his pleading taken as a whole. Thereafter proceeding to consider distinction between "material facts" and "material particulars", Court in paragraphs 41, 42 and 43 said as under:
"41. Like the Code of Civil Procedure, this section also envisages a distinction between "material facts" and "material particulars". Clause (a) of sub-section (1) corresponds to Order 6, Rule 2, while clause (b) is analogous to Order 6 Rules 4 and 6 of the Code. The distinction between "material facts" and "material particulars" is important because different consequences may flow from a deficiency of such facts or particulars in the pleading. Failure to plead even a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and incomplete allegations of such a charge are liable to be struck off under Order 6, Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure. If the petition is based solely on those allegations which suffer from lack of material facts, the petition is liable to be summarily rejected for want of a cause of action. In the case of a petition suffering from a deficiency of material particulars, the Court has a discretion to allow the petitioner to supply the required particulars even after the expiry of limitation.
42. All the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence, are "material facts". In the context of a charge of corrupt practice, "material facts" would mean all the basic facts constituting the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged, which the petitioner is bound to substantiate before he can succeed on that charge. Whether in an election-petition, a particular fact is material or not, and as such required to be pleaded is a question which depends on the nature of the charge levelled, the ground relied upon and the special circumstances of the case. In short, all those facts which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action, are "material facts" which must be pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of sec. 83(1) (a).
43. "Particulars", on the other hand, are "the details of the case set up by the party". "Material particulars" within the contemplation of clause (b) of Section 83(1) would therefore mean all the details which are necessary to amplify, refine and embellish the material facts already pleaded in the petition in compliance with the requirements of clause (a). 'Particulars' serve the purpose of finishing touches to the basic contours of a picture already drawn, to make it full, more detailed and more informative." (emphasis added)
673. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (Supra) dispute was of a different nature. Appellant was a company registered under the Indian Companies Act with its registered office at Mumbai. It obtained a loan from the Bhopal Branch of State Bank Of India, M.P. Bank issued a notice for repayment of said loan in terms of provisions of Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Company questioning the vires of said Act, filed a writ petition challenging consequential repayment notice before the Delhi Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Delhi High Court for want of territorial jurisdiction. Argument raised before Supreme Court that constitutionality of Parliamentary Act was in question which has seat at New Delhi therefore High Court of Delhi has requisite jurisdiction and it is a case of part of cause of action. Court rejected aforesaid contention and upheld view taken by the Delhi High Court, that there was no territorial jurisdiction. Considering that in order to maintain an action in a Court of law there must have arisen a cause of action wholly or in part. The term "cause of action" was explained by Court in para 6 as under:
"6. Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily." (emphasis added)
674. Relying on Chand Kaur vs. Partab Singh (1987-88) 15 Indian Appeals, 156, Court observed that cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour.
675. Relying on principles of Section 20(c) CPC, Court in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (supra) reiterated that question of territorial jurisdiction must be founded on the basis of averments made in writ petition otherwise it is immaterial. All necessary facts must form an integral part of cause of action. Mere service of notice would not give rise to cause of action unless service of notice was an integral part of cause of action. It relied on its earlier decision in Aligarh Muslim University vs. Vinay Engg. Enterprises (P) Ltd. (1994) 4 SCC 710, where a contract of work was executed at Aligarh; construction work was to be carried out at Aligarh, even the contracts provided that in the event of dispute, the Aligarh Court alone will have jurisdiction; Arbitrator was from Aligarh and was to function thereat. Since the company was a Calcutta-based firm, it instituted petition in Calcutta High Court and Court held that it was a case of abuse of jurisdiction and Calcutta High Court had no territorial jurisdiction. Court also observed that facts pleaded in writ petition must have nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted. Those facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action, which would confer jurisdiction on Court. Passing of a legislation by itself does not confer any such right to file a writ petition unless a cause of action arises therefor. A distinction between a legislation and executive action should be borne in mind while determining a question of territorial jurisdiction. Court observed that a Parliamentary Legislation when receives assent of the President of India and published in an Official Gazette, unless specifically excluded, will apply to entire territory of India. If passing of a legislation gives rise to a cause of action, a writ petition questioning constitutionality thereof can be filed in any High Court of the country. It is not so done because a cause of action will arise only when provisions of the Act or some of them which were implemented will give rise to civil or evil consequences to petitioner. A writ Court, would not determine a constitutional question in vacuum.
676. Mahadeo Rao Sukaji Shivankar vs. Ramaratan Bapu and others (supra), is also a decision arising from election dispute under the provisions of R.P. Act 1951. Challenging election of Mahadeo Rao Sukaji Shivankar who was elected from Legislative Constituency, Bhandara, Maharashtra, an election petition was filed in 1999 at Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) by Ramratan Bapu, on the ground of corrupt practice adopted by returned candidate. It was alleged that returned candidate did not submit correct and true accounts, spent unaccounted money and also violated various provisions of R.P Act 1951 . Returned candidate while putting appearance, filed written statement, denying allegations contained in election petition. He also filed application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) C.P.C for rejection of election petition on the ground that it did not disclose any cause of action and also filed another application under Order 6 Rule 16 for striking out certain pleadings from election petition. One more application was filed by election-petitioner for granting permission to furnish material particulars of corrupt practice, adopted by returned candidate as alleged in election-petition. High Court by order dated 15.02.2003 rejected two applications filed by returned candidate but allowed application filed by election-petitioner. This order was challenged in appeal before Supreme Court. Considering meaning of word "material facts" and "material particulars", Court in paragraphs 6 and 7 of judgement said as under :
"6........The question, however, is as to whether the petitioner had set out material facts in the election petition. The expression "material facts" has neither been defined in the Act nor in the Code. It may be stated that the material facts are those facts upon which a party relies for his claim or defence. In other words, material facts are facts upon which the plaintiff's cause of action or the defendant's defence depends. What particulars could be said to be material facts would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. It is, however, absolutely essential that all basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by the party to establish existence of cause of action or defence are material facts and must be stated in the pleading of the party.
7. But, it is equally well settled that there is distinction between "material facts" and "particulars". Material facts are primary or basic facts which must be pleaded by the petitioner in support of the case set up by him either to prove his cause of action or defence. Particulars, on the other hand, are details in support of material facts pleaded by the party. They amplify, refine and embellish material facts by giving finishing touch to the basic contours of a picture already drawn so as to make it full, more clear and more informative. Particulars ensure conduct of fair trial and would not take the opposite party by surprise." (emphasis added)
677. In Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh (2005) 13 SCC 511, distinction between "material facts and material particulars was again pointed out and Court said:
"48. The expression 'material facts' has neither been defined in the Act nor in the Code. According to the dictionary meaning, 'material' means 'fundamental', 'vital', 'basic', 'cardinal', 'central', 'crucial', 'decisive', 'essential', 'pivotal', indispensable', 'elementary' or 'primary'. [Burton's Legal Thesaurus, (3rd Edn.), p.349]. The phrase 'material facts', therefore, may be said to be those facts upon which a party relies for his claim or defence. In other words, 'material facts' are facts upon which the plaintiff's cause of action or the defendant's defence depends. What particulars could be said to be 'material facts' would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. It is, however, absolutely essential that all basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by the party to establish the existence of a cause of action or defence are material facts and must be stated in the pleading by the party."
"51. A distinction between "material facts" and "particulars", however, must not be overlooked. "Material facts" are primary or basic facts which must be pleaded by the plaintiff or by the defendant in support of the case set up by him either to prove his cause of action or defence. "Particulars", on the other hand, are details in support of material facts pleaded by the party. They amplify, refine and embellish material facts by giving distinctive touch to the basic contours of a picture already drawn so as to make it full, more clear and more informative. "Particulars" thus ensure conduct of fair trial and would not take the opposite party by surprise.
52. All "material facts" must be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by him. Since the object and purpose is to enable the opposite party to know the case he has to meet with, in the absence of pleading, a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence. Failure to state even a single material fact, hence, will entail dismissal of the suit or petition. Particulars, on the other hand, are the details of the case which is in the nature of evidence a party would be leading at the time of trial." (emphasis added)
678. Distinction between "material facts: and "material particulars" was also examined in Virender Nath Gautam vs. Satpal Singh (2007)3 SCC 617, where in paragraphs 34 and 35 the Court said as under:
"34. A distinction between "material facts" and "particulars", however, must not be overlooked. "Material facts" are primary or basic facts which must be pleaded by the plaintiff or by the defendant in support of the case set up by him either to prove his cause of action or defence. "Particulars", on the other hand, are details in support of material facts pleaded by the party. They amplify, refine and embellish material facts by giving distinctive touch to the basic contours of a picture already drawn so as to make it full, more clear and more informative. "Particulars" thus ensure conduct of fair trial and would not take the opposite party by surprise.
35. All "material facts" must be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by him. Since the object and purpose is to enable the opposite party to know the case he has to meet with, in the absence of pleading, a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence. Failure to state even a single material fact, hence, will entail dismissal of the suit or petition. Particulars, on the other hand, are the details of the case which is in the nature of evidence a party would be leading at the time of trial." (emphasis added)
679. In Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar versus Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar (Supra) same question was raised with regard to pleadings whether "material facts" and "full particulars" have been given or not and what is the distinction between two in the context of provisions of R.P. Act 1951. The dispute had arisen from election of Goa Legislative assembly from 35, Sanvordem Assembly Constituency, for which election was held on 2nd June, 2007. Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar was declared elected. Naresh Kumar Shigaonkar was nearest defeated candidate. Election petition was filed on the ground that returned candidate for securing victory, used corrupt practices by getting 13 bore wells constructed at his own cost in seven villages of the said Constituency and also provided ambulances to those villages namely, Collem, Sanvordem, Mollem, Dharbandora and Khirpal Dabhal as a part of his action in luring voters to vote in his favour. Various objections were raised by returned candidate by filing written statement, stating that material facts constituting corrupt practice were not pleaded and, therefore, election petition deserved to be dismissed. High Court rejected objections hence the matter went in appeal before Supreme Court. Court held that with regard to allegation of boring and ambulances, there was no pleading that the same was done within the knowledge of returned candidate and what was the cost involved in providing the same. There was no pleading as to how voters were influenced in favour of appellant so as to cast votes in his favour. Particulars of such voters were also not given and pleadings were general. Court observed that what particulars are to be stated must depend on the facts of each case. It is absolutely essential that the pleading, not to be embarrassing to defendants, should state those facts which will put the defendants on their guard and tell them what they have to meet when the case comes on for trial. The word 'material' means necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action; and if any one 'material' fact is omitted, the statement of claim is bad; it is 'demurrable' in the old phraseology, and in the new is liable to be 'struck out'. The Court quoted from Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) Vol 36, Para 38 following passage with approval..
"38. Function of particulars.- The function of particulars is to carry into operation the overriding principle that the litigation between the parties, and particularly the trial, should be conducted fairly, openly and without surprises, and incidentally to reduce costs. This function has been variously stated, namely, either to limit the generality of the allegations in the pleadings, or to define the issues which have to be tried and for which discovery is required. Each party is entitled to know the case that is intended to be made against him at the trial, and to have such particulars of his opponent's case as will prevent him from being taken by surprise. Particulars enable the other party to decide what evidence he ought to be prepared with and to prepare for the trial. A party is bound by the facts included in the particulars, and he may not rely on any other facts at the trial without obtaining the leave of the Court."
680. After referring its earlier decisions, in para 57, Court in Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar Vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar (Supra) said:
"57. It is settled legal position that all "material facts" must be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by him within the period of limitation. Since the object and purpose is to enable the opposite party to know the case he has to meet with, in the absence of pleading, a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence. Failure to state even a single material fact will entail dismissal of the election petition. The election petition must contain a concise statement of "material facts" on which the petitioner relies."
681. Jitu Patnayak v. Sanatan Mohakud and Others (2012) 4 SCC 194, is also a judgement arising from an election dispute under RP Act 1951. Assembly election of 25- Champua Assembly Constituency, Orrissa was notified in march 2009 to be held on 23.04.2009. One of contesting and independent candidate died on 13.04.2009 and his death was allegedly informed to Returning Officer. However his name continued in electronic voting machine in the list of contesting candidates. Jitu Patnaik having secured 27700 votes was declared elected, defeating respondents Sanatan Mohakud who could secure 27555 votes. Deceased candidate Akhila Kumar Mohanta also got 550 votes. An election-petition was filed by Sanatan Mohakud. Objections of non pleading of cause of action and striking of certain allegations by filing applications under Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 6 Rule 16 CPC were taken. Some of Paragraphs were struck out by Court but it directed to proceed with the election petition. Aggrieved thereby, returned candidate filed appeal in Supreme Court. Real ground was that due to continuance of name of independent candidate (who died on 13.04.2009) on electronic voting machine, 550 votes were cast in his favour and if it would not have happened, those votes might have been gone to election-petitioner and this has adversely affected the election. Court held that there is no provision under R.P. Act 1951 except Section 52, providing for the consequences following the death of a candidate after publication of list of contesting candidates under Section 38 and before poll. Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 also do not provide for such contingency. It provides that only living persons can offer themselves or be offered as candidates for membership of Parliament or State Legislatures. However, once nomination has been filed by a candidate and on scrutiny, his candidature is found proper and before the expiry of the period of the withdrawal, he has not withdrawn his candidature and his name is included in the list of validly nominated candidates prepared under Section 38 of R.P. Act 1951 and Rule 11 of the 1961 Rules, if death of a contesting candidate as defined in Section 38 takes place, consequences following the death of such contesting candidate have to be found from electoral law contained in R.P. Act 1951 or the Rules framed thereunder. Right to contest an election or question the election is neither provided in common law nor is a fundamental right but a statutory right regulated by statutory provision contained in R.P. Act 1951 which is a complete self-contained Code, within which rights or claim in relation to any election or election dispute must be found. Court said that in absence of any such provision, death of a candidate would make no impact on the election. Considering question of "material facts" in the light of Section 83(1)(a) of R.P. Act 1951 and order 6 Rule 2 CPC, Court said in paragraph 45 as under:
"45. A bare perusal of the above provisions would show that the first part of Order VI Rule 2, CPC is similar to clause 1(a) of Section 83 of the 1951 Act. It is imperative for an election petition to contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the election petitioner relies. What are material facts? All basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of cause of action or defence are material facts. The bare allegations are never treated as material facts. The material facts are such facts which afford a basis for the allegations made in the election petition." (emphasis added)
682. From the aforesaid judgements it is evident that the words "material facts" have been read so as to mean that all facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action. All basic and primary facts which must be proved by a party to establish existence of cause of action or defence are material facts. "Material facts" in other words, mean the entire bundle of facts which we would constitute complete cause of action.
683. Sri Goel also submitted, when parties are prejudiced then mere fact that evidence has been adduced and entire material is on record hence technical plea of lack of pleading should not be allowed to be raised and relied on certain authorities which we consider as under.
684. In Bhagawati Prasad Vs Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735, a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent and future mesne profits was filed stating that plaintiff is the owner of House No. 59/8, Nachghar, Birhana Road, Kanpur. It was pleaded that plaintiff and defendant were friends and enjoying mutual confidence. When the house was constructed, defendant wanted some premises for residence, hence when the ground floor was constructed it was let out to defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.150/- in 1947. In 1948, first floor was completed and the same was also let out to defendant on an additional rent of Rs.150/- per month and in 1950 second floor was constructed and the same was also let out to defendant on a further additional rent of Rs. 150/- per month. The total rent therefore, came to Rs. 450/- in 1950 which was continuously paid by defendant till 31.03.1954. Thereafter it committed default, hence suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent was filed. Defendant took the defence that though land was owned by plaintiff but the house raised thereat was constructed by defendant from his own fund and it was agreed that so long as the expenses incurred by defendants in construction of house are not clear would be entitled to continue to stay thereat. Trial Court rejected the defence of defendant and held ownership in favour of plaintiff but in respect to rent it held that Rs. 300/- per month is the reasonable rent and passed decree of ejectment and arrears of rent monthly Rs. 300/-. In appeal preferred before High Court, the findings of Trial Court with regard to ownership of house and rent both were confirmed but then High Court held that in view of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1947") in respect whereto an Ordinance was issued somewhere in 1946, letting out of building without permission of District Magistrate was not permissible and therefore it modified the decree and while confirming the decree for ejectment set aside the decree with regard to rent and mesne profits. In appeal preferred before Supreme Cout by both sides, on behalf of defendant it was argued that High Court has made a new case for the plaintiff and once it held that tenancy was not valid in law even decree of ejectment would not have been granted. Court held that decision of the case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found as held in Trojan and Company Ltd. Vs Rm.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235. However it observed that said observations were made with regard to claim made by plaintiff for certain sum of money on the ground that defendant had sold certain shares belonging to him without his instructions but plaintiff failed to prove that sale had not been authorized by him. In Bhagwati Vs Chandramaul (supra) Court said:
"if a party asks for a relief on a clear and specific ground, and in the issues or at the trial, no other ground is covered either directly or by necessary implication, it would not be open to the said party to attempt to sustain the same claim on a ground which is entirely new."
685. In making aforesaid observations, Court relied on its earlier decision in Sheodhar Rai and others Vs Suraj Prasad Singh and others, AIR 1954 SC 758, but thereafter it has said that for considering the application of doctrine of facts of the case, it is necessary to bear in mind the other principle that considerations of form cannot over-ride the legitimate considerations of substance. It said:
"If a plea is not specifically made and yet it is covered by an issue by implication, and the parties knew that the said plea was involved in the trial, then the mere fact that the plea was not expressly taken in the pleadings would not necessarily disentitle a party from relying upon it if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. The general rule no doubt is that the relief should be founded on pleadings made by the parties. But where the substantial matters relating to the title of both parties to the suit are touched, though indirectly or even obscurely in the issue, and evidence has been led about them, then the argument that a particular matter was not expressly taken in the pleadings would be purely formal and technical and cannot succeed in every case. What the Court has to consider in dealing with such an objection is : did the parties know that the matter in question was involved in the trial, and did they lead evidence about it ? If it appears that the parties did not know that the matter was in issue at the trial and one of them has had no opportunity to lead evidence in respect of it, that undoubtedly would be a different matter. To allow one party to rely upon a matter in respect of which the other party did not lead evidence and had had no opportunity to lead evidence, would introduce considerations of prejudice, and in doing justice to one party, the Court cannot do injustice to another."
686. The manner in which the aforesaid principle could have been applied is also clear from further discussion from paras 13 and 14 of judgment in Bhagwati Vs Chandramaul (supra) and it would be useful to reproduce the same as under:
"13. When Mr. Setalvad was pressing his point about the prejudice to the defendant and the impropriety of the course adopted by the High Court in confirming the decree for ejectment on the ground of licence, we asked him whether he could suggest to us any other possible plea which the defendant could have taken if a licence was expressly pleaded by the plaintiff in the alternative. The only answer which Mr. Setalvad made was that in the absence of definite instructions, it would not be possible for him to suggest any such plea. In our opinion, having regard to the pleas taken by the defendant in his written statement in clear and unambiguous language, only two issues could arise between the parties : is the defendant the tenant of the plaintiff, or is he holding the property as the licence subject to the terms specified by the written statement ? In effect, the written statement pleaded licence, subject to the condition that the licence was to remain in possession until the amount spent by him was returned by the plaintiff. This latter plea has been rejected, while the admission about the permissive character of the defendant's possession remains. That is how the High Court has looked at the matter and we are unable to see any error of law in the approach by the High Court in dealing with it.
14. In support of its conclusion that in a case like the present a decree for ejectment can be passed in favour of the plaintiff, though the specific case of tenancy set up by him is not proved, the High Court has relied upon the two of its earlier Full Bench decisions. In Abdul Ghani v. Musammat Babni I.L.R. 25 All. 256 the Allahabad High Court took the view that in a case where the plaintiff asks for the ejectment of the defendant on the ground that the defendant is a tenant of the premises, a decree for ejectment can be passed even though tenancy is not proved, provided it is established that the possession of the defendant is that of a licensee. It is true that in that case, before giving effect to the finding that the defendant was a licensee, the High Court remanded the case, because it appeared to the High Court that that part of the case had not been clearly decided. But once the finding was returned that the defendant was in possession as a licensee, the High Court did not feel any difficulty in confirming the decree for ejectment, even though the plaintiff had originally claimed ejectment on the ground of tenancy and not specifically on the ground of licence. To the same effect is the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Balmakund v. Dalu I.L.R. 25 All. 498."
687. Court upheld the judgment of this Court which founded on two Full Bench judgments in Abdul Ghani VS Musammat Babni, I.L.R. 25 All. 256 and Balmakund Vs Dalu, I.L.R. 25 All. 498, wherein it was held, where the plaintiff asks for the ejectment of the defendant on the ground that defendant is a tenant in the premises, a decree for ejectment can be passed even though tenancy is not proved, provided it is established that the possession of the defendant is that of a licensee. Court observed that importance of pleadings cannot be ignored because it is the pleadings that lead to framing of issues in the suit and a trial in every civil case has inevitably to be confined to the issues framed in the suit. The whole object of framing the issues would be defeated if parties are allowed to travel beyond them and claim or oppose reliefs on grounds not made in the pleadings and not covered by the issues. But cases may occur in which though a particular plea is not specifically included in the issues, parties might know that in substance, the said plea is being tried and might lead evidence about it. It is only in such a case where the Court is satisfied that the ground on which reliance is placed by one or the other of the parties, was in substance, at issue between them and that both of them have had opportunity to lead evidence about it at the trial and the formal requirement of pleadings can be relaxed. Court held that High Court was impressed by the thought that once the defendant was shown to be in possession of the suit premises as a licensee, it would be futile to require the plaintiff to file another suit against the defendant for ejectment on that basis and this approach of Court was held justified by Supreme Court. Thereafter Court also considered the appeal of plaintiff which was against that part of judgment of High Court where the rent and mesne profits were denied and the Court held that once it was found that plaintiff was entitled to eject defendant, for the period defendant was in possession of property he was liable to pay mesne profit or damages for use and occupation of said property and therefore, the decree for ejectment must have been accompanied by a direction for payment of future mesne profits or damages.
688. In Mohan Lal Vs Anandibai and others, 1971 (1) SCC 313, Court, as a matter of fact, found that pleadings did not contain any reference with regard to fraudulent or antedating of sale deed. No issue was framed. For the first time during arguments before Trial Court, question of fraud and plea of antedating was sought to be raised for the first time during course of arguments. In these facts and circumstances, Court considered the fact that there was no opportunity to other side to lead evidence or objection regarding fraud or antedating as a new plea could not have been allowed at the stage of hearing either before Trial Court or before Appellate Court. Court said:
"since no issue was framed, no occasion arose for the plaintiff-respondents to give evidence to explain the delay in registration. No question was put to any witness of the plaintiff-respondents why this delay had occurred The plea depended on questions of fact in respect of which evidence could have been given and facts elicited. Such a plea could not be considered for the first time at the appellate stage when the party concerned had no earlier warning and did not have any opportunity to give evidence explaining the reason for the delay." (emphasis added)
689. Similarly with regard to objection raised during course of argument before Trial Court, again Court said:
"there was no justification for the trial Court to hold the question and record this finding when there were no pleadings in respect of it and, even during the course of trial, evidence was not led with the object of meeting such a plea." (emphasis added)
690. The judgment itself shows that principle laid down therein is unexceptional but would apply to cases where facts are similar and not otherwise.
691. In Kidar Lall Seal and another Vs Hari Lall Seal, AIR 1952 SC 47, Court observed:
"I would be slow to throw out a claim on a mere technicality of pleading when the substance of the thing is there and no prejudice is caused to the other side, however clumsily or inartistically the plaint may be worded. In any event, it is always open to a Court to give a plaintiff such general or other relief as it deems just to the same extent as if it had been asked for, provided that occasions no prejudice to the other side beyond what can be compensated for in costs." (emphasis added)
692. In Nagubai Ammal and others Vs B. Shama Rao and others, AIR 1964 SC 164, Court observed:
"the objection was raised that if no plea of lis pendens was taken in the pleadings and consequently, the evidence bearing on that question could not be properly looked into, and no decision could be given based on the documents that the sale was affected by lis."
693. Rejecting this argument Court held:
"that rule has no application to a case where parties go to trial with knowledge that a particular question is in issue, though no specific issue has been framed thereon, and adduce evidence relating thereto." (emphasis added)
694. In Kunju Kasavan Vs M.M. Philip, I.C.S. and others, AIR 1964 SC 164, an argument was raised that deposition of witnesses could not be looked into when there was no proper plea of issue. Rejecting the same Court said:
"We do not think that the plaintiff in the case was taken by surprise. The notification must have been filed with the written statement, because there is nothing to show that it was tendered subsequently after obtaining the orders of the Court. The plaintiff was also cross-examined with respect to the address of Bhagavathi Valli, and the only witness examined on the side of the defendant deposed about the notification and was not cross-examined on this point. The plaintiff did not seek the permission of the Court to lead evidence on this point. Nor did he object to the reception of this evidence. Even before the District Judge, the contention was not that the evidence was wrongly received without a proper plea and issue but that the notification was not clear and there was doubt whether this Bhagavathi Valli was exempted or not. The parties went to trial fully understanding the central fact whether the succession as laid down in the Ezhava Act applied to Bhagavathi Valli or not. The absence of an issue, there-fore, did not lead to a mistrial sufficient to vitiate the decision."
695. In Bachhaj Nahar Vs Nilima Mandal and another, (2008) 17 SCC 491, a suit was filed for declaration, possession and injunction against Bachhaj Nahar and Sujash Kumar Ghosh. Suit property was a strip of land which was claimed to be owned by plaintiff under sale deed dated 29.12.1962. The reliefs sought in the suit read as under:
"(i) declarations that (a) the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession of the suit property; (b) the defendants do not have any right, title or interest or possession in respect of suit property; and (c) the first defendant had illegally encroached and started construction in the suit property;
(ii) a direction to first defendant to deliver possession of the suit property to plaintiffs after demolishing the construction over the same; and
(iii) a permanent injunction restraining first defendant from interfering with the suit property."
696. Defendant resisted the suit contending that he had purchased land from second defendant under sale deed dated 05.05.1982 and suit land actually is his property. Trial Court formulated following eight issues:
"(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?
(ii) Have the plaintiffs got any cause of action to file the suit as against these defendants?
(iii) Is the suit barred by limitation and also on the principle of waiver estoppel and acquiescence?
(iv) Whether the description of the suit land is vague?
(v) Whether the suit land is part and parcel of land of the plaintiff purchased through registered kewala or the suit land in exclusive possession of Ishan Chand Ghosh, and after his death of second defendant, and after purchase of first defendant.
(vi) Has first defendant encroached any portion of the suit land?
(vii) Whether the plaintiffs got title over the suit land? Or were they using the suit land under express permission of the late Ishan Chand Ghosh and his son?
(viii) To what relief or reliefs, plaintiffs are entitled?"
697. Trial Court decreed suit, in part, holding that suit property was part of plaintiffs' property and first defendant had encroached over it to the extent of 15 sq. ft. and raised construction thereat. Therefore, instead of restoring possession, it allowed damages and compensation for such encroached portion to the plaintiff. Defendant filed appeal and plaintiff filed cross objection. First Appellate Court held that plaintiffs failed to prove their title and therefore, allowed defendant's appeal and dismissed plaintiff's cross objection and reversed the decree of Trial Court. Consequently, suit was dismissed. In the second appeal preferred by plaintiff, High Court upheld findings of First Appellate Court that plaintiff failed to make out title of the suit property but even then proceeded to hold that plaintiff had made out a case for grant of relief based on easementary right of passage, in respect of the suit property and allowed appeal decreeing suit based on easementary right of plaintiff though there was neither any pleading nor issue nor evidence with regard to easementary right. Supreme Court held that High Court, when there was no pleading or evidence on the question of right of easement, in its zeal to cut delay, has violated several fundamental rules of Civil Procedure which are:
"(i) No amount of evidence can be looked into, upon a plea which was never put forward in the pleadings. A question which did arise from the pleadings and which was not the subject matter of an issue, cannot be decided by the Court.
(ii) A Court cannot make out a case not pleaded. The Court should confine its decision to the question raised in pleadings. Nor can it grant a relief which is not claimed and which does not flow from the facts and the cause of action alleged in the plaint.
(iii) A factual issue cannot be raised or considered for the first time in a second appeal."
698. It is in this background, Court in Bachhaj Nahar Vs Nilima Mandal (supra) explained object and purpose of pleading in framing issues and said in paras 12 and 13, as under:
"12. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. Its object is also to ensure that each side is fully alive to the questions that are likely to be raised or considered so that they may have an opportunity of placing the relevant evidence appropriate to the issues before the Court for its consideration. This Court has repeatedly held that the pleadings are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable Courts to determine what is really at issue between the parties, and to prevent any deviation from the course which litigation on particular causes must take.
13. The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required to be decided by the Courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the facts necessary to make out a particular claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the plaint, the Court cannot focus the attention of the parties, or its own attention on that claim or relief, by framing an appropriate issue. As a result the defendant does not get an opportunity to place the facts and contentions necessary to repudiate or challenge such a claim or relief. Therefore, the Court cannot, on finding that the plaintiff has not made out the case put forth by him, grant some other relief. The question before a Court is not whether there is some material on the basis of which some relief can be granted. The question is whether any relief can be granted, when the defendant had no opportunity to show that the relief proposed by the Court could not be granted. When there is no prayer for a particular relief and no pleadings to support such a relief, and when defendant has no opportunity to resist or oppose such a relief, if the Court considers and grants such a relief, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Thus it is said that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief." (emphasis added)
699. In Ram Sarup Gupta Vs Bishun Narain Inter College, AIR 1987 SC 1242, Court said:
"6....It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should state the essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise. The pleadings however should receive a liberal construction, no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair splitting technicalities. Sometimes, pleadings are expressed in words which may not expressly make out a case in accordance with strict interpretation of law, in such a case it is the duty of the Court to ascertain the substance if the pleadings to determine the question. It is not desirable to place undue emphasis on form, instead the substance of the pleadings should be considered. Whenever the question about lack of pleading is raised the enquiry should not be so much about the form of pleadings, instead the Court must find out whether in substance the parties knew the case and the issues upon which they went to trial. Once it is found that in spite of deficiency in the pleadings, parties knew the case and they proceeded to trial on those issue by producing evidence, in that event it would not be open to a party to raise the question of absence of pleadings in appeal." (emphasis supplied)
700. Referring to the law of Easements, Court in Ram Sarup Gupta (supra) said that it has certain relevant facts to establish and unless there is a pleading or issue or evidence the same cannot be assumed so as to give relief and in paras 19, 20 and 21 said as under:
"19. Easements may relate to a right of way, a right to light and air, right to draw water, right to support, right to have overhanging eaves, right of drainage, right to a water course etc. Easements can be acquired by different ways and are of different kinds, that is, easement by grant, easement of necessity, easement by prescription, etc. A dominant owner seeking any declaratory or injunctive relief relating to an easementary right shall have plead and prove the nature of easement, manner of acquisition of the easementary right, and the manner of disturbance or obstruction to the easementary right.
20. The pleadings necessary to establish an easement by prescription, are different from the pleadings and proof necessary for easement of necessity or easement by grant. In regard to an easement by prescription, the plaintiff is required to plead and prove that he was in peaceful, open and uninterrupted enjoyment of the right for a period of twenty years (ending within two years next before the institution of the suit). He should also plead and prove that the right claimed was enjoyed independent of any agreement with the owner of the property over which the right is claimed, as any user with the express permission of the owner will be a licence and not an easement. For claiming an easement of necessity, the plaintiff has to plead that his dominant tenement and defendant's servient tenement originally constituted a single tenement and the ownership thereof vested in the same person and that there has been a severance of such ownership and that without the easementary right claimed, the dominant tenement cannot be used. We may also note that the pleadings necessary for establishing a right of passage is different from a right of drainage or right to support of a roof or right to water course. We have referred to these aspects only to show that a Court cannot assume or infer a case of easementary right, by referring to a stray sentence here and a stray sentence there in the pleading or evidence.
21. A right of easement can be declared only when the servant owner is a party to the suit. But nowhere in the plaint, the plaintiffs allege, and nowhere in the judgment, the High Court holds, that the first or second defendant is the owner of the suit property. While concluding that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the suit property, the High Court has held that they have a better right as compared to the first defendant and has also reserved liberty to the plaintiffs to get their title established in a competent Court. This means that the Court did not recognize the first defendant as the owner of the suit property. If the High Court was of the view that defendants were not the owners of the suit property, it could not have granted declaration of easementary right as no such relief could be granted unless the servient owner is impleaded as a defendant. It is also ununderstandable as to how while declaring that plaintiffs have only an easementary right over the suit property, the Court can reserve a right to the plaintiffs to establish their title thereto by a separate suit, when deciding a second appeal arising from a suit by the plaintiffs for declaration of title. Nor is it understandable how the High Court could hold that the apart from plaintiffs, other persons living adjacent to and north of the suit property were entitled to use the same as passage, when they are not parties, and when they have not sought such a relief."
701. In the present case injunction was sought against appellant from functioning as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotispeeth on various grounds and one pleaded in para 42 is that appellant did not possess requisite qualification as provided in Mathamnay and Mahanushasan so as to be installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotispeeth. Material particulars, therefore, for seeking relief of injunction against appellant with respect to qualification, in our view, is covered by pleadings of para 42 of plaint. What qualifications are needed for installation as Shankaracharya, in reference thereof, plaintiff has referred to Mathamnay and Mahanushasan. Further details as to what qualifications are prescribed in aforesaid books of commands is a matter of evidence and for that purpose evidence has been led by both parties. In our view, it cannot be said that material particulars are not given in this respect which were necessary for grant of relief to plaintiff. Details thereof is a matter of evidence and that is what has been done by both parties by leading evidence. It is also not the case where appellant has been taken by surprise that issue of disqualification has been raised without any pleading whatsoever in plaint. The only thing is that specific disqualification has not been mentioned but it cannot be construed as if material particulars are not provided which is necessary for grant of relief inasmuch as pleading with regard to disqualification of appellant with reference to qualifications prescribed in Mathamnay and Mahanushasan has specifically been averred in para 42 of plaint. In view of law discussed above and looking to pleadings in plaint, we find ourselves unable to agree with Sri Goel that there is defect of material particulars provided in plaint and hence question of disqualification of appellant could not have been looked into by Court below. We, therefore, reject this submission.
702. Sri Goel also contended that replication is not part of pleading and, therefore, facts stated therein for the first time could not have been treated to be part of pleadings so as to go into the question relating to qualification/disqualification of appellant based on facts stated in replication.
703. The above submission is also of no substance for the reason that we have already held that basic pleading is already existing in plaint. Even in respect of replication the argument advanced by Sri Geol, we find, difficult to accept.
704. Provisions relating to pleadings are contained in Orders 6, 7 and 8 C.P.C. Order 6 deals with pleading in general. Order 7 deals with plaint and Order 8 deals with written statement. Order 6 Rule 1 defines pleadings stating that pleadings shall mean plaint or written statement. Sub-rule (3) provides the form of pleading which should be the form in Appendix 'A' where applicable, and where same is not applicable, in the form of like character as nearly as may be. The said appendix does not contain anything by way of form relating to replication. Apparently in the provisions of CPC we find no reference to term 'replication' but under Order 8 Rule 9 it has been provided that no pleading subsequent to written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set off or counter claim shall be presented except by leave of Court. Meaning thereby a subsequent pleading can be entertained by Court by granting permission and thereupon if it finds necessary it may require defendant to file an additional written statement also. It is admitted case that in the present case after filing of replication, and then amendment of plaint, an additional written statement was filed by appellant.
705. Replication was filed in 1995. At no point of time appellant has taken any objection before Court below. In 2006 an amendment was allowed in plaint permitting insertion of a paragraph and some minor amendments. Thereafter appellant also filed an additional written statement. It was always open to appellant to reply the facts stated in replication but in additional written statement appellant chose to reply only to the extent amendment was allowed in plaint. Issues were framed by Court below on the basis of pleadings of parties. Thereafter parties led evidence which included issue relating to disqualification of appellant to hold the seat of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth. When matter has been decided, now for the first time, issue of lack of pleading is being raised in this appeal. Firstly, as we have already said, pleading with regard to disqualification of appellant was already there in plaint. Secondly, that we are of the view that replication has only clarified some aspects and not constitutes a pleading in respect of a fact stated for the first time therein and, thirdly, as no objection was raised by appellant before Court below, issues were framed by Court below with the consent of both parties and thereafter parties have also led evidence and issue has been decided, we find no substance in aforesaid argument. Some authorities have also been relied by learned counsel for appellant that replication is not part of pleadings unless permitted by Court, but looking to the facts of this case we find nothing therein so as to help appellant in support of his wide submission with regard to absence of material particulars as noticed above. The point for determination no. 15, therefore, is answered against appellant.
706. Now we come to the Question-XIV regarding disqualification of appellant. Trial Court formulated Issues 12 and 13, "whether appellant did not possess requisite qualification for installation in the seat of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth" and "whether alleged installation of appellant on 14/15.11.1989 in the seat of Shankaracharya was invalid and illegal." Relating to installation of appellant, another Issue 7 was formulated "whether Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati was entitled and competent to execute a 'Will' or otherwise nominate successor for installation as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. In regard to competence of Sri Vishnudevanand Saraswati for execution of 'Will' or nomination, Court below has also formulated Issue 6 "whether installation of Sri Vishnudevanand Saraswati was in accordance with the line of succession led by Sri Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, vide 'Will' dated 18.12.1952."
707. Issues 6 and 7 both have been answered by Court below against appellant. Similarly, Issues 12 and 13 have also been answered in favour of plaintiff and against appellant.
708. We have already discussed above that succession of Shankaracharya in Amnaya Peeth has to take place as per settled and well established customs, usages and traditions of "Guru-Shishya Parampara". Existing Shankaracharya who is holding position, nominates his successor and that is how line of succession continues. The only exception is, when other persons, can select a person as Shankaracharya for installation when no such nomination has been made by outgoing Shankaracharya. We have also discussed above that in Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, First Installation of Shankaracharya namely Swami Trotokacharya, was performed by Adi Shankaracharya himself. Thereafter a continuous line of succession exists where appointment of successor has been made by outgoing Shankaracharya, except when Swami Ram Krishna who died in 1776 A.D., (Vikram Samvat 1833) could not nominate his successor, whereupon Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth seat remained in oblivion for almost 165 years. It was revived in 1941 by congregation of Manishigan which included "B.D.S.,VNS" , Shankaracharyas of other three Amnaya Peeths and learned Pandits etc. Thereupon Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was selected and installed. After installation, "Swami Brahmanand Saraswati" was entitled to nominate his successor in accordance with old traditions and customs, which had continued for several hundred years and has gained status of law for appointment of Shankaracharya in Amnaya Peeth. This right of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was also recognized in Trust Deed dated 11.05.1941, which fact also we have discussed above.
709. It is true that Swami Brahmanand Saraswati while exercising his right of nomination of successor, gave four names, but in our view, aforesaid Will dated 18.12.1952 containing four names was applicable only as one time nomination. If person placed at serial no. 1 declined, only then person at serial no. 2 could have staked his claim for installation as Shankaracharya. But as soon as person having better priority accepts his nomination, authority of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati to control succession in the seat of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth would cease for the reason that thereafter person nominated and installed as Shankaracharya, at the time of his outgoing from the seat, would have a right to nominate his own successor. In other words, Ramji Tripathi i.e Swami Shantanand Saraswati was the first person, nominated by Sri Swami Brahmanand Saraswati in 'Will' dated 18.12.1952. He accepted his nomination and was installed in the seat of Shankaracharya on 12.06.1953. After his installation, further nomination vide 'Will' dated 18.12.1952, by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati became otiose and redundant since 'Will' attained its purpose and became inoperative for future. Thereafter Swami Shantanand Saraswati acquired a right to nominate his successor in the seat.
710. Trial Court while deciding Issue 6, has misdirected itself as if rule of inheritance in perpetuity could have been applied to four nominations made by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati vide 'Will' dated 18.12.1952. This assumption on the part of Court below, in our view, is clearly erroneous and goes contrary to the custom and tradition i.e. Guru Shishya-Parampara established for appointment of Shankaracharya in Amnaya Peeth. A person once appointed cannot control succession in perpetuity. No such custom and tradition was ever recognized or at least shown to us to exist. Therefore, conclusion and finding of Court below that nomination and installation of Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth was not in accordance with nomination made in the 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 is erroneous and we reverse the same. We hold that 'Will' dated 18.12.1952 stood exhausted as soon as the person having better priority, nominated therein, accepted his nomination and was installed in the seat of Shankaracharya. Thereafter right of further succession would have to be exercised by such person who got installed and not by earlier one.
711. We have already held that Swami Shantanand Saraswati was installed on 12.06.1953 and there is no evidence to show that he was actually removed from the seat. Therefore, he continued as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth till he himself withdrew by tendering resignation on 28.02.1980 (Paper No. 159C (Exhibit-12). As an outgoing Shankaracharya, Swami Shantanand Saraswati was entitled to nominate his successor. It is a different thing that following wishes of his own Guru, he exercised his own power of nomination in favour of "Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati". In our view, this nomination by Swami Shantanand Saraswati was consistent with well established customs or usages for appointment of Shankaracharya in Amnaya Peeth as already discussed. Hence, installation of Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati in the seat of Shankaracharya on 28.02.1980 by Swami Shantanand Saraswati cannot be said invalid. The factum that Swami Shantanand Saraswati made nomination, giving weightage to wishes of his Guru Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, would not make such nomination irregular, illegal or contrary to customs and usages for the reason that it was sole discretion of Swami Shantanand Saraswati to make nomination and, for that purpose, he could have followed any principle or policy which could not have been controlled or monitored by any external agency or person(s). Letter of resignation dated 28.02.1980 of Swami Shantanand Saraswati has not been found forged. There is no otherwise evidence to show that Swami Shantanand Saraswati did not nominate Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati as his successor to the seat of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Therefore, findings of Court below recorded otherwise, while deciding Issues 6 and 7, in our view, are perverse and hence we reverse the same. In fact, we find no reason, logic or rationale in the findings of Court below that Swami Shantanand Saraswati nominated Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati in violation of nominations contained in the Will dated 18.12.1952, executed by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati though he could not have violated the said Will. Court below has not referred any reason why Swami Shantanand Saraswati could not have exercised his authority of nomintion without being controlled by anyone.
712. While answering Issue 6, finding recorded by Court below, reads as under:
^^mijksDr nLrkosth vkSj ekSf[kd lk{; ls Li"V gS fd Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh }kjk vius LorU= vf/kdkjksa ls Lokeh fo".kwnsokuUn ljLorh dks 'kadjkpk;Z ugha cuk;k cfYd olh;r fnukad 18-12-52 dk mYya?ku djus ds i'pkr cuk;k x;kA blls ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd uEcj 2 }kjdk izlkn f=ikBh dks Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh blfy;s 'kadjkpk;Z ugha cukuk pkgrs Fks D;ksafd mUgksaus Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh dh v;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij gh fojks/k fd;k Fkk] tks 159lh esa Hkh vafdr gSA tc fd O;fDrxr dkj.k ls Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh] Lokeh czg~ekuUn ljLorh dh olh;r dk mYya?ku ugha dj ldrs FksA vr% Li"V gS fd Lokeh fo".kwnsokuUn ljLorh dh fu;qfDr Lokeh czg~ekuUn dh olh;r ds vuq:i ugha dh x;h Fkh ftlds dkj.k Åij fudkys x;s fu"d"kZ ds dkj.k mudh fu;qfDr voS/k Fkh rFkk tks Lokeh Lo:ikuUn ljLorh ds vf/k"Bkiu dh iqf"V djrh gSA** "This is clear from the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence that Swami Shantanand Saraswati did not appoint Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati as Shankaracharya, by exercising his own independent right, rather appointed him after Will dated 18.12.1952 was violated. This is also clear from it, that Swami Shantanand Saraswati did not wish to install Sri Dwarka Prasad Tripathi, (named) at Serial No.2 (in the will), as Shankaracharya, for the reason that he had opposed Swami Shantanand Saraswati on the ground of his disqualifications, which fact is also endorsed in 159C. Whereas Swami Shantanand Saraswati could not, for personal reasons, violate 'Will' executed by Swami Brhamanand Saraswati. Therefore, it is clear that appointment of Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati was not made in accordance with 'Will' of Swami Brhamanand Saraswati, on account whereof and in view of the findings recorded above, his appointment was illegal and the Court confirms installation of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati."
713. For the reason discussed above, aforesaid finding is patently illegal and Trial Court having failed to consider that Will of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati stood exhausted and consummated as soon as one of four persons nominated by him, having better priority, accepted and was installed in the seat of Shankaracharya. Thereafter, the new person would have his own right of succession by nomination.
714. Now, since we are upholding nomination of Swami Vishnudevnand Saraswati for installation as Shankaracharya by virtue of right of nomination of outgoing Shankaracharya, (Swami Shantanand Saraswati), we have no manner of doubt in upholding right of Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati to execute a 'Will' for nomination of his own successor.
715. Trial Court has not held that Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati did not execute 'Will' dated 17.04.1989 or the said Will was forged or fictitious document or was not executed properly or for any other reason, but has rejected the said 'Will' only on the ground that since Swami Shantanand Saraswati did not nominate Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati properly, therefore, 'Will' executed by Swami Vishnudevnand Saraswati is also bad. This is erroneous, contrary to established custom regarding nomination of successor and we reverse it.
716. One of the arguments advanced on behalf of plaintiff is that the Will dated 17.04.1989 executed by Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati did not nominate appellant, rather it is a mere delegation to another person which was not permissible. It is also pointed out that 'Will' dated 17.04.1989 was unregistered, not signed by Executor and he died on 01.11.1989. After his death, 'Will' was got registered at Lucknow on 14.12.1989. It is pointed out that Trial Court has not examined that 'Will' was not proved as contemplated by provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There existed a number of suspicious circumstances to show that 'Will' was not genuine, hence, the said 'Will', shall not confer a valid right of succession upon appellant. It is also said that the 'Will' delegated right of nomination to Shantanand Saraswati who ceased to be a Shankaracharya and therefore also, ultimate nomination of appellant was not valid. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for plaintiff on the law laid down in H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B. N. Thimmajamma & others AIR 1959 SC 443, (paras 18-21, serial no. 14) Rani Purnima Devi And Another vs Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev And another, AIR 1962, 567 (para 5-23) and Jagdish Chandra Sharma Vs. Narain Singh Saini, (2015) 8 SCC 615 (para 21,22,46,48 ). Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel for plaintiff also pointed out that expert opinion of PW 42, Sri Madan Mohan Kakkar Handwriting and Fingerprint expert, appearing on behalf of plaintiff was placed before Court below who opined that 'Will' was not genuine. An otherwise report of DW 42 Sri Radhakrishna Gupta, Handwriting and Fingerprint expert, was also placed in evidence by appellant. Court below, he urged has erred in not considering these aspects and the same may be looked into by this Court. He submitted that 'Will' was produced before Court below after evidence of plaintiff was over. There was nothing to show that signatures tallied. Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati was not competent to write 'Will' and, therefore, there was no valid nomination in favour of appellant, so as to validate his installation as Shankaracharya on 14/15.11.1989.
717. With regard to nomination of outgoing Shankaracharya, no specific procedure has been laid down in Mathamnaya/ Mahanushasan or any other religious scriptures, governing customs or usages for installation of Shankaracharya in the four Peeths, established by Adi Shankaracharya. We do not find any evidence on record to show that Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati did not nominate appellant. Appellant himself appeared in witness box as DW-3 and stated that he was nominated by his Guru and outgoing Shankaracharya and that is how, he was installed on 14/15.11.1989. Relevant deposition reads as under:
XXXX eSaus dHkh Hkh vius dks 'kadjkpk;Z ?kksf"kr ugha fd;k D;ksafd eSa Lo;a Hkw 'kadjkpk;Z ugha gwWaA esjs iwokZpk;Z us vius mRrjkf/kdkj i= esa eq>s T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj txn~xq: 'kadjkpk;Z ?kksf"kr fd;k Fkk vkSj esjs xq:nso us mDr mRrjkf/kdkj i= ds vuqlkj esjk vfHk"ksd fd;k Fkk rc ls eSa fujarj ;s ihB ds leLr dk;Z dk lapkyu djrs gq;s nkf;Ro dk fuoZgu djrk pyk vk jgk gwWaA ¼isij ua0&661 d] ist&164½ I have never declared myself a Shankaracharya, because I am not a self-styled Shankaracharya. My previous Acharya had declared me Jyotishpeethadhishwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya in his succession letter, and my guru (master) had performed my abhishek (consecration) according to the succession letter, and from that moment, I am carrying out responsibilities while conducting the affairs of the peetha. (Paper No. 661 Ka, Page 164) (English Translation by Court)
718. In this regard DW 4, DW 5 and DW 9 also stated as under:
DW 4 Sri Rang Nath Dubey ;g fd Lokeh fo".kqnsokuUn ljLorh us 28-2-80 ls fnukad 01-11-1989 rd T;ksfr"ihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z in ij izfrf"Br jgs] muds dk;Zdky esa dksbZ Hkh fookn mifLFkr ugha gqvkA vFkok ;wa dgs fd okn la[;k 36@65 dk QSlyk 15-1-70 ds ckn izLrqr okn rd ihB ij dksbZ fookn ugha mifLFkr gqvkA --- Lokeh fo".kqnsokuUn ljLorh th egkjkt czg~eh gksus ds ckn ihB ds ;ksX;re f'k"; n.Mh Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh th egkjkt dk ihBkjksg.k fnukad 15-11-89 dks Jh txrxq: 'kadjkpk;Z Jh Lokeh fo".kqnsokuUn ljLorh th egkjkt ds bPNkuqlkj iz;kx esa lEiUu gqvk] eSa O;fDrxr :i ls lEiw.kZ izfdz;k esa mifLFkr jgk gWwA ¼isij ua0&645 d] ist&192½ That Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati stood enthroned as Shankaracharya of the Jyotispeeth from 28.2.80 to 01.11.1989 and no dispute arose during his tenure. In other words, from the time of pronouncement of judgement in case no 36/65 on 15.1.70 until the institution of the instant case, no dispute over the peeth took place. After demise of Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati Ji Mahraj, the enthronement of the most qualified disciple of the Peeth Dandi Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Ji Mahraj was performed on 15.11.89 at Prayag as desired by Shri Jagatguru Shankaracharya Shree Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati Ji Mahraj. I have been personally present during entire proceedings. (Paper No 645 ka, Page 192)(English Translation by Court) DW 5 Sri Sri Niwas Pathak txn~xq: 'kadjkpk;Z Jh Lokeh fo".kqnsokuUn ljLorh th egkjkt ds czg~eyhu gksus ds i'pkr 14@15 uoEcj 1989 dks mudh gh bPNkuqlkj T;ksfr"ihB ds ;ksX;re fo}ku riLoh czg~eKkuh lU;klh Jh Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh th egkjkt dk ihBkf/kjksg.k txnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z ds in ij fuoZgeku xq:nso T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj txnxq: 'kadjkpk;Z JhLokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh th egkjkt ds mifLFkfr esa leLr v[kkWM+ksa] lU;kfl;ksa HkDrksa ofj"B ukxfjdksa ds le{k vfHk"ksd fd;k x;kA ¼isij ua0&742 d] ist&266½ After the demise of Jagatguru Shankaracharya Shri Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati Ji Maharajon 14/15 November 1989, obeying his wish, in the presence of former Gurudev Jyotispeethadheeshwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Shri Swami Shantanand Ji Mahraj, all the Akharas, many saints, devotees and senior citizens, the Jyotispeeth's most learned scholar Brahmgyani Saint Shri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Ji Mahraj was enthroned as Peethadheeshawar Jagatguru Shankaracharya and his abhishek was performed . (Paper NO. 742 ka, Page 266) DW 9 Sri Tilakdhari Shukla Lokeh 'kkUrkuUn ljLorh th egkjkt us 14@15 uoEcj lu~ 1989 dks czg~eyhu Jh Lokeh fo".kqnsokuUn ljLorh ds bPNkuqlkj leLr n'kukeh v[kkM+ksa ds izfrfuf/k;ksa] iz;kx ds fo}ku] n.Mh lU;kfl;ksa lukru /kekZoyEch o /kkfeZd turk ,oa HkDrksa ds le{k vfHk"ksd fryd ,oa egkfHk"ksd fd;kA ml le; eSa mifLFkr Fkk vkSj iaftdk ds lwph ij esjk gLrk{kj gS ftldks eSa igpku ldrk gwWa mDr iaftdk dh izfr izLrqr okn esa izfroknh dh rjQ ls nkf[ky dkxt la0&19x@3 gSA ¼isij ua0&749 d] ist&343½ On 14/15 Nov 1989, Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati Ji Maharaj had consecrated as per the willingness of Shri Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj in the presence of all the representatives of Dashnanmi Akhadas, scholars of Prayag, Dandi Sanyaasis, Sanatan and religious public and devotees. I was present there on that occasion and I have signed on the list of the register which I can verify. Copy of the said register is paper no.-19Ga/3 filed by defendant in the presented case. (Paper no. 749ka, page-343) (English Trnaslation by Court)
719. DW-25 Sri Satya Narayan Tripathi, DW 31 Sri Swami Narendranand Saraswati Ji Maharaj and DW 35 Sri Mahendra Narayan Dwivedi, deposed that appellant was installed as per desire and nomination by Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati. Relevant deposition reads as under:
DW-25 Sri Satya Narayan Tripathi ^^lu~ 1989 esa T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj txrxq: 'kadjkpk;Z Jh Lokeh fo".kqnsokuUn ljLorh th egkjkt ds czg~eyhu gksus ds ckn mUgha dh bPNkuqlkj T;ksfr"ihB ds ;ksX;re f'k"; n.Mh Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh th egkjkt dk T;ksfr"ihihBk/kh'oj txrxq: 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i eaas vfHk"ksd gqvk tks orZeku esa T;ksfr"iBhk/kh'oj ds :i esa fojkteku gSA ------ 14] 15 uoEcj lu~ 1989 dks tc T;ksfr"ihB ds 'kadjkpk;Z ds :i esa Jh n.Mh Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh th egkjkt dk vfHk"ksd ,oa iV~VkfHk"ksd gqvk Fkk ml le; fo}r xks"Bh esa iz;kx ds leLr fo}rx.k mifLFkr FksA "¼isij ua0&899d] ist&510]511½ "In year 1989 after Jyotishpeethadheeshwer Jagatguru Shankaracharya Shri Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj passed away, the most eligible disciple of Jyotishpeeth Dandi Swami Vasudevanand Sarswati Ji Maharaj was consecrated as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya who is presently seated as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar. ..... All the learned persons of Prayag were present in the Vidvat Goshthi when consecration and Pattabhishek of Shri Dandi Swami Vasudevanand Sarswati Ji Maharaj as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth took place on on 14th, 15th Nov 1989. (Paper no.-899Ka, page-510, 511) (Enlish Trnslation by Court) DW 31 Sri Swami Narendranand Saraswati Ji Maharaj Jh T;ksfr"ihBk/kh'oj txn~xq: 'kadjkpk;Z Jh Lokeh fo".kqnsokuUn ljLorh th egkjkt ds bPNk i= ds vuqlkj vfHk"ksd e;kZnk fo/kku esa oSfnd jhfr ls Jh n.Mh Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh th egkjkt dks t;ksfr"ihB@T;ksfreZB ds 'kadjkpk;Z in ij vfHkf"kDr fd;k x;kA --- Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh th egkjkt Jh T;ksfr"ihB 46 osa 'kadjkpk;Z gSaA ¼isij ua0&914 d] ist&596&598½ As per the will of Sri Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Jagdguru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati Ji mahraj, Sri Dandi Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Ji Mahraj was anointed in the seat of the Shanakaracharya of Jyotishpeeth/ Jyotirpeeth observing decorum and prescribed methods according to Vedic rituals ..... Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Ji Mahraj is 46th Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth. (Paper No.-914 Ka, Page-596-598) (English Trnaslation by Court) DW 35 Sri Mahendra Narayan Dwivedi **fo".kqnsokuUn ljLOkrh th egkjkt ds czg~eyhu gksus ij mUgha ds bPNk i= ¼olh;r½ ds vuqlkj n.Mh Lokeh Jh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh th egjkt Jh T;ksfr"ihB dk flagklu ij oSfnd jhfr fjokt ls vfHkf"kDr dj T;ksfr"ihB dk nkf;Ro lefiZr dj fn;k rHkh ls ¼isij ua0&970d] ist&700½ Dandi Swami Shri Vasudevanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj was consecrated in the seat of Jyotish Peeth as per vedic rituals and was handed over the responsibilities of Jyotish Peeth after the death of Vishnudevanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj in accordance with his Will. (Paper no.-970 Ka, Page-700) (English Trnaslation by Court)
720. We find no otherwise evidence adduced by plaintiff that such desire or nomination was not expressed or made by Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati. In absence of any particular procedure prescribed or laid down in the customs and traditions, as we have discussed above, even a mere oral nomination in our view, would be sufficient to validate succession in the seat of Shankaracharya. Even if 'Will' is ignored, we are of the view that Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati was entitled and competent enough to make nomination of his successor and, in view of evidence discussed above, we hold that he nominated appellant as his successor and pursuant thereto, ceremonies of installation of appellant as Shankaracharya were held on 14/15.11.1989. The findings otherwise, recorded by Court below in the impugned judgment and decree are reversed.
721. Now the only question to be considered is, "Whether appellant was qualified, eligible and competent to be installed as Shankaracharya."
722. Learned counsel for plaintiff has pointed out that Court below has rightly held appellant incompetent, lacking essential qualification to become a Shankaracharya as neither he attained Sanyas in the manner prescribed i.e. established customs and usages, nor ever lived that life till the date he claimed to have been installed as Shankaracharya and, therefore, injunction granted by Court below against appellant deserved to be sustained.
723. On the contrary, Sri Manish Goel submitted that Sanyas was adopted by appellant in 1983 and thereafter he lived life of full sacrifice and mere fact that he was employed will not render disqualify him to become Shankaracharya. He contended that strict discipline of Sanyasi provided in old scriptures, with change of time, is difficult to follow and, therefore, concept of Sanyasi and life of a Sanyasi should be considered in the light of present day realities. He said that whatever salary was received by appellant, it was spent on welfare of people and not consumed for personal benefit. Therefore, he requested that this Court should not apply stringent conditions applicable to a person adopting Sanyas as contemplated in old scriptures like, Sanyasopnishad.
724. Various disqualifications of appellant have been endeavored to be placed before us by learned counsel for appellant, namely, appellant was suffering with contagious decease, had no proper knowledge of traditions, Vedas, Upnishads etc., he was employed in job and getting salary even after the date when he claimed to have adopted Sanyas (reclusion) in 1983, therefore, he was not competent to be installed as Shankaracharya.
725. It is very seriously contended that in fact, appellant neither adopted 'Sanyas' nor went in reclusion, in the manner, contemplated and provided in various scriptures including 'Sanyasopnishad', nor he ever followed life of a Sanyasi, hence, he lacked basic requirement for the seat of Shankaracharya. In fact, after the so called date of taking reclusion (Sanyas), appellant throughout remained in employment till 13.11.1989, i.e. just the day earlier to date of his alleged installation. He was never a 'Sanyasi' as per established customs or usages having force of law hence, incompetent to hold seat of Shankaracharya.
726. We find that evidence oral as well as documentary is available on record on the issue of employment of appellant, PW 33 Sri Raj Narain Tripathi, was a Teacher appointed in Jyotispeeth in Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Shankaracharya Ashram, Alopibagh, Allahabad on 01.09.1967. He was appointed as Head of Department of Literature in the said institution on 01.04.1979. He further deposed that appellant whose earlier name was Somnath Dwivedi, was appointed as Head of Vedanta Department on 10.08.1979 and worked till 13.11.1989 and received salary. It is also pointed out that aforesaid institution, in which, appellant was appointed and worked, is an aided institution from the State Government. Appellant, during employment also visited foreign countries in 1982 and 1983. Appellant submitted resignation on 13.11.1989 (Paper No. 538C i.e. Ex.137) from the aforesaid employment.
727. The factum of employment of appellant has also been corroborated by PW 28, Sri Shiv Kumar Tiwari. Relevant extracts of PW-28 and PW 33 are reproduced as under:
PW 28 Sri Shiv Kumar Tiwari **izfroknh us lkseukFk f}osnh ds uke ls Jh T;ksfr"ihB laLd`r egkfo|ky; esa] 13 uoEcj 1989 rd] osru ysdj v/;kiku dk;Z fd;k FkkA** ¼isij ua0&536 d] ist&3029½ "The defendant, in the name of Somnath Dwivedi, had taught in Shri Jyothishpeeth Sanskrit College till 13th November, 1989 accepting salary. "
**izfroknh 'kknh'kqnk gSA bl le; mudh iRuh fnoaxr gks x;h gSaA vyksihckx vkJe eas izfroknh ds firk rhFkZjkt o izfroknh dh iRuh izk;% vk;k djrs FksA izfroknh v/;kiu ls tks osru ikrs Fks mldks ?kj x`gLFkh [kpZ gsrq viuh iRuh vFkok firk dks] tks Hkh vyksihckx vkJe vk tkrk Fkk] ns fn;k djrs FksA** ¼isij ua0&536 d] ist&3030½ "The defendant is married. Now his wife has died. The defendant's father Tirthraj and the defendant's wife often used to visit Alopibagh Ashram. The defendant used to give the salary, which he received for teaching, to his wife or father whoever came to the Alopibagh ashram for household expenses."
PW-33 Sri Raj Narain Tripathi **eSa Jh T;ksfr"ihB laLd`r egkfo|ky; 'kadjkpk;Z vkJe vyksihckx] bykgkckn esa 01 flrEcj 1967 bZ0 ls v/;kiu dk;Z dj jgk gwWA --- fo|ky; esa esjh fu;qfDr lkfgR; foHkkxk/;{k ds in ij fnukad 01-4-1979 bZ0 dks osrudze 650&1280 eas gqbZ FkhA** ¼isij ua0&572d] ist&3057½ "I have been teaching in Shri Jyotishpeeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalay Shankracharya Ashram Alopibag, Allahabad since 1 September,1967. I had been appointed on 01/04/1979 on the post of Head of the Literature Department, in grade pay 650-1280." **izfroknh dk ewy uke lkseukFk f}osnh iq= Jh rhFkZjkt f}osnh gSA mDr uke ls] izfroknh dh fuq;fDr mDr fo|ky; esa osnkUr foHkkxk/;{k ds in ij fnukad 10-8-1979 dks osrudze 650&1280 esa gqbZ FkhA izfroknh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh us Jh T;ksfr"ihB laLd`r egkfo|ky;] 'kadjkpk;Z vkJe] vyksihckx] bykgkckn esa lkseukFk f}osnh iq= Jh rhFkZjkt f}osnh ds uke ls fnukad 10-8-79 bZ0 ls fnukad 12-11-1989 bZ0 ¼ckjg uoEcj lu~ mUuhl lkS uoklha½ rd mDr fo|ky; esa loSrfud v/;kiu dk;Z fd;k Fkk vkSj fnukad 13-11-89 dks] izfroknh] tks lkseukFk f}osnh ds uke ls mDr fo|ky; esa osnkUr foHkkxk/;{k ds :i esa loSrfud v/;kiu dk;Z fd;k Fkk] osnkUr foHkkxk/;{k in ls R;kx i= fn;k FkkA^^ ¼isij ua0&572d] ist&3058½ "Original name of defendant is Somnath Dwivedi, s/o-Shri Tirthraj Dwivedi. Defendant was appointed on the post of Head of Vedant Department in the said Vidyalaya, by the said name, on 10/08/1979, in grade pay-650-1280. Defendant Vasudevanand had taught in Shri Jyotishpeeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Shankracharya Ashram, Alopibag, Allahabad in the name of Somnath Dwivedi, S/o-Shri Tirthraj Dwivedi, from 10/08/1979 to 12/11/89(Twelve November eighty nine) on salary basis and the defendant, who had taught as Head of the Vedant Department in the said School, on salary basis in the name of Somnath Dwivedi, had resigned from the post of Head of Vedant Department on 13/11/89." ^^Jh lkseukFk f}osnh vFkkZr izfroknh 'kklu }kjk foRr iksf"kr mDr fo|ky; esa fnukad 10-8-1979 ls 12-11-1989 rd osruHkksxh v/;kid jgsA lkseukFk f}osnh tks bl okn esa Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ds uke ls izfroknh gS] fnukad 10-8-1979 ls 12-11-1989 rd v/;kiu dk;Z dk osru izkIr fd;k FkkA --- izfroknh vizSy 1989 bZ0 ls viuk uke lkseukFk f}osnh ds vykok oklqnsokuUn ljLorh Hkh crkrk jgk gSA**¼isij ua0&572d] ist&3058½ "Shri Somnath Dwivedi i.e. defendant was salaried teacher in the said School from 10/08/1979 to 12/11/1989 which is financially aided by Government. Somnath Dwivedi, who is defendant in this case, had obtained salary for teaching between 10/08/1979 to 12/11/1989. Besides Somnath Dwivedi, defendant had been telling his name Vasudevanand Saraswati also." **izfroknh mDr fo|ky; esa tc v/;kiu dk;Z dj jgs Fks] rc fnukad 18-12-1982 ls fnukad 30-12-1982 rd dqy 13 fnu rd izFke l= esa] fons'k ;k=k fd;s FksA --- f}rh; pj.k esa 5 Qjojh 1983 bZ0 ls 4 vizSy 1983 bZ0 rd fd;s FksA** ¼isij ua0&572d] ist&3059½ "When defendant was teaching in said Vidyalaya, he had traveled on foreign tour in first session for 13 days i.e. from 18/12/1982 to 30/12/1982. In the second phase, he had traveled from 5th February, 1983 to 4th April, 1983." **bl okn esa oknh dh rjQ ls nkf[ky dkxt la[;k&538x@141 yxk;r 538x@149 gS] ftleas Jh lkseukFk f}osnh ¼izfroknh½ ds uke ds lkeus fo'ks"k dkye esa Jh lkseukFk f}osnh ds }kjk fnukad 13-11-1989 dks R;kxi= fn;k tkuk vkSj mDr frfFk ls mUgsa dk;ZeqDr fd;k tkuk fy[kk x;k gSA --- izfroknh lkseukFk f}osnh ¼orZeku uke oklqnsokuUn ljLorh½ mDr fo|ky; esa v/;kiu dk;Z ls tks osru izkIr djrs Fks] mldks ?kj x`gLFkh [kpZ gsrq viuh iRuh o vius firk o HkkbZ dks fn;k djrs FksA** ¼isij ua0&572d] ist&3061]3062½ "Paper no.-538G/141 to 538G/149, submitted by plaintiff of this case, are the copies of documents wherein against the name of Somnath Dwivedi in special column resignation tendered by Somnath on 13.11.1989 and his relieving from duty with effect from said date is mentioned. Defendant Somnath Dwivedi(present name- Vasudevanand Saraswati) used to give salary obtained from teaching in said Vidyalaya, to his wife, father and brother for expenditures of household." (English Translation by Court)
728. In cross examination also PW-33 Sri Raj Narain Tripathi has reiterated and affirmed his statement in examination in chief and there is nothing to discredit his statement. Relevant extract of statement of PW-33 in cross examination is reproduced as under:
^^T;ksfr"ihB laLd`r egkfo|ky; esa esjh fu;qfDr fn- 01@9@67 dks f'k{kd in ij gqbZ FkhA**¼isij ua0&572d] ist&440½ "My appointment at the Jyotishpeeth Sanskrit Mahavidyala took place on 01.09.1967."
^^lkseukFk ds :i esa orZeku oklnsokuUn ljLorh ls 1664&65 ls esjk ifjp; gSA lkseukFk czg~ekpkjh osnkUr ls vkpk;Z fd;s Fks dc fd;s Fks ;kn ugha gSA bUgksaus 1983 esa lU;kl ysus dh ckr dgrs jgsA laU;kl ysus dh tkudkjh eq>s ugha gSA f'kokpZu izlkn mik/;k; vkSj lkseukFk f}osnh tks vc oklnsokuUn th gSa fons'k x;s FksA ;s nksuksa ekSteLrh ysus x;s FksA** ¼isij ua0&572d] ist&447]448½ "I am familiar with Swami Vasudevanand as Somanth from 1964-65. Somnath Brahmachari has done Acharya (master's degree) in Vedant, but I cannot state when he had done Acharya. In 1983, he was talking of his wish to take sanyas (renunciation), but I don't know whether he took sanyas (renunciation) or not. Shivarchan Prasad Upadhyay and Somnath Dwivedi, now called Vasudevanand, had gone abroad. Both of them had gone abroad on a pleasure trip."
**;g dguk lgh gS fd Jh lkseukFk f}osnh vkSj eSa ,d gh rglhy ds fuoklh gSaA**¼isij ua0&572d] ist&449½ "It is true to say that Somanth Dwivedi and I are the residents of the same Tehsil."
**ftu lkseukFk f}osnh dk ftdz dj jgk gWw ogh Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ds uke ls tkus tkrs gSaA** ¼isij ua0&572d] ist&450½ "The Somnath Dwivedi I am speaking of is known as Swami Vasudevanand."
(English Trnaslation by Court)
729. In fact, even defence witnesses DW 2, Sri Tej Narain Chaturvedi, DW 3 Swami Sri Vasudevanand Saraswati, DW 4, Sri Rang Nath Dubey, DW 8, Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, DW 13, Sri Ram Abhilash Pandey DW 16, Sri Pandit Radhey Raman Pandey, DW 21, Sri Acharya Paqndit Vinod Kumar Tripathi, DW 23, Sri Vidya Bhushan Shukla, DW 28 Sri Srimohan Dubey and DW 33 Sri Daya Shankar Pandey, produced by appellant have also verified this fact that appellant was a Teacher in Jyotishpeeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Alopibagh, Allahabad and had worked from 10.08.1979 to 13.11.1989. Relevant extract of statement of defence witnesses produced by appellant himself reads as under:
DW-2 Sri Tej Narain Chaturvedi XXX Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh dk lU;kl iwoZ uke lkseukFk fo|kFkhZ FkkA --- Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh vfHk"ksd ds iwoZ i The name of Swami Vasudevanand before he took Sanyaas was Somnath Vidyarthi. Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati kept studying until he took Sanyaas. ... He became Shankaracharya in the year 1980. Thereafter said that he kept studying until he became Shankaracharya in the year 1989.(Paper No. 656 Ka, Page 26) (English Translation by Court) DW 3 Swami Sri Vasudevanand Saraswati, appellant XXX esjk iwoZ uke lkseukFk czg~epkjh FkkA ¼isij ua0&661 d] ist&121] 122½ My previous name was Somanth Brahmchari. (Paper No. 661 Ka, Page 121, 122)(English Translation by Court) DW 4 Sri Rang Nath Dubey, XXX Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh dk iwoZ uke lkseukFk f}osnh FkkA lkseukFk f}osnh Hkh bl fo|ky; esa v/;kiu dk dk;Z djrs FksA --- eSa lkseukFk f}osnh ,oa f'kokpZu mik/;k; ,d lkFk fons'k ;k=k fd, FksA ¼isij ua0&645 d] ist&198½ The former name of Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati was Somnath Dwivedi. Somnath Dwivedi too used to teach in this school.... I alongwith Somnath Dwivedi and Shivarchan Upadyaya had gone abroad all together. (Paper No 645 ka, Page 198) esjs gyQukek ds nQk 13 esa egjktJh dks tks osru izkIr gksrk Fkk] okD; fy[kk x;k gS og egkjktJh oklqnsokuUn th gh gSA ;g osru T;ksfr"ihB laLd`r egkfo|ky; vyksihckx ls feyrk FkkA fo|ky; dk Hkou vkJe dh ifjf/k ls vyx gSA ¼isij ua0&645 d] ist&215½ The sentence 'the salary used to be paid to Mahraj Shri', as mentioned in para 13 of my affidavit, is written for Mahraj Shri Vasudevanand Ji. This salary was drawn from Jyotishpeeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Alopibagh. The Vidyalaya building is separate from the precincts of Ashram. (Paper No 645 ka, Page 215) (English Translation by Court) DW-8 Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla XXX osnkUr foHkkxk/;k{k Jh Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh th egkjkt FksA mudk iwoZ uke Jh lkseukFk f}osnh FkkA^^ ¼isij ua0&743 d] ist&323½ Head of the Department of Vedanta was Sri Swami Vasudevanand Sarasawati ji Maharaj. His former name was Sri Som Nath Dwivedi. (Paper no-743 Ka, Page-323) ^^iz'u& esjk ;g dguk gS fd izfroknh us 12 uoEcj 1989 rd dh T;ksfr ihB laLd`r egkfo|ky; 'kadjkpk;Z vFkok bykgkckn esa osnkUr foHkkx/;{k ds :i esa osruHkksxh v/;kid dh ukSdjh fd;k Fkk vki crk;s fd esjk mDr dFku lgh gS ;k xyr gS\ mRrj& bl lEcU/k esa eq>s tkudkjh ugha gS fd osruHkksxh Fks ;k ugha D;kasfd reke Nk=ksa dks i<+krs FksA tks ikB'kkyk Nk=ksa dks i<+krs FksA tks ikB'kkyk ds vfrfjDr ckgjh Nk= vkrs Fks ;k Nk= ugha Fks ftl dkj.ko'k fo"k; dh rS;kjh djus vkrs FksA mudh lEidZ O;oLFkk ls O;; djds rS;kjh djokrs Fks o i<+krs Fks dsoy bldh tkudkjh eq>s gSA iz'u& esjk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd Lokeh cklqnsokuUn us v/;kid dh ukSdjh ls fnukad 13@11@1989 dks R;kxi= fn;k FkkA D;k esjk ;g dguk xyr gS ;k lgh gS\ mRrj& bl lEcU/k esa dc mUgksaus ukSdjh djus ds fy, vkosnu i= fn;k Fkk u eq>dks bldh tkudkjh gS vkSj u dc R;kx i= fn;k Fkk bldh tkudkjh gSA^^¼isij ua0&743 d] ist&341½ "Question: My statement that respondent had worked as a salaried teacher in Jyotispeeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Shankaracharya or in Allahabad as a Head of the Department, Vedant till 12 November 1989. Please tell whether my above statement is right or wrong.
Ans: I don't know anything in this regard whether he was salaried or not. Because (he) taught many students. He taught the students of the institution. He taught the students other than the institution, who came from outside, who were not the students, (but) just came to study for other reasons. I know only this much that he taught them and managed their expenses from other resources/contacts.
Question: I also state that Swami Vasudevanand had resigned from the post of teacher on 13.11.1989. Is my above statement right or wrong?
Ans: I don't have any information when did he apply for this job; nor do I know as to when he resigned from it." (Paper no-743 Ka, Page-341) (English Translation by Court) DW 13 Sri Ram Abhilash Pandey XXX oklqnsokuUn th Hkh T;ksfr"ihB laLd`r egkfo|ky; vyksihckx esa v/;kid FksA ;s osnkUr foHkkxk/;{k FksA eSa ;g ugh crk ldrk fd Lokeh oklqnsokuUn th us uoEcj lu~ 1989 esa R;kxi= fn;k Fkk ;k ughA Lokeh oklqnsokuUn dk iwoZ uke lkseukFk f}osnh Fkk ijUrq f}osnh ugha fy[krs Fks czg~epkjh fy[krs FksA ¼isij ua0&770d] ist&399½ "Vasudevanandji was a teacher in Jyotishpeeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Alopibagh. He was the Head of the Department in Vedanta. I can not tell whether Swami Vasudevanand had resigned in November 1989 or not. Swami Vasudevanand's earlier name was Somnath Dwivedi but he did not write Dwivedi and used to suffix Brahmachari." (paper no- 770 Ka, page-399) (English Translation by Court) DW-16 Sri Pandit Radhey Raman Pandey XXX ^^lkseukFk Lokeh oklqnsokuUn dk iwoZ uke FkkA^^ ¼isij ua0&811d] ist&429½ "Somnath was previous name of Swami Vasudevanand." (Paper no.-811Ka, Page-429) ^^esjk lkseukFk th ls ifjp; tc eSa bykgkckn 1966 esa vk;k rc ls gqvk buls esjk ifjp; 1966 esa vyksihckx vkJe esa gqvkA 1966 esa lkseukFk f}osnh czg~epkjh FksA lkseukFk f}osnh vkyksihckx vkJe esa i<+krs FksA tc txr xq: 'kadjkpk;Z dk vkjksg.k gqvk rc bUgksaus NksM fn;k bUgksaus v/;kid dk;Z 13 uoEcj 89 dks NksM+k Fkk izfroknh ds ihBkjksg.k esa iwoZ 'kadjkpk;Z Lokeh 'kkUrkuan ljLorh fo|eku Fks muds vykok vU; dksbZ 'kadjkpk;Z mifLFkr ugha FksA^^¼isij ua0&772d] ist&430½ "I got acquainted with Somnathji when I came to Allahabad in 1966. I was acquainted with him at Alopibagh Ashram in 1966. In 1966 Somnath Dwivedi was Brahmachari. Somnath Dwivedi used to teach in Alopibagh Ashram. When the installation of Jagadguru Shankaracharya took place, then he had left it. He had left the teaching work on 13th November 1989." (Paper no.-772Ka, Page-430) (English Translation by Court) DW-21 Acharya Pandit Vinod Kumar Tripathi XXX ^^eSaus oklqnsokuUn ljLorh dks loZizFke tqykbZ 1982 dks ns[kk Fkk ml le; os czg~epkjh Jh lkseukFk ds uke ls tkus tkrs FksA os lkseukFk f}osnh Hkh fy[krs Fks ;k ugha] crk;k fd eSa ugha tkurk gwWaA tc eSa loZizFke feyk Fkk ml le; os v/;kiu dk dk;Z dj jgs FksA ml le; Jh T;ksfr"ihB laLd`r egkfo|ky; vyksihckx bykgkckn esa i<+k jgs FksA --- 13 uoEcj lu~ 1989 rd v/;kiu dk dk;Z fd;s tc rd os v/;kiu dk;Z fd;s rc rd mUgsa osru feyrk FkkA^^ ¼isij ua0&894d] ist&478½ I had seen Vasudevanand Saraswati for the first time in July 1982, when he was known as Brahmachari Shri Somnath. Stated that I do not know whether he used to write Somnath Dwivedi too or not. At the time when I met for the first time, he was teaching. At that time, he was teaching at Shri Jyotishpeeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Alopibagh, Allahabad. ...He tought till November 13, 1989; he got the salary till the date he taught. (Paper no. 894Ka, page-478) (English Translation by Court) DW-23 Sri Vidya Bhushan Shukla ^^Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh dk iwoZ uke lkseukFk f}osnh FkkA^^ ¼isij ua0&897 d] ist&498&499½ "Somnath Dwivedi was the past name of Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati." ¼Paper no.- 897 Ka, Page-498-499½ (English Translation by Court) DW-28 Sri Srimohan Dubey XXX ^^tc ls esjh T;ksfr"ihB fo|ky; esa fu;qfDr gqbZ rHkh ls eSa Lokeh oklqnsokuUn th dks tkurk gwWA ftl le; esjh fu;qfDr fo|ky; esa gqbZ Fkh ml le; Lokeh oklqnsokuUn dk uke lkseukFk f}osnh FkkA --- lu~ 1983 ls lkseukFk f}osnh Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh gks x;sA^^¼isij ua0&902 d] ist&546½ "I am acquainted with Swami Vasudevanand Ji since I have been appointed in Jyotishpeeth Vidyalaya. At the time I was appointed in Jyotishpeeth Vidyalaya, the name of Swami Vasudevanand was Somnath Dwivedi. Since 1983, Somnath Dwivedi became Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati". (Paper no.-902 ka, page-546)(English Translation by Court) ^^mDr fo|ky; esa osnkUr foHkkx Hkh gSA lu~ 1984 esa osnkUr foHkkxk/;{k Jh lkseukFk f}osnh FksA og fnukad 13 uoEcj 1989 rd osnkUr foHkkxk/;{k ds :i esa dk;Zjr jgs gSaA fnukad 13 uoEcj 1989 dks Jh 'kksHkukFk f}osnh txrxq: 'kadjkpk;Z ds in ij mudk euksu;u gks x;k FkkA blfy;s mUgksaus mDr fnukad dks viuh LosPNk ls r;kx i= ns fn;k FkkA Jh T;ksfr"ihB laLd`r egkfo|ky; esa Jh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh ds uke ls fdlh Hkh o"kZ esa v/;kid dk dk;Z ugha fd;k gS cfYd Jh lkseukFk f}osnh ds uke ls v/;kiu dk dk;Z fd;k gSA^^ ¼isij ua0&902 d] ist&551½ "There is Vedant Department also in the said school. In 1984, Shri, Shobhnath Dwivedi was the Head of Vedant Department. He worked as Head of Vedant Department till 13th November, 1989. On 13th November, 1989, Shri Shobhnath Dwivedi was nominated for the seat of Jagat Guru Shankracharya. That is why he had voluntarily resigned on the said date. He has never worked as teacher in the name of Vasudevanand Saraswati in any year in Shri Jyotishpeeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalay, rather he has done teaching work in the name of Somnath Dwivedi." (Paper no.-902 ka, page-551)(English Translation by Court) ^^;g lgh gS fd Jh lkseukFk f}osnh us 10-8-1979 ls 13 uoEcj 1989 rd osru dk Hkqxrku izkIr fd;k FkkA ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd Jh lksHkukFk f}osnh ,oa f'kokpZu izlkn mik/;k; o"kZ 1983 esa 73 fnuksa rd fons'k ;k=k fd;s FksA^^ ¼isij ua0&902 d] ist&552½ "It is true that Shri Somnath Dwivedi had received payment of salary form 10/08/1979 to 13/11/1989. It is also true to say that Shri Sobhnath Dwivedi and Shivarchan Prasad Upadhayay had traveled abroad for 73 days in the year of 1983." (Paper no.-902 ka, page-552)(English Translation by Court) DW-33 Swami Yogeshwaranand Giri XXX ^^;g eq>s ;kn ugha gS fd ftl le; olh;r dh fy[kk i<+h gq;h Fkh rc Lokeh oklqnsokuUn ljLorh v/;kiu dk dk;Z NksM+ pqds Fks ;k ugha] eq>s ;kn ugha gSA Lokeh oklqnsokuUn lU;kl fy;s gq;s gSaA ;g eq>s ;kn ugha gS fd mUgksaus v/;kid dh ukSdjh NksM+dj n.M fy;k gS ;k ukSdjh djrs gq;s fy;k gSA^^ ¼isij ua0&972d] ist&673½ "I don't remember whether Swami Vasudevanand Sarasawati had left the work of teaching or not, when the will was drafted, I don't remember. Swami Vasudevanand has taken Sanyas. I don't remember whether he has accepted Dand (religious stick) after he left the profession of teaching or while being in the job of teaching." (Paper no-972 Ka, Page-673) (English Translation by Court)
730. DW 28 Sri Sri Mohan Dubey has also said that appellant's earlier name was Somnath Dwivedi and he got named "Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati" in 1983 when adopted 'Sanyasi'. It was explained to us that after adopting reclusion (Sanyas) in 1983, Sanyasi name was adopted by appellant as "Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati".
731. The documentary evidence includes a letter dated 05.10.1989 (Paper no. 538C/125 i.e. Exhibit 131), issued by Instructor, Sanskrit Pathshala, U.P. Allahabad to Manager of Jyotishpeeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Shankaracharya Ashram, Alopibagh, Allahabad communicating seniority of teachers working in the aforesaid institution and appellant's name Somnanth Dwivedi is shown at serial no. 3 therein. The contents of the said letter are reproduced as under:
^^egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d lgk;d fujh{kd] laLd`r ikB'kkyk;sa] bykgkckn {ks=] bykgkckn ds i=kad 317&20@89&90 fnukad 19-9-89 }kjk izkIr vk[;k rFkk vki }kjk le; le; ij dk;kZy; esa izkIr djk;s x;s vk;&O;; ,oa vU; vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij vkidh laLFkk esa dk;Zjr v/;kidks dh T;s"Brk fuEuor~ fu/kkZfjr gSA dze la0 v/;kid dk uke in ekSfyd fu;qfDr dh frfFk osrudze 1 Jh jktukjk;.k f=ikBh LkfgR; foHkkxk/;{k 1-9-67 650&1280 2 ** jkeQsj 'kqDy O;kdj.k foHkkxk0 1-9-76 650&1280 3 **lkseukFk f}osnh osnkUr foHkkxk/;{k 18-8-79 650&1280 4 **d`".knso ikBd Lkgk;d foHkkxk/;{k 15-11-72 540&910 5 ** nsoh 'kadj nqcs ** ** 1-4-77 540&910 6 ^^ f'kokZpu izlkn mik/;k;
** O;kdj.k 19-9-70 400&620 7 ** gfj'kadj f=ikBh Lkgk;d v/;kid lkfgR;
1-5-77 400&620 8 ^^ mek'kadj feJ lgk;d v/;kid vk/kqfud 10-8-79 400&620 mDr ds ckn Hkh vkids fo|ky; esa v/;kidksa dh T;s"Brk fookfnr crkbZ tk jgh gSA tks Jh jktukjk;.k f=ikBh foHkkxk/;{k lkfgR; ds i= fnukad 7-9-89 ls Li"V gSA vr% laLFkk v/;kidksa dh T;s"Brk lEcU/kh fookn ds fuLrkj.kkFkZ lwP; gS fd d`i;k vki fu;ekuqlkj mi;qZDr lwph dks izdkf'kr dj v/;kidksa esa forfjr dj nsa rFkk d`r dk;Zokgh dh lwpuk ls ,d lIrkg ds Hkhrj v/kksgLrk{kjh dks Hkh voxr djk nsaA** (Paper no. 538C/125 (Exhibit 131) page 2088 Volume IV of respondents paper book) "Sir, This is with reference to above mentioned subject. Following is the seniority list of Teachers working in your institution, prepared on the basis of report of Assistant Inspector, Sanskrit Schools, Allahabad Region, Allahabad, received through letter no.317-20/89-90 dated 19.9.1989 and accounts showing income and expenditure, made available by you from time to time :
Sl. No. Name of Teacher Post Date of substantive appointment Pay Scale 1 Sri Rajnarain Tripathi Head of Deptt., Literature 1-9-67 650-1280 2 Sri Rampher Shukla Head of Deptt., Grammar 1-9-76 650-1280 3 Sri Somnath Dwivedi Head of Deptt., Vedanta 18-8-79 650-1280 4 Sri Krishnadeo Pathak AssistantHead of Deptt., 15-11-72 540-910 5 Sri Devi Shanker Dubey AssistantHead of Deptt., 1-4-77 540-910 6 Sri Shirvacahan Prasad Upadhyay AssistantTeacher, Grammar 19-9-70 400-620 7 Sri Harishankar Tripathi AssistantTeacher, Literature 1-5-77 400-620 8 Sri Umashanker Mishra AssistantTeacher, Modern.
10-8-79 400-620 "Despite the aforesaid, seniority of teachers of your institution is said to be disputed, which fact is clear from the letter dated 7.9.89 of Sri Rajnarain Tripathi, Head of Department, Literature.
Therefore, for the purpose of determination of seniority of Teachers of the institution, you are hereby informed. Kindly distribute aforesaid seniority list amongst the Teachers of the institution after getting the same published and also inform the undersigned within one week of the action taken." (English Translation by Court)
732. Another document is letter dated 11.09.1991 (Paper No. 538C/126 I.e. Exhibit 132), sent by Director of Education, U.P. Allahabad to Manager of aforesaid institution in which appellant was working, raising an objection with regard to payment of salary when teachers including appellant, Somnanth Dwivedi, (subsequently named as Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati) had gone on foreign visit. The said letter in fact is a show cause notice under Section 314 of Education Code, with respect to alleged irregularities in payment of salary when appellant was on foreign visit. Para 5 reads as under:
^^5- fo|ky; ds dk;Zjr v/;kidks Jh lksHkukFk f}osnh osnkUr foHkkxk/;{k dks fnukad 18-12-82 ls nks lIrkg ,oa 5-2-83 ls 4-4-03 dqy 73 fnu dk fons'k ;k=k gsrq vodk'k Lohdkj djrs gq;s :i;k 5915@&¼:i;k ikap gtkj ukS lkS iUnzg½ dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA rFkk Jh f'kokZpu mik/;k; dks fnukad 14-112-82 ls nks lIrkg ,oa 5-2-83 ls 4-4-83 dqy 73 fnu dk fons'k ;k=k vodk'k Lohd`r djrs gq;s :i;k 3389@& ¼:i;k rhu gtkj rhu lkS uoklh½ dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS] tks jktdh; /ku dk nq:i;ksx gSA d`i;k ;g crk;sa mu v/;kidksa dks fdl izdkj dk vodk'k Lohd`r fd;k x;k gSA fLFkfr Li"V djsaA** (Page 2090 Paper no. 538C/126C (Exhibit 132) (Page 2089 Volume IV respondent paper book) While granting leave to Working Teachers of the School, Sri Somnath Dwivedi, Head of Vedanta Department, for two weeks from 18.12.82 and from 5.2.83 to 4.4.03 (total 73 days) against Foreign Tour, a sum of Rs. 5915/-(Rupees Five thousand nine hundred fifteen only) has been paid and Shirvachan Upadhyay has been sanctioned foreign tour leave for two weeks from 14.12.1982 and from 5.2.83 to 4.4.83, total 73 days, and paid a sum of Rs. 3389/(Rupees Three Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Nine only), which is misuse of Government Money. Please explain as to nature of leave sanctioned to those teachers." (Page 2090 Paper no. 538C/126C (Exhibit 132) (Page 2089 Volume IV respondent paper book)(English Translation by Court)
733. Exact date of adopting reclusion (Sanyas) of appellant has not been stated but we find that it is an admitted case that from 10.08.1979 to 13.11.1989 appellant was working as a Teacher (Head of Department of Vedanta) in the aforesaid institution, which was in grant in aid and salary was paid from State Exchequer. In these circumstances, we enquired from Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel for appellant, when appellant adopted Sanyas and lived life of a Sanyasi, that too a Dandi Sanyasi, which is one of the foremost and basic qualification for installation as Shankaracharya. We did not receive any clear answer to this specific query, which we repeatedly made from Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel for appellant. The only defence taken by appellant in this regard is that there was no pleading regarding his alleged disqualification, therefore, this issue could not have been gone into by Court below and even this Court should not look into this aspect. With regard to pleadings, we have already discussed the matter in detail and rejected.
734. As already pointed out, issue has been framed and parties have led evidence in which employment and period of employment of appellant has been given in detail. In this regard, own witnesses of appellant have given much details.
735. We also find that appellant claims to have resigned on 13.11.1989 from said employment and on the very next day attended his installation ceremony as Shankaracharya without placing anything on record to show that said resignation was ever accepted by competent authority. In service jurisprudence an employee continues to be employed till his relationship is severed by employer in accordance with terms of service contract or if service is governed by statutory provisions, in accordance with procedure laid down thereunder.
736. Facts as evident are that from 10.8.1979 onwards appellant was in continuous employment. He resigned on 13.11.1989 and on the very next date got installed as Shankaracharya. It is in the midst of above period, that is, in 1983, appellant claimed to have adopted reclusion (Sanyas). This claim of reclusion in 1983 is nothing but a fraud on the concept of 'Sanyas' by any stretch of imagination. As we have already held, unless a person is Dandi Sanyasi (a recluse having a stick), living a life of recluse, as propounded under customs, usage and traditions having force of law, he cannot become a Shankaracharya of Amanya Peeth. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that appellant was ineligible and unqualified for being installed as Shankaracharya and alleged installation of appellant on 14/15th November 1989 is patently a farce, illegal and nullity, being contrary to customs, usages, traditions and norms laid down in this regard which have force of law. We, therefore, uphold finding of Court below that the appellant was not eligible or competent to hold the seat of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. Points for determination no. XIV and XV are answered against appellant.
737. Next point for determination is whether Court below erred in law in not staying proceedings of suit in question in view of pendency of Original Suit no. 1A of 1974, under Section 10 CPC.
738. Section 10 CPC reads as under:
"10. Stay of suit. No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.
Explanation- The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.
739. Suit 1A of 1974 was filed by plaintiff, seeking declaration that he is validly installed Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth. This declaration he did not seek in rem but impleaded only three defendants in the said suit i.e. Ramji Tripathi (Swami Shantanand Saraswati), Dwarika Prasad Tripathi and Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati. Declaration, therefore, plaintiff sought in the aforesaid suit, was against aforesaid three persons only. One of them i.e. Swami Shantanand Saraswati was in the seat of Shankaracharya and rest two were nominees in 'Will' dated 18.12.1952. One of the conditions to attract section 10 CPC is that both suits should be between same parties or between the parties any one of which came litigating in the same title. Trial court rejected application of appellant seeking stay of proceedings in suit in question. We are also of the view that condition of section 10 CPC are not attracted in the case in hand. Therefore, there was no error on the part of Court below in not staying the proceedings of suit in question. Aforesaid question is, therefore, answered against the appellant.
740. In view of above findings, impugned judgment and decree passed by Court below granting injunction against appellant, restraining from functioning as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jotishpeeth has to be sustained but it would not result in recognition of right of plaintiff to function as Shankaracharya of said Peeth, particularly, in view of our finding that plaintiff was never installed as Shankaracharya at Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeh, validly, inasmuch as seat was not vacant in 1973. Consequently, an eventuality has cropped up when an important religious denomination would face a vaccum or state of vacancy where an Amnay Peeth like Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeh at Badrikasharam will have no suitable person to function as Shankaracharya. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. In larger public interest and in the interest of religious denomination as well as followers and devotees of the said Amnay Peeth, an appropriate direction is necessary to be given to fill in this gap. In our view, this Court while deciding appeal under Section 96 CPC, can exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 7 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. by directing for holding congregation of Manishigan (scholars), learned men, Pandits etc. to follow the same procedure as was followed in 1941, to select a most suitable, qualified and eligible person and install him as Shankaracharya at the aforesaid Peeth within a period of three month and till then parties should maintain status quo as on day.
741. Before parting with this judgment, we find it appropriate to place on record our serious concern and disapproval to the situation prevailing nowadays, where people holding such a high, pious and revered seat/status, like Shankaracharya of an Amanya Peeth, engage in a chain of litigation for decades together. In fact, appellant himself in his oral desposition as DW 3 has stated that disputes with regard to Shankaracharya, raising parallel claim also exist in Dwarika Peeth, Sharda Peeth and Govardhan Peeth too. Even DW 37, Sri Bhramchari Atmanand, and 39, Sri Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, have similarly deposed and the same is reproduced as under:
DW 37, Sri Bhramchari Atmanand Sishya ^^bUgha dk mnkgj.k ysdj iqjh ihB] }kfjdk ihB ij gj txg dbZ&dbZ Lo;aHkw 'kadjkpk;Z mRiUu gks x;s gSa ¼isij ua0&981d] ist&727½ Taking reference of his dispute, many self-proclaimed Shankaracharya mushroomed up at many places such as Puri Peeth, Dwarika Peeth. (Paper no-981ka, page-727)(English Translation by Court) XXX xkso/kZuqijh esa Lo;aHkw 'kadjkpk;Z ,d v/kks{ktkuan rhFkZ vius vki dks iqjh dk 'kadjkpk;Z dgrs gSaA mlh LFkku ij Lokeh fu'pykuan ljLorh Hkh vius dks iqjh dk 'kadjkpk;Z dgrs gSaA ¼isij ua0&981d] ist&753½ In Govardhanpuri, the self-proclaimed Shankaracharya is one Adhokshajanand Tirth who calls himself Shankaracharya of Puri. At the same place, Swami Nischalananda Saraswati also calls himself Shankaracharya of Puri. (Paper No. 981Ka, page-753) (English Translation by Court) 39, Sri Shailendra Kumar Tiwari XX ^^}kfjdk esa fookn gS dbZ yksx vius dks 'kadjkpk;Z dgrs gSaA ;gh fLFkfr iqjh es Hkh gSA^^ ¼isij ua0&982d] ist&779½ "It is disputed in Dwarika that many people call themselves as Shankaracharya. The same situation is in Puri also. (Paper no. 982 Ka, Page- 779)(English Translation by Court)
742. This situation prevailing in such significant and pious places of religious faith and belief is highly deplorable and condemnable. Court can take judicial notice of the fact that people have deep rooted faith in religion and donate generously to religious endowments etc. This has resulted in amassing a huge wealth with such religious establishments and properties movable and immovable owned by these institutions is multiplying day by day. Some temples in the Country possess wealth to the extent comparable even with annual budget of Government of India and may exceed annual budgets of some Provinces. Wealth has brought in evil of disputes and litigation. That is what we are witnessing. In fact, a large number of unscrupulous religious establishment/institutions have cropped in. In many cases deceptive and mischievous people have intruded in these institutions, or have created their own institution(s) by usurping titles which are highly revered and respected and in whom people at large repose blind and deep faith. Such unscrupulous, dishonest and immoral persons or their institutions and their beneficiaries, creators and associates, are exploiting and deceiving innocent religious people and believers in Dharma. This has also resulted in creating a number of false, mischeiveous persons/entities entering the field of religion in the form of Preachers, Acharya, Kathavachaks etc. delivering religious discourses. Many of them having established their own Maths, suo motu conferring upon them title of Mathadhipati, Peethadhishwar, Jagatguru Shankaracharya and likewise, without any legal authority, imitating titles which they are not entitled to hold and use otherwise. Recent incidents in religious arena, unearthing evil deeds of so called Heads of various religious establishment and their accomplices, putting them behind bar, have shaken not only believers in Hindu Religion but the entire Nation. This state of affairs is quite shocking. Now time has come when common people and in particular all concerned religious denominations need immediate protection from such exploitation. State must intervene by making requisite provisions in this regard. We hope and trust that concerned State (including Central Government) shall look into this matter at the earliest and take appropriate steps to curtail and eliminate imitation, creation of imposters and tendency of litigation in religious endowments and also to regulate and control their activities with a view to prevent imitation, misrepresentation, fraud, cheating, usurpation etc. by unwanted and unauthorized persons.
743. In the last but not the least, we shall be failing in our duty if we not put on record credit due to persons who made this voluminous work convenient for us to complete. Record of this appeal is running in several thousands of pages. Merited and diligent assistance of S/Sri Manish Goel, Permeshwar Nath Mishra, Shashi Nandan, Wajahat Hussain Khan and Anoop Trivedi have made the things quite convenient for us to scan entire record, citations etc. Court Masters S/Sri Pradeep Kumar Jaiswal, Sushil Kumar and Pawan Kumar Chaurasia have also put in their hardest labour in sifting of required record and place before us during hearing as well as preparation of judgment. Undaunted, relentless day and night work rendered by Private Secretaries, S/Sri Akhilesh Kumar Nayak, Awadhesh Kumar, Puneet Srivastava, Pravin Verma and Shubham Agrahari also deserve due appreciation and commendation.
744. In this case judgment was reserved on 03.01.2017. However, sitting of one of us (Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) at Lucknow was notified w.e.f. 09.01.2017 and same continued for three rosters. Therefore, preparation of judgment could be possible only whenever one of us (Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) came to Allahabad for holding Court. Ultimately to complete the work having no other option one of us (Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) went on leave for one week in August, 2017 and another week in September, 2017 and that is how work has been completed. Some delay occurred in completing judgment for reasons beyond our control. Summary of Judgment
745. In view of our discussion, summary of our findings is as under:
(1) Swami Shantanand Saraswati was installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 12.06.1953.
(2) There is no evidence whatsoever that Swami Shantanand Saraswati was disqualified or did not fulfill qualification for being installed as Shankaracharya and also no evidence to show that he was removed from the office on the ground of any disability or disqualification.
(3) Since Swami Shantanand Saraswati was already installed as Shankaracharya on 12.06.1953, there was no vacancy in the office hence installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram as Shankaracharya on 25.06.1953 was invalid and illegal.
(4) Judgment dated 15.01.1970 passed by Civil Judge in OS No. 36 of 1965 deciding issue of invalidity of installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram and valid installation of Swami Santanand in the office of Shankaracharya, attained finality after appeal filed by appellant-Swami Krishna Bodhashram abated on his death. Plaintiff-Swami Shantanand Saraswati was entitled to have the benefit of judgment of Trial Court.
(5) Aforesaid judgment operates as res judicata and issue of validity of installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram in the office of Shankaracharya cannot be agitated by plaintiff in this case.
(6) Since installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram was invalid, no vacancy occurred on his death on 10.09.1973. That being so, alleged installation of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati in the office of Shankaracharya is also invalid and has no legal consequence.
(7) After resignation of Swami Shantanand Saraswati, Swami Vishnu Deva Nand Saraswati was installed and after renunciation of office of Shankaracharya due to death of Swami Vishnu Deva Nand Saraswati, Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati was installed in the office of Shankaracharya on 14/15.11.1989.
(8) In order to be a valid appointment/ installation of Shankaracharya, one must possess requisite qualifications/eligibility as provided in Mathamanya/ Mahanushasan, which includes:
(i) should be a Dandi Sanyasi;
(ii) must have good knowledge of Sanskrit;
(iii) well conversant in Vedas, Upnishads, Brahmanas, Puranas, Vedangas etc.; and,
(iv) must be a Brahmin.
(9) Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati never attained Sanyashood and never lived life of a Sanyasi, since he continued in service of an educational institution receiving grant-in-aid from State Government and salary to Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati was paid by State Government till 13.11.1989, he was disqualified to be appointed as Shankaracharya, and, therefore, his installation as Shankaracharya is illegal, invalid and confers no right to hold or function as Sankaracharya.
(10) The words and title "Jagadguru Shankaracharya" have received a specific significance, importance and status amongst Hindus following Sanatan Dharma. There are only four Maths propounded by Adi Shankaracharya namely, Jyotirmath near Badrika Ashram, (Badri Nath in Pauri Garhwal) (Now Chamoli Garhwal) in the North; Sharda Math in West (Gujarat); Shringeri Math in Mysore (South) and Goverdhan Math at Puri (East), hence no other person is entitled to use the aforesaid designation, title, distinctions etc and such use by any other person is wholly unauthorized and nothing but a fraud upon the religious minded people following Sanatan Dharma.
(11) Government should take appropriate steps to identify such persons, who use such title or designation unauthorizedly, and are claiming and running such Ashrams etc. as self acclaimed religious Heads and conferring titles upon themselves on their own as Priest, Mahant or Head of Math etc., other than four Maths established by Adi Shankaracharya, noted above.
(12) The respective Governments and/or the Shankarachayas and other highly placed Sanyasis, Mahants of other Religious Endowments etc. should evolve an in-house procedure for such identification and to prepare a complete inventory of properties possessed by every Math or religious endowment etc.; income of each such religious endowments should be well audited and there should be proper system of change of reign so that these highly placed religious endowments etc. are protected from frequent litigation.
(13) The impugned judgment and decree in appeal shall stand modified in respect of its findings on issues which are reversed hereinabove. However, injunction granted by Court below restraining appellant from discharging functions as Shankaracharya is hereby confirmed. But, since now a vacancy has arisen in the office of Shankaracharya at Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, same shall be filled in by following the same procedure as was done in 1941 when office of Shankaracharya in Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth was in oblivion for last 165 years and unoccupied. This exercise, we hope and trust, shall be completed by all concerned within three months. Till new Shankaracharya is installed at Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, parties shall maintain status quo as on date.
Result:
746. Appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment of Trial Court in respect of issues we have recorded our findings otherwise is hereby set aside and substituted by our findings. We however uphold injunction granted against appellant restraining him from discharging functions as Shankaracharya. We further make it clear that this injunction shall not be construed so as to authorize plaintiff to function as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath and Jyotishpeeth since he was never validly installed in the said position/status. B.D.M. VNS, learned Pandits, scholars and Shankaracharyas of other three Peethas are directed to proceed and follow the same procedure as was adopted in 1941, to select a suitable, eligible and qualified person for installation as Shankaracharya in Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth and complete this process within three months.
747. In view of divided success we permit the parties to bear their own costs.
748. A copy of directions and observations shall be communicated by Registry of this Court to Government of India as well as State of U.P. through Secretaries concerned. Dated: 22.09.2017 Akn/AK/PS/Pravin Enclosures (1) Appendix-A (2) Appendix-B (3) Appendix-C (4) Appendix-C (5) Index of Citations (6) Index-Subjectwise Appendix-"A"
Plaintiff's Witnesses Sl.No. Witness No. Name of Witnesses Examination in chief/affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC (PB=Paper Book) Cross examination (PB=Paper Book) Volume Pages Volume pages 1 PW 1 Sri Shyam Sundar Vajpai, Vaidya, Meerut, U.P. Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2783-2790 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 55-67 2 PW 2 Challa Laxman Shastri Purohit, Varanasi Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2791-2794 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 68-75 3 PW 3 Sri Kameshwar Nath Mishra, Teacher, Varanasi Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2795-2800 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 76-85 4 PW 4 Sri Anand Bahadur Singh, Varanasi, Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2801-2805 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 86-92 5 PW 5 Sri Harihar Prasad Pandey, Retired Teacher, Varanasi Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2806-2810 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 93-105 6 PW 6 Plaintiff Swami Sri Swaroopa Nand Saraswati, Disciple, Brahmleen Swami Brahamanand Ji Saraswati Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2811-2832 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 106-138 7 PW 7 Sri Ganga Prasad Mishra, Retired Employee, Allahabad Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2833-2836 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 139-146 8 PW 8 Sri Deep Narain Sharma, Varanasi Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2837-2844 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 147-149 9 PW 9 Sri Kailash Nath Dwivedi, Jalaun Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2845-2849 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 150-154 10 PW 10 Swami Sri Ishwaranand Tirth, Sishya, Pujya Swami Pragyanand Tirth IswarMath Mumuchh Bhawan, Varanasi Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2851-2855 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 155-170 11 PW 11 Sri Ashwin Bhai Purohit and Samaj Sewak, Dwarika, Gujarat Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2856-2863 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 171-181 12 PW 12 Sri T.N. Yagyanarayan, Simoga Karnatak Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2864-2872 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 182-189 13 PW 13 Sri Basant Anant Gadgil Sanskrit Bhasa Pracharak Wa Patrakar, Pune, Maharastha Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2873-2880 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 190-196 14 PW 14 Sri Janny Pellegreeni Italy/ Varanasi Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2881-2886 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 197-202 15 PW 15 Sri Radhey Shyam Goswami, Jabalpur, M.P. Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2887-2894 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 203-209 16 PW 16 Sri Somnath Tiwari, Allahabad Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2895-2897 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 210-212 17 PW 17 Swami Sri Vishuddhanand Saraswati, Sishya Parbrahma Swroop Brahmleen Swami Prakashanand Saraswati, Varanasi. Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2898-2903 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 213-221 18 PW 18 Sri Dilawar Khan Narsinghpur, M.P. Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2904-2907 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 222-229 19 PW 19 Sri Gauri Shankar Tiwari, Sivani, M.P. Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2908-2911 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 230-236 20 PW 20 Sri C.V. Giridhar Shastri, Teacher Manglur, Karnatak, Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2912-2924 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 237-250 21 PW 21 Sri Balram Pandey, Varanasi.
Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2925-2928 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 251-257 22 PW 22 Bramchari Sri Subuddhanand Sishya Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth Swami Swroopanand Saraswati, Dharmopadeshak, Narsingpur, M.P. Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2929-2941 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 258-277 23 PW 23 Sri Nijanand Brahamchari Sishya Pujypad Swami Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth Sri Swami Swroopanand Saraswati, Dharmopadeshak, Jabalpur, M.P. Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2942-2976 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 278-300 24 PW 24 Agni Peethadheswar Acharya Mahamandleshwar Brahmarshi Sri Ram Krishnanand Sishya Swami Swroopanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, Panch Agni Peeth Amarkantak, Anooppur, M.P. Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2977-2983 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 301-312 25 PW 25 Sri Kaiwalyanand Brahmchari Dharmopadeshak, Pashchim Singhbhumi, Jharkhand Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 2984-3015 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 313-338 26 PW 26 Sri Aacharya Jitendra, Viranasi Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3016-3019 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 339-348 27 PW 27 Brahmachari Sri Turiyanand Sishya Swami Swroopanand Saraswati, Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth Badrika Ashram, Mankameshwar, Allahabad Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3020-3023 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 349-358 28 PW 28 Sri Shivkumar Tiwari, Jaunpur Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3024-3031 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 359-399 29 PW 29 Sri Girish Chandra Tiwari, Varanasi Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3032-3035 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 400-405 30 PW 30 Sri Ramesh Patel, Jabalpur, M.P. Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3036-3039 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 406-407 31 PW 31 Sri Satya Narain Pandey, Varanasi Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3040-3047 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 408-428 32 PW 32 Sri Nand Kishore Nautiyal Sampadak Nootan Savera, West Mumbai Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3048-3055 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 429-439 33 PW 33 Sri Raj Narain Tripathi, Teachar, Allahabad Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3056-3063 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 440-465 34 PW 34 Dr. Sri Ganesh Dutt Shastri Teachar Varanasi Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3064-3071 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 466-478 35 PW 35 Sri Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi Shastri, Purohit, Narsinghpur, M.P. Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3072-3098 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 479-490 36 PW 36 Sri Kamla Pati Tiwari, Jabalpur, M.P. Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3099-3102 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 491-495 37 PW 37 Sri Satya Narain, Photographer and Videographer, Simoga Karnataka Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3103-3106 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 496-502 38 PW 39 Badri Math Peethadeshwar Swami Hari Narayananand Ji Sansthapkak Mahamantri Bharat Sadhu Samaj Sishya Bramhaleen Dwarkinand Ji Maharaj, Dharmopadeshak, Patna, Bihar Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3107-3110 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 503-509 39 PW 40 Mahant Sri Prakash Puri, Guru Kapil Mahamuni Ji, Mahakal Mandir, Ujjain, M.P. Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3111-3115 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 510-513 40 PW 41 Sri Shanker Dev Chaitanya Bramchari Sishya Swami Dr. Laxman Chaitnya Bramchari, Dewas, M.P. Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3116-3118 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 514-525 41 PW 42 Sri Madan Mohan Kakkar Handwriting and Fingerprint expert Vol. 6 of Respdt PB 3119-3122 Vol. 1 of Respdt PB 526-589 Appendix-"B"
Defendant's Witnesses Sl.No Witne-sses no.
Name of Witnesses Examination in chief/affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC Cross examination Volume Pages Volume page 1 DW 1 Swami Sri Vimaldevashram, Shishya, Mahant Swami Kailash Bhusanashram Ji Maharaj, Machhali Bandar Math, Kashi Adhyaksh, Akhil Bhartiya Dandi Sanyasi, Prabandhan Samiti, Vol. II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 1-2 590-591 Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 3-7 592-604 2 DW 2 Sri Tej Narain Chaturvedi, Varanasi Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 8-13 605-610 Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 14-48 611-645 3 DW 3 Swami Sri Vasudevanand Saraswati, Shishya Sri Swami Shantanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj (defendant-appellant) Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 49-64 646-661 Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 65-186 662-783 4 DW 4 Sri Rang Nath Dubey, Allahabad Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 187-196 784-793 Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 197-263 794-860 5 DW 5 Sri Sriniwas Pathak, Allahabad Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 264-267 861-864 Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 268-281 865-878 6 DW 6 Sri Arun Kumar Tripathi, Dharma Pracharak, Pratapgarh Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 282-284 879-881 Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 285-300 882-897 7 DW 7 Sri Pt. Gokul Chandra Goswami, Mathura Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 301-303 898-900 Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 304-312 901-910 8 DW 8 Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, Pratapgarh Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 313-318 911-916 Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 319-341 917-932 9 DW 9 Sri Tilakdhari Shukla, Ambedkar Nagar Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 342-343
-
Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 344-349 10 DW 10 Sri Vimal Prakash Srivastava, Allahabad Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 350-353
-
Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 354-368
-
11 DW 11 Sri Radhey Shyam Malviya, Allahabad Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 369-370
-
Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 371-380
-
12 DW 12 Sri Roy Vishwanath Singh Rai Bareli Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 381-383
-
Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 384-392
-
13 DW 13 Sri Ram Abhilash Pandey, Allahabad Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 393-394
-
Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 395-401
-
14 DW 14 Sri Purshottam Lal, Allahabad Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 402-402
-
Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 403-411
-
15 DW 15 Sri Lal Mani Tiwari, Allahabad Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB
-
-
Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 412-428
-
16 DW 16 Sri Pandit Radhey Raman Pandey, Allahabad Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB
-
-
Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 429-430
-
17 DW 17 Sri Balkrishna Pandey, Allahabad Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB
-
-
Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 431-433
-
18 DW 18 Sri Hariram Chaurasiya, Allahabad Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 434-435
-
Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 436-437
-
19 DW 19 Sri Laxmi Lal Shah, Chamoli, Uttarakhand Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 438-441
-
Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 442-456
-
20 DW 20 Sri Bindu Ram Singla, Sangroor, Panjab Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB
-
-
Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 457-464
-
21 DW 21 Sri Achrya Pandit Vinod Kumar Tripathi, Allahabad Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 465-477
-
Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 478-488
-
22 DW 22 Sri Indu Prakash Upadhya, Dasnam Sanyas Ashram, Bhupatiwala, Haridwar, Uttarakhand Vol. II(1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 489-491
-
Vol.II (1) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 492-497
-
23 DW 23 Sri Vidya Bhushan Shukla, Allahabad Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB
-
-
Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 498-503 933-938 24 DW 24 Sri Tiloki Nath Agrawal, Katni, M.P. Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 504-506 939-941 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 507-509 942-944 25 DW 25 Sri Satya Narayan Tripathi, Allahabad Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 510-511 945-947 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 512-514 948-951 26 DW 26 Sri Triveni Mishra, Allahabad, Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 515-517 952-954 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 518-521 955-959 27 DW 27 Sri Rishi Prasad Sati Chamoli, Uttarakhand Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 522-526 960-964 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 527-539 965-978 28 DW 28 Sri Srimohan Dubey, Allahabad Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 540-542 979-981 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 543-557 982-996 29 DW 29 Sri Ramji Tripathi, Kanpur Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 558-562 997-1001 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 563-566 1002-1005 30 DW 30 Sri Omkar Nath Tripathi, Allahabad Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 567-570 1006-1010 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 571-592 1011-1047 31 DW 31 Urdhwramnaya Sri Kashi Sumeru Peethadeeshwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Narendranand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, Sishya Sri Kashi Sumeru Peethadeshwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Bramhaleen Swami Shankaracharya Sarswati Ji Maharaj, Varanasi Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 593-604 1048-1059 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 605-652 1060-1117 32 DW 32 Sri Swami Yogeswaranand Giri Sishya Sri Mahant Siddheswar Giri Ji Maharaj Purva Mantri Sri Panchdashnaam Juna Akhara Bara Hanumanghat, Varanasi Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 653-655 1119-1121 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 656-665 1122-1131 33 DW 33 Sri Daya Shankar Pandey Dehradoon, Uttarakhand Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 666-669 1133-1136 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 670-691 1137-1158 34 DW 34 Sri Jagdish Prasad Misra, Lucknow Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 692-694 1160-1162 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 695-698 1163-1166 35 DW 35 Sri Mahendra Narayan Dwivedi, Allahabad Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 699-701 1167-1169 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 702-706 1170-1174 36 DW 36 Anant Vibhushit Sri Takshak Tirthpeeth- adishwar Ravishankar Ji Maharaj Sishya Sri Takshak Tirth Peethadishwar Sri Ram Kumar Maharaj, Allahabad Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 707-712 1175-1180 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 713-717 1181-1185 37 DW 37 Sri Bhramchari Atmanand Sishya Jyotishpeethadhishwar Jagatguru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, Allahabad Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 718-741 1186-1209 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 742-760 1210-1228 38 DW 38 Sri Mahant Manoharpuri, Shisya Sabhapati Sri Mahant Mangalpuri Ji Maharaj Sri Panchdasnaam Juna Akhara Indore, M.P. Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 761-764 1229-1232 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 765-771 1233-1239 39 DW 39 Sri Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Amethi Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 772-775 1240-1243 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 776-780 1244-1248 40 DW 40 Sri Ram Niranjan Singh, Allahabad Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 781-784 1249-1252 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 785-792 1253-1260 41 DW 41 Sri Triveni Prasad Pandey, Rewa, M.P. Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 793-794 1261-1262 Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 795-797 1263-1265 42 DW 42 Sri Radhakrishna Gupta, Handwriting and Fingerprint expert Vol. II(2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 798-819
-
Vol.II (2) appellant PB Vol.2 of respdt PB 820-875 Appendix-"C"
Plaintiff's Documentary Evidence S. No. Details of documents Date Paper No. Exh-ibit No. Volume Pages
1. Message of 4 Peethas' Conference, signed by their Shankaracharyas 01.05.1979 89-C 208 Vol.3 1268
2. Letter of Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Vidyateerth Shankaracharya, Sringeri Peeth. 90-C 209 Vol.3 1269-1270
3. Letter of Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Vidyateerth Shankaracharya, Sringeri Peeth. 23.08.1979 91-C 210 Vol.3 1271
4. Letter of Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Vidyateerth Shankaracharya, Sringeri Peeth. 17.11.1974 92-C 211 Vol.3 1272
5. Proclamation/declaration of Jagatguru Shankaracharya, Dwarka Sharda Peeth Sri Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Teerth. 17.12.1973 93-C 212 Vol.3 1273
6. Suggestion letter (Sujhav Patra) of Shankaracharya Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Teerth Maharaj no.2035 Shankaracharya, Sringeri Peeth. Samvat 2035 94-C 213 Vol.3 1274
7. Letter of thanks, Rashtrapati Bhawan, 04.12.1973 95-C 214 Vol.3 1275-1284
8. Regret Letter from British High Commission, New Delhi.
17.09.1974 96-C 215 Vol.3 1285-1286
9. Proclamation/declaration by Sri Kashi Vidvat Parishad, Shastrarth Mahavidyalaya, Dashaswamedh, Varanasi 97-C 216 Vol.3 1287
10. Introduction letter, Raj Narain Shukla, Pradhan Mantri, Vidvat Parishad 12.09.1973 98-C 217 Vol.3 1277
11. Proclamation/declaration of Sri Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Sri Niranjan Dev Teerth Maharaj, Govardhan Math, Puri 99-C 218 Vol.3 1278
12. Regret Letter by Pt. Nirikshan Pati Misra 100-C 219 Vol.3 1279
13. Application by Nirikshan Pati Misra, Adhyaksh, Kashi Vidvat Parishad, Varanasi 16.05.1982 101-C 220 Vol.3 1280
14. Application by Nirikshan Pati Misra, Adhyaksh, Sri Kashi Vidvat Parishad, Varanasi 102-C 221 Vol.3 1281
15. Authority Letter, Bharat Dharma Mahamandal 15.04.1980 103-C 222 Vol.3 1282
16. Prastavana Patra (Letter of preface/forward) by Bharat Dharam Mahamandal 17.05.1982 104-C 223 Vol.3 1283
17. Motion of protest by Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, Dr. Paramhans Misra 03.12.1983 105-C 224 Vol.3 1285
18. Objection by Dwarikeshananad Saraswati 106-C 225 Vol.3 1287
19. Opinion by M. Khatri, Advocate 107-C 226
20. Certificate by Bharat Dharma Mahamandal 108-C 227 Vol. 3 Plff/ RspdtPB 1288-1297
21. Letter/Proposal of Vidvat Mandal, proposing election 12.09.1973 109-C 228 Vol.3 1298-1301
22. Extract of newspaper (The Times of India) 24.08.1974 110-C 229 Vol.3 1302
23. Extract of newspaper (Nav Bharat Times) 19.09.1974 111-C 230 Vol.3 1303
24. Extract of Dakshin Bharat Paper, Sringeri Sammelan 03.05.1979 112-C 231 Vol.3 1304
25. Appreciation letter by B. Satya Narayan Reddy, Governor 12.11.1979 113-C 2 Vol.3 1305
26. Appreciation letter by Sri S. Narendra, Prime Minister's Advisor, (Information) 21.11.1997 114-C 3 Vol.3 1306
27. Extract of newspaper "The Hindu"
08.12.1997 115-C/1 232/1 Vol.3 1307
28. Extract of newspaper "Nav Bharat Times"
08.12.1997 115-C/2 232/2 Vol.3 1308
29. Extract of newspaper "Danik Jagran"
08.12.1997 115-C/3 232/3 Vol.3 1309
30. Extract of newspaper "Punjab Kesari"
08.12.1997 115-C/4 232/4 Vol.3 1310
31. Extract of newspaper "Hindustan"
09.12.1998 115-C/5 232/5 Vol.3 1311
32. Extract of newspaper "Sandhya Times"
08.12.1998 115-C/6 232/6 Vol.3 1312
33. Extract of newspaper "Jansatta"
09.12.1998 115-C/7 232/7 Vol.3 1313
34. Photo copy of Extract of newspaper "JVG Times"
08.12.1998 115-C/8 232/8 Vol.3 1314
35. Extract of newspaper "The Hindu"
22.06.1998 115-C/9 232/9 Vol.3 1315
36. Extract of Magazine "Dharma Yug" pages 32 and 33 22-28th May 1977 116-C 233 Vol.3 1316-1324
37. Weekly Magazine "Saptahik Hindustan", page 8 20-26th May 1979 117-C/1 234 Vol.3 1325-1329
38. Weekly Magazine "Saptahik Hindustan", page 47 27th May to 2nd June 1979 117-C/2 235 Vol.3 1330-1332
39. Extract of magazine "Dharam Yug", page 47 20th to 26th April 1980 118-C/1 236 Vol.3 1333-1337
40. Extract of magazine "Dharam Yug", page 13 27th May to 2nd June 1979 118-C/2 237 Vol.3 1338-1343
41. Extract of magazine "Mani Deep Kadamb Kanan"
119-C 238
42. Extract of newspaper "Aaj"
28.08.1997 120-C 769 239
43. Extract of Smarika (Memoir) "Sri Matridham"
17.05.1997 121-C 240 Vol.3 1344-1357
44. Extract of Smarika (Memoir) 19.06.1995 122-C 241 Vol.3 1358-1385
45. Tatwalok, Volume No.2 123-C 242 Vol.3 1386-1404
46. Smriti Edition, "Dharm Samrat" by Swami Karpatri 124-C 243
47. Photo of Former Prime Minister Narsimha Rao and Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj 125-C 244 Vol.3 1405-1406
48. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Prasunanjali, Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi 126-C 245 Vol.3 1407-1408
49. Subhabhinandan Patra ( Felicitation Letter) 127-C 246 Vol.3 1409
50. Kundalini Rahasya 128-C 247
51.
"Punarjanma- Ek Sarvabhaumik Dwarika" published from U.P. Jyotirmath Prakashan Badrikashram, 129-C 248
52. Card Amrit Mahotsava 130-C 249
53. Chaturmasya Samaroha Samiti, Kolkata 131-C 250
54.
"Pravachan Sanrachna"
132-C 251
55. Card of "Paduka Pujan", Maharshi Vyas Vidyalaya 133-C 252
56.
"Sri Ram Janambhumi Aur Meri Giraftari" published by Jyotirmath Prakashan, Badrikashram U.P. 134-C 253
57.
"Swadheenata Ki Swarn Jayanti" published by Jyotishpeeth, Sewa Mandal 135-C 254
58.
"Prakatya Mahotsava"
136-C 255
59. Judgment in Case No. 1320 of 1965, Swami Parmanand Vs. Ram Ji 137-C 256
60. Report of Head Copyist, Tax Assessment, Nagar Nigam, relating to mutation of the name of Swami Swaroopanand, pursuant to order of Commissioner 30.5.1989 140-C 4 Vol.3 1412
61. Extract of Register of Tax Assessment with respect to Sanitation Tax, Nagar Nigam Jabalpur, Ward Ram Manohar Lohia for the year l990-91 to 1995-1996 pertaining to House No. 733 to 754, Serial No. 95 (True Copy) 141-C 5 Vol. 3 1413-1418
62. Extract of Register of Tax Assessment with respect to Sanitation Tax, Nagar Nigam Jabalpur, Ward Ram Manohar Lohia for the year l990-91 to 1995-1996 pertaining to House No. 733 to 754, Serial No. 80 (True Copy)
------
142-C 6 Vol. 3 1419-1421
63. Register of Tax Assessment with respect to Sanitation Tax, Nagar Nigam Jabalpur, Ward Ram Manohar Lohia for the year l990-91 to 1995-1996 pertaining to House No. 733 to 754, Serial No. 85 (True Copy) 143-C 7 Vol. 3 1422-1424
64. Extract of Register of Tax Assessment with respect to Sanitation Tax, Nagar Nigam Jabalpur, Ward Ram Manohar Lohia for the year l990-91 to 1995-1996 pertaining to House No. 733 to 754, Serial No. 90 (True Copy) 144-C 8 Vol. 3 1425-1430
65. Extract of Register of Tax Assessment with respect to Sanitation Tax, Nagar Nigam Jabalpur, Ward Ram Manohar Lohia for the year l990-91 to 1995-1996 pertaining to House No. 733 to 754, Serial No. 100 (True Copy) 145-C 9 Vol. 3 1431-1433
66. Extract Register of Tax Assessment with respect to Sanitation Tax, Nagar Nigam Jabalpur, Ward Ram Manohar Lohia for the year l990-91 to 1995-1996 pertaining to House No. 733 to 754, Serial No. 105 (True Copy) 146-C 10 Vol. 3 1434-1436
67. Questionnaire regarding filing of appeal on 01.04.1997 against order of mutation dated 07.04.1990 with respect to House no. 13/15, Alopi Bagh, 178 in Appeal no.56/97 Jagat Guru Swami Swaroopananad vs. Swami Vasudevanand 155-C 275
68. Certified copy of judgment in O.S. No. 3/54, Swami Parmanand and others Vs. Ram Ji Tripathi 20.10.1962 158-C to 172C 11 Vol.5 2430-2782
69. Copy of will/Resignation letter written by Shantanand Saraswati, stating that Swami Vishnudevanand was installed/enthroned on the seat of Peeth 28.04.1980 159-C 12
70. Power of attorney executed by Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati in favour of Rajendra Prasad Misra 26.03.1999 538C/ 10/198 160
71. Vrihadaranyakopnishad, Publisher Govind Kanan, Office of Gita Press Gorakhpur , pages 126-127 328-A 15
72. Dharma Sangh Meerut (second edition), Jagat Guru Gaurav 329-A 16
73. Ishadyottar Shatopanishad, Publisher-Chaukhambha Vidya Bhawan Varanasi 330-A 17
74. Vrihadaranyakopnishad, by Anandgiri, Teeka Sanchalika with Shankar Bhashya 331-A 18
75. The Vrihadaranya Upnishad published by Aditya Ashram 332-A 19
76. 112 Upnishad and Their Philosophy by A.N. Bhattacharya (Parmal Publication, Delhi) 333-A 20
77. Mathamanya Setu and Mahanushasan (by Parmeshwar Nath Mishra) 334-A 21
78. The Greatness of Sringeri, Published by Sri Sharda Peetham, Sringeri 335-A 22
79. Sanmarg (Karpatri Abhinandan Ank), Editor Anand Bahadur Singh 29.07.1976 336-A 27
80.
"Videsh Yatra, Shastriya Paksh", By Swami Karpatri Maharaj, Publisher Akhil Bhartiya Dharma Sangh 337-A/1 23
81. Hamare Gurudev 337A/2 24
82. Mathamnaya - Mahanushasan, Publisher Kashi Vidvat Parishad Nyas 338-A 1
83. Vishwanath Shubh Prabhatam, written by Mahamahopadhyay Pt. Kedar Nath Tripathi 339-A 257
84. Book "Jyotishpeeth Sanrakshak (Hamare Gurudev)"
340-A 14 Vol. 3 Plff/ Rspdt PB 1437-1511
85. Jyotishpeeth Ki Garima Par Prahar, publisher Swami Ramdeo Ashram, Chausathi Math, Kashi 341-A 25
86. Magazine "Vishwavidyalaya Varta", Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi 342-A 26
87. Sandesh Vidyateerth 01.05.1979 343A/1 49 Vol.3 1512-1583
88. Advertisement C.B.Girdhar Shastri 343A/2
89. Letter of Sringeri Sharda Peeth 13.06.1977 343-A/A2 57
90. Letter sent by Vidyateerth 17.11.1974 343A/3 52
91. Letter sent by Vidyateerth 23.08.1979 343A/4 61
92. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) sent by Vidyateerth Anand Chaitra Sudi Poornima Sthir Vasre 343A/5 58
93. Chatuspeeth Sammelan with Photographs 343A/6 258
94. Shubhansa, Swami Abhinav Sachidanand Teerth Samvat 2035, Shravan Kirshna 30 343A/7 48 (7)
95. Letter of Swami Abhinav Sachidanand Teerth 11.01.1980 343A/8 to 343A/11 47
96. Proclamation/Declaration of Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Teerth Shankaracharya Dwarika Peeth 7.12.1973 343A/12 50
97. Chha. Sam. Ja. Ank 16 343A/13 259
98. Letter by Swami Dwarikeshanand Saraswati 343A/14 123
99. Agenda No.19 of Sri Badrinath, Kedarnath Mandir Samiti, JoshiMath 27.10.2004 343A/15 130
100. Letter by Shankaracharya, Kashi Peethadheeshwar 17.09.1974 343A/16 46
101. Letter by Kedernath Tripathi, Upadhyaksh Vikrami Samvat 2031 Bhaumwasar 343A/17 63
102. Letter of Sri Bharat Dharma Mahamandal 15.04.1980 343A/18 124
103. Abhishek Kashi Vidwat Parishad, Pt. Nirikshan Pati Mishra 343A/19 29
104. Letter of Kashi Vidvat Parishad 16.05.1982 343A/20 to 343A/21 30
105. Letter of Kashi Vidvat Parishad (RD.AD) 21.11.1983 343A/22 64
106. Letter of Kashi Vidvat Parishad, Sri Rati Narayan Shastri Vikram No. 2032 343A/23 31
107. Sri Bharat Dharm Mahamandal (RDAD) 03.12.1983 343A/24 to 343A/25 65
108. Agenda No. 250D, Sri Bharat Dharma Mahamandal 17.05.1982 343A/26 to 343A/27 125
109. Letter of declaration by Shankaracharya Govardhan Peeth Sri Niranjan Deo Teerth Ji Maharaj 343A/28 66
110. Certificate JoshiMath 19.06.1975 343A/29
111. Letter of Chaturmanay Jagat Guru Sri Shankaracharya Pratinidhi Samit of Sringeri Math 343A/30 to 343A/31 60
112. Letter of Sri Ganga Sabha Haridwar 10.09.1973 343A/32 67
113. Letter of Sri Ganga Sabha Haridwar 11.09.1973 343A/33 68
114. Letter of Sri Didu Maheshwari Sewa Samiti 14.08.1956 343A/34 69
115. Letter of Divine Life Society 02.04.1976 343A/35 70
116. Letter of Kashi Vidvat Parishad, Varanasi 343A/36 261
117. Telegram 343A/37 & 38 71 & 72
118. Proposal for Election of Kashi Vidvat Parishad 12.09.1973 343A/39 to 343A/42 28 98
119. Extract of news paper Chaturth Peeth Sammelan 343A/43 262
120. Letter of Dr. Kedarnath Tripathi, President, Kashi Vidvat Parishad 31.03.1999 343A/44 & 343A/45 112
121. Important portion of Mathamnaya Mahanushasan, Varanasi by Dr. Kedarnath Tripathi Vikram Samwat-2057 343A/46 343A/48 113
122. Letter of Ministry of Railways, written by K. Shanker 03.03.1994 343A/49 263
123. Pattabhishek (coronation/installation) 18.09.1974 343A/50 264
124. Letter of Ram Nath Kalia Abhinandan Samiti 13.11.1980 343A/51 74
125. Letter of Challa Laxman Shastri, Upadhyaksh, Kashi Vidvat Parishad 07.06.2005 343A/52 to 343A/53 75
126. Letter of Kedar Nath Tripathi, Kashi Vidvat Parishad 09.06.2005 343A/54 76
127. Letter of SSP, Varanasi 05.09.2002 343A/55 265
128. Letter of Finance Minster, Col. Ajay Mushran 06.09.2002 343A/56 266
129. Letter of Ganga Aushadhi Kendra, Varanasi 08.06.2005 343A/57 77
130. Letter of Chaturmanay Jagatguru Shri Shankaracharya Pratinidhi Samiti 08.01.1982 343A/58 & 343A/59 59
131. Letter of Ashtottarshat Shreemad Bhagwat Saptah Parayan Evam Vishnu Mahayagya Samiti, Rajasthan 01.11.1981 343A/60 267
132. Letter of Shree Jyotirmath Badrikashram, Himalaya 17.09.1995 343A/61 268
133. Letter of Pt. Joshan Ram, Secretary, Akhil Bhartiya Pandit Mahaparishad 343A/62 62
134. Letter of Pt. Raj Narayan Shastri, Mahamantri (General Secretary) Kashi Vidvat Parishad 343A/63 32
135. Letter of Jagat Guru Ramanandacharya Swami Haryacharya Ji Mahraj 09.09.2002 343A/64 78
136. Letter of Krishnapal Singh, Governor of Gujarat 18.09.1996 343A/65 269
137. Letter of Chaturth Peeth Sammelan with signature and photograph 343A/66 79
138. Letter sent by Government to plaintiff 04.02.2004 343A/67 79A
139. Letter of Arvind Singh Mewar, The Palace Udaipur, Rajasthan 03.07.2000 343A/68 270
140. Letter of Col. Ajay Mushran, Finance Minister 03.09.1997 343A/69 271
141. Letter of Sri Krishnapal Singh, Governor, Gujarat 01.09.1997 343A/70 272
142. Letter of Railway Board 07.03.1994 343A/71 273
143. Letter of Kashi Vidvat Parishad 12.09.1973 343A/72 165
144. Letter of Kashi Vidvat Parishad by Raj Narayan Shukla 12.09.1973 343A/73 33
145. Letter of Bharat Dharma Mahamandal 27.07.1975 343A/74 126
146. Programme of Bharat Dharm Mahamandal F-21 127
147. Letter of Sri Bal Krishna Misra, Secretary,Bharat Dharm Mahamandal F-1 to F-10 128
148. Minutes of meeting of Shri Badrinath Kedar Nath Mandir Samiti 27.10.2004 343A/75 274 Vol.3 of Plff./ RespdtPB 1584-1587
149. Letter of Shri Dharma Sangh Shiksha Mandal 10.10.1973 343A/76 80
150. Letter of Shri Manav Kalyan Ashram, Haridwar 16.07.2005 343A/77 81
151. Letter from Manav Kalyan Ashram, Haridwar 18.08.2005 343A/78 82
152. Abhinandan Patra Padnaam Swami Sawroopanand Saraswati V.S. 2032 Varanasi 344C/B2-B3 166 Vol.3 1602
153. Letter from Bhadaini, Kashi 02.10.1975 344C/B6 44
154. Swagat Abhinandan V.S. 2032 344C/B7 167
155. Ujjain Mahakal Mandir V.S. 2032 Varanasi 344C/B7 168
156. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 26.11.2001 344C/8 276 Vol.3 1588
157. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Ashwin Krishna 11, Budh, Vikram Samvat 2032, Varanasi 344C/B-8-9 99 Vol.3 1589-1590
158. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Ashwin Krishna 15, Samvat 2032, 344C/ 11B 277 Vol.3 1591
159. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by devotees of Kashi 28.01.1974 344C/12B 55 Vol.3 1592
160. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Tulsighat, Bhadauni 02.10.1975 344C/13B 278 Vol.3 1593
161. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Ashwin Krishna 11, Budh Vikram Samvat 2032, Varanasi 344C/14B 26 Vol.3 1594
162. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Ashwin Krishna 11, Budh Vikram Samvat 2032, Varanasi 344C/15B 279 Vol.3 1595
163. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Baba Bitthalnath Mahadeo Raipur, 21.10.1975 344C/16B 280 Vol.3 1596
164. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) BhadrapadShukla 3, (Hartalika Vrat) Siddharthi Sant 344C/17B 281 Vol.3 1597
165. Abhinandan Patra(Felicitation Letter) 25.05.1974 344C/18B 83 Vol.3 1598
166. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Dilawar Khan, Up-Sarpanch 28.01.1974 344C/19B 282 Vol.3 1599
167. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 08.01.1974 344C/20B 283 Vol.3 1600
168. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 01.01.1974 344C/21B 284 Vol.3 1601
169. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 16.03.1974 344C/22B 285 Vol.3 1602
170. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Tulsi Ram Bharadwarj 344C/23B 286 Vol.3 1603
171. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Sri Satyanarayan Shastri, Sri Badrinath Dham Vijaya-dashmi, Samvat 2042 344C/24B 287 Vol.3 1604
172. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by President Member, Nagarpalika, Garhwal 25.05.1974 344C/25B 288 Vol.3 1605
173. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Shankaracharya Ashram, Shakambhari, Saharanpur 29.11.1973 344C/26B 289 Vol.3 1606
174. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 07.12.1973 344C/27B 290 Vol.3 1607
175. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Smt. Parvati Pandey 18.09.1973/18.4.1976 344C/28B 100 Vol.3 1608
176. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by residents of village Gawai 28.01.1974 344C/29B 101 Vol.3 1609
177. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Uma Shankar Gupta, Mayor, Nagar Nigam, Bhopal 344C/30B 291 Vol.3 1610
178. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Ashwin Krishna 11, Budh Vikram Samvat 2032, 344C/31B 292 Vol.3 1611
179. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 16.03.1978 344C/32B 102 Vol.3 1612
180. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Chairman, Member Nagarpalika Garhwal 20.09.1984 344C/33B 293
181. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Jyesth Krishna Navami Ravivasare Vikram Samwat 2057 344C/34B 294
182. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Geeta Bhawan Samiti, Nainital 18.04.1976 344C/B 35 103
183. Abhinandan Patra 344C/B-35 103
184. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Ram Leela Samiti 18.04.1976 344C/36B 295
185. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Magh Shukla Panchami Chandrwar Vikram Samwat 2030 344C/37B 296 Vol.3 1607
186. Abhinanda Patra (Felicitation Letter) by President Member, Nagarpalika Evam All regional religious people, Garhwal 25.05.1974 344C/38B 292 Vol.3 1605
187. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 16.03.1974 344C/39B 298 Vol.3 1602
188. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Adhyatmik Utthan Mandal, Jabalpur 02.01.1974 344C/40B 104
189. Abhinandan Patra 28.11.1975 344C/B-40 104
190. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Tulsiram Bharadwaj 344C/41B 299
191. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Bhrahmachari Markendey Shastri Dharm Sangh Siksha Mandal, Varanasi 18.04.1976 344C/42B 300
192. Subhabhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Samvat 2030 344C/43B 105
193. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Samwat 2030 Paush Purnima 344C/44B 301
194. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Dwarika Das Maheshwari, President, Galla Vyapari Sangh 344C/45B 302
195. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Sampurnanand Sanskrit University 06.10.1993 344C/46 303
196. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Gramin Janta Koria Patti, District Sahrasa (Bihar 28.11.1975 344C/47B 106
197. Abhinandan Patra 16.03.1974 344C/B-47 106
198. Pranamaujalaya Ashvin Krishna 11 Budh 2032 344C/48B 304 to
199. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by M.P. Vidvat Parishad Shravan Shukla Ekadashi Vikram Samwat 2039 344C/49B 107
200. Abhinandan Patra Vikram Samvat 2030 344C/B-49 107
201. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Magh Krishna Ekadashi Samvat 2030 344C/50B 304
202. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Kaushal Kishore Sharma, President, Akhil Bhartiya Brahman Mahasabha 344C/51B 304
203. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 21.08.2001 344C/52B 305
204. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 344C/B53 85
205. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Duli Chand 16.03.1974 344C/54B 306
206. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Magh Krishna Ekadashi, Vikram Samvat 2030 344C/55B and 344C/56B 307
207. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Teerth Raj Prayag 18.01.1978 344C/B-57 54
208. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 09.01.1974 344C/59B 308
209. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, Karnprayag 344C/60B 309
210. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 344C/61B 310
211. Prashasti Patra 25.05.1974 344C/B62 84
212. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by residents of 13 villages 26.05.1974 344C/B63 96
213. Managing Commitee, Laxmi Narain Mandir, Chandrapuri, Chamoli.
26.05.1974 344C/64B 97
214. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 24.02.1937 344C/65B 311
215. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 29.11.1984 344C/66B 312
216. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Bhadra Shukla Chaturdasi 344C/67B 313
217. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by all citizens and Vidvat Mandal of Kashipur 18.04.1974 344C/68B 108
218. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 25.05.1994 344C/69B 108
219. Abhinandan Patra 03.01.1981 344C/B-68-69 108
220. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 26.05.1974 344C/B-70-71 109
221. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Mahant Ramchandra Vaishnav Evam Management Committee, Laxmi Narayan Mandir, Chandanpuri, Chamoli 26.05.1974 344C/71B 109
222. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Jyotirpeeth , Uttarakhand 29.05.1974 344C/72B 110
223. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Mahant Dwaraka Das 14.11.1975 344C/73B 110
224. Abhinandan Patra 15.12.1974 344C/B-72-73 110
225. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Vishwanath Shukla Shastri, Principal Sanskrit University, District Jalaun 344C/74B 314
226. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Chotey Lal President, Swagat Samiti Mandala, M.P. 03.01.1981 344C/75B and 344C/76 314 315
227. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Ramsundar Shukla, Lecturer, Shi. Pra. Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sidhesh 12/75 344C/77 and 344C/78 315
228. Abhinandan Patra 344C/B-78/79 111
229. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by residents of Jalaun 344C/B-80 122
230. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Sri Dojoti Bala Ji Dham, Fatehpuram, Sekhawati, Seekar, Rajstahanam 28.10.1993 347C/1 316 Vol.3 Plff./ RspdtPB 1614
231. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Jagatguru Shankaracharya in Abhinandan Samaroh Samiti, Ghazipur 05.09.1998 347C/2 114 Vol.3 1615
232. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by SriMath Kashi 10.09.1996 347C/3 114 Vol.3 1616
233. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi 28.08.1994 347C/4 to 347C/5 34 Vol.3 1617-1618
234. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Saleeka Peethadheeshwar, New Delhi 28.05.2000 347C/6 to 347C/7 317 Vol.3 1619-1620
235. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by all Members of Sanskardhani, Srimat Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swagat Samiti, Jabalpur 02.01.1974 347C/8 to 347C/9 318 Vol.3 1621-1622
236. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Jagatguru Shankaracharya Amrit Mahotsav Evam Chaturmas Samorah Samiti Evam all devotees. 347C/10 to 347C/11 115 Vol.3 1623-1624
237. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Akhil Bhartiya Adhayatmolyan Mandalasya 19.12.1994 347C/12 to 347C/13 116 Vol.3 1625-1626
238. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Sri Digvijay Singh, Chief Minister, M.P., Chaturmas Samoraha Samiti 05.09.1997 347C/14 to 347C/15 41 Vol.3 1627-1628
239. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 19.09.1996 347C/16 to 347C/17 42 Vol.3 1629-1630
240. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) alongwith Photoghaphs Magh Krishna 2 Guro, 2030 347C/18 to 347C/19 117 Vol.3 1631-1645
241. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 16.09.2006 347C/20 to 347C/21 319
242. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Amrit Mahotsva Samiti, Nagpuram 11.07.1999 347C/22 to 347C/23 320
243. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Jagatguru Shankaracharya Chaturmas Swagat Samiti, Varanasi 21.08.2001 347C/24 to 347C/25 43
244. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Divya Gyan Mahotsav Gujarat 24.05.1999 347C/26 to 347C/27 321
245. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by residents of District Ghazipur 03.11.1996 347C/28 to 347C/29 322
246. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Teachers and Employees Family Smapoornanad Sanskrit University and their families Bhadra Krishna Ashtmi 2053 347C/30 & 347C/31 35
247. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Jagat Guru Satkar Samiti, Gujarat 26.08.1979 347C/32 & 347C/33 323 Vol.3 Plff./ Rspdt PB 1646
248. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Bhal Chandra Pandey, B-4119, Hanuman Ghat, Varanasi 23.08.1998 347C/34 36 Vol.3 1647
249. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Giriraj Goswami (Anant), Gokul, Mathura. 24.05.1999 347C/35 324 Vol.3 1648
250. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Duli Chandra Rathore and family, Jhansi Road, Sagar 16.03.1974 347C/36 325 Vol.3 1649
251. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Rajshree Mahant Vaishnav Das and Religious people of Chhattisgarh 18.03.1974 347C/37 326 Vol.3 1650
252. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Residents of Ranchi 347C/38 to 347C/39 118 Vol.3 1651-1652
253. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Chancellor Punjab Singh 18.09.2005 347C/40 37 Vol.3 1653
254. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Devotees of Mirzapur Vindhya Region 03.07.2001 347C/41 327 Vol.3 1654
255. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by family members of Mazdoor Jyoti 26.08.2001 347C/42 38 Vol.3 1655
256. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Dr.Jai Prakash, Vdodara 05.03.1997 347C/43 328 Vol.3 1656
257. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) on 77th Birthday of Swami Sri Swaroopanand Saraswati Maharaj Ji 01.09.2000 347C/44 119 Vol.3 1657
258. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Manak Patel, Dr. Harbansh Singh, President, Janamsthali Nyas Gurudham, Sivani, M.P. 347C/45 329 Vol.3 1658
259. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Tara Bajoriaya, Kolkata 347C/46 120 Vol.3 1659
260. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Swatantrata Sangram Senani Sri Kanya Kubj Brahman Sabha, Kashi 347C/47 330 Vol.3 1660
261. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Yug Bhartiya Manch, M.P. 347C/48 331 Vol.3 1661
262. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Sri Ramdeo Bhakt Mandal 30.08.1998 347C/49 121 Vol.3 1662
263. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Yuva Bhartiya Manch, Moti Lal Nehru Palace, New Delhi, 347C/50 40 Vol.3 1663
264. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Sita Ram Youth Samiti, Muhammdabad, District Ghazipur 347C/51 332 Vol.3 1664
265. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Lions Club, Varanasi 29.09.1996 347C/52 and 347C/53 39 Vol.3 1665-1666
266. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Dilawar Khan, President, Islamia Qaumi Ekta Commmittee, District Narsinghpur, M.P. 08.09.1994 347C/54 and 347C/55 333 Vol.3 1667-1667
267. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Sri Dham Goregaon, Narsinghpur 05.09.1997 347C/56 and 347C/57 334 Vol.3 1668
268. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter), Narvati, Kashi Ashwin Shu.-6-2055 347C/58 and 347C/59 335
269. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter), by Pandit Jagmohan Mishra, Hathnapur, Garhva Sivani, M.P. Ashwin Shu.-6-2055 347C/60 and 347C/61 56
270. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter), All members of Maihar Gram Adhyatmik Utthan Mandal 347C/62 336
271. Declaration and nomination of Swami Swroopanand Ji Maharaj as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar by Vedic Brahmins in Dharma Sangh Shiksha Mandal Campus, Kashi following performance of Jalabhishek/Abhishek in different methods by Kashi's Swami Maheshwaranand Saraswati. 349C/1 337 Vol.3 1670
272. Delivery of heart touching welcome speech, welcoming Present Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami Nischalanand Ji Maharaj, Jyotirshpeethdhishwar of Puri Govardhan Peeth, by present Shankaracharya Evam Jagatguru Ramanandacharya Swami Ram Nareshacharya Ji Maharaj along with Jyotishpeethadheeshwsar and Shankaracharaya Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj in Akhil Bhartiya Virat Sadhu Mahatma Sammelan , Puri 349C/2 338 Vol.3 1671
273. Offering/covering with Patta (coronation) of Jyotishpeeth- -adheeshwar Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj by Acharya Challaram Shastri, representative, Shankaracharya of Sringeri, consequent upon the Jyothishpeeth-adhirohan and Pattabhishek ceremony. 349C/3 339 Vol.3 1672
274. Declaration by Swami Karpatri Ji Mahraj and Maheshwaranand Saraswati Ji, announcing name of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Ji Mahraj as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth and His Jalabhishek (anointment) amidst the chanting of Vedic hymns. 349C/4 340 Vol.3 1673
275. Swami Swaroopanand Ji Mahraj presiding over Kashi Vidvat Sabha, as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar and thereafter going out after participating in the aforesaid Vidvat Sabha 349C/5 341 Vol.3 1674
276. Photograph in Badrinath, exhibiting Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Ja. Sh. Swami Shankaracharya, Mata Lalita Amba, Founder of Manav Kalyan Ashram and photograph of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati on the occasion of Kalyananand Swarn Jayanti Mahotsava. 349C/6 342 Vol.3 1675
277. Consulting J.Sha. Swaroopa Nand Ji , President, Ram Janma Bhoomi Nyas with Abhinandan Guru Shankar Ved Chaitanya Brahmchari, President, Akhil Bhartiya Dharam angh 349C/7 343
278. Karpatri Ji Mahraj with Ja. Sha. Swaroopanand, Jyotishpeethadhishwar with his Guru Maheshwaranand Ji 349C/8 344 Vol.3 1676
279. The then Shankaracharya of the then Dwarka Peeth Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Teerth Ji Maharaj, enthroning Swaroopanand Saraswati on Jyotishpeeth holding his hands, after ceremony of Abhishek and Peethadhirohan 349C/9 345 Vol.3 1677
280. Felicitation of Ja. Sha. by Dwarika Peethadheesh Shankaracharya Ji Maharaj after the coronation; worshipping 'Paduka' of Ja. Sha. by Col. Ajay Mushran, Finance Minister of Madhya Pradesh, (on right) Central Minister Vidyacharan Shukla, right, Home Minister Katare, Forest and Transport Minister Haribansh Singh. 349C/10 346 Vol.3 1678
281. Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Shri Shivraj Singh Chauhan, worshiping Poojyapaad, Vishwa Hindu Parishad's President Shri Ashok Singhal having discussion with Shankaracharya 349C/11 347 Vol.3 1679
282. Abhishek of Shankaracharya of Puri Shankaracharya of Dwarka Swaroopanand at Jyotishpeeth, and below enthroned Jyotishpeeth Swaroopanand and Shankaracharya of Jagannath Puri 349C/12 348 Vol.3 1680
283. Pattabhishek (investiture/coronation/ installation) of Swaroopanand by Shankaracharyas of Puri and Dwarika a scene of aforesaid Abhishek.
349C/13 349 Vol.3 1681
284. Govindacharya and National Convener of Ram Janam Bhoomi Punruddhar Samiti and all its staff, attending a Programmeme with Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj and performing Paduka-poojan. Peethadheeshwar Vishwevra Teerth Ji felicitating Nepal Naresh Ji Gyanendra, Queen and Swami Swaroopanand Ji. Swami Swaroopanand Ji 349C/14 350 Vol.3 1682
285. Mandal Mishra, Kulpati Sampoornanand garlanding Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj, Parmeshwar Nath Mishra handing treatise to Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj 349C/15 351 Vol.3 1683
286. Abhinav Sachichidanand Teerth Ji attending the chatuspeeth Sammelan held at Shrigeripeeth along with Shankaracharya of Shrigeripeeth and the then Shankaracharya of Jyotispeeth. 349C/16 352 Vol.3 1684
287. Swami Bharti Teerth and Swami Swaroopanand Ji on the same podium 349C/17 353 Vol.3 1685
288. One more photo showing Govindacharya and Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Swami Swaroopanand Ji with the present Shankaracharya of Shringeri. Punya Shobhayatra in Prayag Mela and the Prashasak of Shringeripeeth Shri V.R. Gaurishankar, receiving orders from Jyotishpeethadheeshwar at Dwarika Math. 349C/18 354 Vol.3 1686
289. Acharyas of Juna Akhara Mandaleshwar Swami Awadheshanand Ji Maharaj with Ja. Sha. Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj. Garlanding of Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Ji by the aforesaid Swami Awadheshanand Ji Maharaj, and a Minister from Chhatisgarh State Shri Ravindra Chaubey, welcoming Ja. Sha. Swami Swaroopanand Ji 349C/19 355 Vol.3 1687
290. In a Programmeme, Puri Shankaracharya, Agni Peethadheeshwar, President of Bharat Sadhu Samaj and Kashi Peethedheeshwar and others with Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj The then Shankaracharya of Shringeri, Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj 349C/20 356 Vol.3 1688
291. The then Shringeri Peethadheeshwar Jagadguru Swami Abhinav Vidya Teerth Ji performing Abhishek of Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Ja. Sha. Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj as Shankaracharya at Dwarika Peeth. 349C/21 357 Vol.3 1689
292. In one Programmeme, Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Swaroopanand Ji with the Shankaracharya of Shringeri; glimpse of temple and informal discussion with the Shankaracharya of Shringeri Swami Bharti Ji, renowned Vedanta scholar and with members and the Vice Chancellor of S.S.V.; Swaroop Mishra receiving blessings from Jyotishpeethadheeshwar; famous Bhajan Singer Manoj Tiwari in service of Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj 349C/22 358 Vol.3 1690
293. Madhwacharya Swami Vishweshar Teerth Ji Maharaj sitting in close proximity to Shringeri Shankaracharya, Central Minister Shri Vidyadhar Shukla and Kamalnath felicitating Ja. Sha. Swami Swaroopanand. 349C/23 359 Vol.3 1691
294. Acharaya Abhinandan of Jyotishpeethadheeshwar and Shringeri Peethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Ji Maharaj (Swaroopanand Ji) by Shri Ramanandacharya 349C/24 360 Vol.3 1692
295. Another scene of the aforesaid, Kashi Peethadheeshwar, present Shankaracharya Ji of Puri Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj and Jagad Guru Ramanandacharya Maharaj. 349C/25 361 Vol.3 1693
296. Shankaracharya Ji of Puri and Jyotishpeeth, in a massive saints' conference, Jyotishpeethadheeshwar and other devotees. Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Ja. Sha. Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj in discussion with the present Shankaracharya of Puri. 349C/26 362 Vol.3 1694
297. In one Programmeme, present Shankaracharya of Puri sharing podium with Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Ji Maharaj and Ja. Sha. Madhwacharya Swami Vishwesh Teerth, president of the council with Mahant Gyandas Maaharaj Ji, welcome of Maharaj Ji by freedom fighters. 349C/27 363 Vol.3 1695
298. President Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma with Maharaj Ji, 349C/28 364 Vol.3 1696
299. Sonia Gandhi with Swami Swaroopa Nand Ji Maharaj 349C/29 365 Vol.3 1697
300. Swami Swaroopa Nand Ji Maharaj with Shankaracharya of Puri 349C/30 366 Vol.3 1698
301. Swami Swaroopa Nand Ji Maharaj with Nepal Nath 349C/31 367 Vol.3 1699
302. Mothi Lal Ghera worshipping Swami Swaroopa Nand Ji Maharaj 349C/32 368 Vol.3 1700
303. Sri Suresh Ram, Kendriya Mantri, Sri Ram Janam Bhumi.
349C/33 369 Vol.3 1701
304. Prime Minister and Central Government Minister, Vice President Shankar Dayal Sharma with Swami Swaroopa Nand Ji Maharaj 349C/34 370 Vol.3 1702
305. Swami Swaroopa Nand Ji Maharaj with Sri Mandan Mishra 349C/35 349C/36 349C/37 371 372 373 Vol.3 1703
306. Swami Swaroopa Nand Ji Maharaj with Sri Ratnakar Pandey 349C/38 349C/39 374 375 Vol.3 1704
307. Swami Swaroopa Nand Ji Maharaj with Vice Chancellor Smapoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidlaya 349C/40 376 Vol.3 1705-1709
308. Welcome in Smapoornanand Vishwavidyalaya 349C/41 377 Vol.3 1710
309. Welcome of Maharaj Ji with Freedom Fighters 349C/42 378 Vol.3 1711
310. Jyotishpeethadheeshwar being welcomed by the Mandaladhyaksh of Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Sewa Mandal Shri Ram Kishore Sharma 349C/43 379 Vol.3 1712
311. In both the photos above and below, Hon'ble Prime Minister P.V. Narsimha Rao with Maharaj Ji 349C/44 380 Vol.3 1713
312. Panchagni Akhara Mahant Gopalanand with Maharaj Ji, President of Dharam Sangh Shankar Dev Ji with Maharaj Ji. 349C/45 381 Vol.3 1714
313. Photo with Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Digvijay Singh 349C/46 382 Vol.3 1715
314. Photo with Gorakhpur University's Vice Chancellor R.K. Mishra and Ambwani Ji of Reliance Group 349C/47 383 Vol.3 1716
315. Maharaj Ji on the occasion of Sampoornanand Foundation Day, Ajeet Jogi with Maharaj Ji, 349C/48 384 Vol.3 1717
316. Photo with Kashi Naresh and Shringeri Peeth's Mudra Adhikari Pawan Shastri 349C/49 385 Vol.3 1718
317. Photo with the saints from Ayodhya in a massive saints' mega conference 349C/50 386 Vol.3 1719
318. Photo with Shri Vedanti Ji, Asht Siddhi Hanuman Mandir, Awadh Praant Udasin 349C/51 387 Vol.3 1720
319. Shri Vishram Singh and Ashok Bhadoria with Uttaranchal University 349C/52 388 Vol.3 1721
320. Photo with Kashi scholars, and artists 349C/53 389 Vol.3 1722
321. Teejan Bai with Radheyshyam Khemka 349C/54 390 Vol.3 1723
322. Maharaj Ji with with Prof. Shiv Ji Upahdhyay of Kashi Vidwat Parishad with learned persons of Kashi. 349C/55 391 Vol.3 1724
323. Mahant Virbhadra of Sankat Mochan with the members of the Vidwat Parishad on the occasion of Janmotsava, 349C/56 392 Vol.3 1725
324. Welcome of the governor of Chhatisgarh by Rajendra Mishra.
349C/57 393 Vol.3 1726
325. Maharaj Ji along with Agni Peethadhishwar Krishnanand Swami Yogendra Sarswati and Madhwacharya. 349C/58 394 Vol.3 1727
326. Photo with Pandit Jasraj, Kathawachak Kankeshwari and Narendra Sarswati.
349C/59 395 Vol.3 1728
327. Photo with Gopalanand, Ramesh Chandra Ojha along with Keshu Bhai Patel.
349C/60 396 Vol.3 1729
328. The scene of Shobhayatra (grand procession), two photographs 349C/61 397 Vol.3 1730
329. Shankarcharya of Shrigneri Jyotishpeethadhishwar Ja.Sha. Swami Swaroopanand Ji Maharaj along with Shringeri Peethadhishwar Ja. Sha. Swami Bharati Teerth Ji and Ramanandacharya Swami Ram Nareshacharya, Dharm Samrat Swami Karpatri Ji Maharaj, Swami Krishna Bodhashram Ji and renowned signer Anoop Jalota with Ja. Sha. Swaroppnanad Ji. 349C/62 398 Vol.3 1731
330. Along with Shankaracharya.
349C/63 399 Vol.3 1732
331. Maharaj Ji along with Lokpati Tripathi.
349C/64 400 Vol.3 1733
332. Along-with members of the Kashi Vidwat Parishad during recitation of the national anthem. 349C/65 401 Vol.3 1734
333. Congregation of learned persons in Vedic scriptures Along with Mahant of Ayodhya. 349C/66 402 Vol.3 1735
334. Along with Kedarnath, Justice Giridhar Malviya.
349C/67 403 Vol.3 1736
335. Along-with Kashi Naresh 349C/68 404 Vol.3 1737
336. Conference of Hindu-Muslim, two photographs 349C/69 405 Vol.3 1738
337. Along-with Muslim religious persons 349C/70 406 Vol.3 1739
338. Four photographs during the Shobhayatra (grand procession) in Prayag.
349C/72 407 Vol.3 1741
339. Along with Mahants of Naranjani, Phool and Awahan Akharas.
349C/73 408 Vol.3 1742
340. Three photographs along-with many saints Jagatguru Madhavacharya of Ayodhya, along with Pancha Anant Annapurna partinidhi (five representatives) of Shringeri, along with with Shankaracharya Ramanandacharya of Puri. 349C/74 409 Vol.3 1743
341. Along with Ramanandacharya, Haridharacharya, Murari Chaitanya Ji of Agni Akara, Mahant Parmanand Sarswati of Akhara and Avadheshnannd Parmanand. 349C/75 410 Vol.3 1744
342. Along with Agni Peethadhishwar, Juna Peethadheeshwar Awadheshanand.
349C/76 411 Vol.3 1745
343. Along with Gopalanand Bapu, Mahant Vishwanath Das Sarwati and Secretary of Juna Akhara. 349C/77 412 Vol.3 1746
344. With president of Badrinath Kedarnath Samiti,Shankar Dayal Sharma, scholars and renowned persons, on the occasion of Janmotswa Mahraj Ji 349C/78 413 Vol.3 1747
345. Along with Shri Prakash Jaiswal and Secretary of the Shringeripeeth.
349C/79 414 Vol.3 1748
346. Along-with Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Digvijay Singh.
349C/80 415 Vol.3 1749
347. Letter of Shri Ramjanam Bhumi Ramalaya Trust Nyas, Chief Trusty Sarpanch Bhagwan Das 15.09.96 351A/1 416
348. Letter of Sh. Badrinath Kedarnath Mandir Committee 12.04.05 351A/2 417
349. Letter of Sh. R.K. Niglani, Environment and Forest Minister 31.05.95 351 A/1/E-3 418 Vol.3 Plff./ Rspdt PB 1752
350. Letter from President House, Government of India 04.02.73 351 A/1/ E-4 419 Vol.3 1753
351. Letter from Ministry of Commerce, India 16.09.74 351 A/1/ E-5 420 Vol.3 1754
352. Letter of P.G. Makalankar, Member of Parliament 23.11.73 351 A/1/ E-6 421 Vol.3 1755
353. Letter of D.K. Rawal King Jain Saheb, Jam Nagar 27.11.73 351 A/1/ E-7 422 Vol.3 1756
354. Letter of Minister of State for Shipping, Transportation and Parliamentary Affairs dated 24.12.73 351 A/1/ E-8 423 Vol.3 1757
355. Letter of Mahamandleshwar Swami Bhajnanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj 28.11.73.
351 A/1/ E-9 424 Vol.3 1758
356. Letter of Deputy Minister for Irrigation and Energy 23.11.73.
351 A/1/ E-10 425 Vol.3 1759
357. Letter of Governor, Tamilnadu.
16.09.74 351 A/1/ E-11 426 Vol.3 1760
358. Letter of Jagannath Prasad Jalan.
28.11.73 351 A/1/ E-12 427 Vol.3 1761
359. Letter of Ajit r/o Palace Dhrangadhara.
27.11.73.
351 A/1/ E-13 428 Vol.3 1762
360. Letter of Chaturamyan Jagatguru Shankaracharya, Representative, Committee 03.10.81 351 A/1/ E-14 429 Vol.3 1763
361. Letter of Mahabalak Shri, Mantri 08.01.79.
351 A/1/ E-15 430 Vol.3 1764
362. Letter of Shri Sanatan Dharm Sabha 15.05.96.
351 A/1/ E-16 & 17 431 Vol.3 1765
363. Letter of Shri Ram Janam Bhumi Punruddhar Samiti 28.01.95 351 A/1/ E-18-20 432 Vol.3 1766-1769
364. Letter of Ujjain Mahakaal Mandir.
Astami Samvat 2055.
351 A/1/ E-21 433 Vol.3 1770
365. Letter of General Administration Department, MP.
23.01.86.
351 A/1/ E-22 434 Vol.3 1771
366. Letter of Income Tax Department 28.01.01.
351 A/1/ E-23 435 Vol.3 1772
367. Letter of Transport Department, MP 25.05.98.
351 A/1/ E-24 436 Vol.3 1773
368. Letter of Sh. Dwarika Sharda Peeth Ashwin Shukla Purnima 2030 351 A/1/ E-25 437 Vol.3 1774
369. Letter of Bhagwan Das Sarpanch Akhara, Executive Committee Parishad 19.02.95 351 A/1/ E-26 438 Vol.3 1775
370. Letter of Shri Jairam Ashram Haridwar.
02.03.95.
351 A/1/ E-27 439 Vol.3 1776
371. Letter of the Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs 14.09.74.
351 A/1/ E-28 440 Vol.3 1777
372. Letter of Minister for Communication 13.09.74.
351 A/1/ E-29 441 Vol.3 1778
373. Letter of Triloki Das Khandelwal 30.08.94.
351 A/1/ E-30 442 Vol.3 1779
374. Letter of Shri Ram Chandra Ji Dongre Foundation Trust, Ayodhya 15.9.96.
351 A/1/ E-31 443 Vol.3 1780
375. Letter of Shri Vibhushit Jagatguru Ramanujacharya Swami Madhwacharya Ji Maharaj, Asharfi Bhawan, Ayodhya. 14.09.96.
351 A/1/ E-32 444 Vol.3 1781
376. Letter of Ganga Nath Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth.
19.01.96.
351 A/1/ E-33 445 Vol.3 1782
377. Letter of Swami Virendranand Giri.
351 A/1/ E-34 446 Vol.3 1783
378. Letter of Akhil Bhartiya Dharamvir Dal Samiti.
15.9.04.
351 A/1/ E-35 447 Vol.3 1784
379. Letters Shri Mansha Mata Mandir Sewa Trust.
19.12.95.
351 A/1/ E-36 to 37 448 Vol.3 1765-1786
380. Letter of Bhagwan Parshuram Jayanti Samaroh Samiti 27.05.92.
351 A/1/ E-38 449 Vol.3 1787
381. Letter of U.P. Swantantra Sangram Senani Sangthan 14.06.94.
351 A/1/ E-39 450 Vol.3 1788
382. Letter of Rajendra Prasad Shukla, Minister for Water Resources, Parliamentary Affairs, Law and Legal Affairs, M.P. 23.11.94.
351 A/1/ E-40 451 Vol.3 1789
383. Letter of Akhil Bhartiya Gyanwapi Mukti Maha Parishad.
25.03.99.
351 A/1/ E-41 452 Vol.3 1790
384. Letters of Shri Shyam Mitra Mandal 09.11.94.
351 A/1/ E-42 & 43 453 Vol.3 1792-1793
385. Letter of Swami Sitaram Saran Laxman Kiladheesh 14.09.96.
351 A/1/ E-44 454 Vol.3 1794
386. Letter of Madhya Pradesh Yuva Congress-I 351 A/1/ E-45 455 Vol.3 1795
387. Letter of British High Commission 17.09.74.
351 A/1/ E-46 456 Vol.3 1796
388. Letter from Newspapers containing impressive regional news, Dainik Udyog Aas Pass 16.09.94.
351 A/1/ E-47 457 Vol.3 1797
389. Letter of Shri Hanuman Jayanti Utsav Samiti 18.11.80.
351 A/1/ E-48 458 Vol.3 1798
390. Letter of Prayas Prakashan 26.09.96.
351 A/1/ E-49 459 Vol.3 1799
391. Letter of Mahant Lakshman Das Shashtri, President, Sadhu Sant Samaj Sangthan, M.P. 351 A/1/ E-50 460 Vol.3 1800
392. Letter of Triloki Das Khandelwal 26.12.92 351 A/1/ E-51 461 Vol.3 1801
393. Letter of Pandit Radhey Sharma, President - Shri Ram Charit Manas Sammelan.
351 A/1/ E-52 462 Vol.3 1802
394. Letter of Pandit Gunanand Shankar Dutt Nautiyal.
25.11.87 351 A/1/ E-53 463 Vol.3 1803
395. Letter of Bhawana Gaur, Vice President- Shahar Congress Committee, Meerut 17.11.92.
351 A/1/ E-54 464 Vol.3 1804
396. Letter of Prime Minister, Government of India.
29.05.95 351 A/1/ E-55 465 Vol.3 1805
397. Letter of Ved Shrottejak Sabha, Pune 06.11.87.
351 A/1/ E-56 466 Vol.3 1806
398. Letter of Hiran Mahotsava 12.12.83.
351 A/1/ E-57 467 Vol.3 1807
399. Letter of Dr. S.P. Mishra, Lecturer, Harishchandra Degree College, Varanasi 7.2.2000 351 A/1/ E-58 468 Vol.3 1808
400. Letter of Pandit Raj Kishore Gandwal Rajabhai Ganpati Garment, Upper Bazaar, Joshi Math. 11.06.05.
351 A/1/ E-59 469 Vol.3 1809
401. Letter of Shri Shri Vidya Dham.
26.05.01.
351 A/1/ E-60-61 470 Vol.3 1810
402. Letter of Dr. Gajanand Sharma through District Magistrate, Varanasi .
28.07.90 351 A/1/ E-62 471 Vol.3 1811
403. Letter of Akhil Bhartiya Gram Pradhan Sangthan, U.P. 31.01.95.
351 A/1/ E-63 472 Vol.3 1812
404. Letter of Prime Minister Narshingha Rao 351 A/1/ E-64 473 Vol.3 1813
405. Letter of Shashi Dhar Pujari Joteshwar Mandir.
13.03.78.
351 A/1/ E-65 474 Vol.3 1814
406. Letter of Shri Bharat Dharm Mahamandal 30.11.71.
351 A/1/ E-66 475 Vol.3 1815
407. Telegram 351 A/1/ E-67 476 Vol.3 1816
408. Letter of Maharaja Bhanu Pratap Singh Narsingh Garh.
21.07.03.
351 A/1/ E-68-69 477 Vol.3 1817-1818
409. Letter of Keshavaraj Agrawal Kalyan Kalptaru Geeta Press.
351 A/1/ E-70 478 Vol.3 1819
410. Telegram 351 A/1/ E-71 479 Vol.3 1820
411. Telegram 351 A/1/ E-72 480 Vol.3 1821
412. Letter of Madhav Rao Sindhia, Civil Aviation and Tourism 04.09.91 351 A/1/ E-73 481 Vol.3 1822
413. Letter of President House 04.12.73.
351 A/1/ E-74 482 Vol.3 1823
414. Copy of Trust Deed.
23.05.1941 351 A/1/ E-75-78 483 Vol.3 1824-1825
415. Letter of S. Gupta 14.07.95.
351 A/1/ E-79 484 Vol.3 1826
416. Letter of Shri Jairam Ashram 01.12.73.
351 A/1/ E-80 485 Vol.3 1827
417. Letter by Secretary Incharge Shri Bharat Dharam Mahamandal to Pandit Bal Krishan Mishra Attested on 27.5.1975.
11.05.1941 27.07.75 353A/1F to 10 486 Vol.3 1830-1840
418. Letter of Swami Shantanand Saraswati 16.11.62 353A/11 487 Vol.3 1811-1845
419. Letter from Muslim Sammelan 05.10.03 353A/12 488 Vol.3 1846
420. Letter from Acharya Sabha Samvat 2056 353A/13 489 Vol.3 1847
421. Certificate with signatures of Acharyas of Kashi Vidwat Parishad in Kashi Vishwanath Mandir 353A/14 490 Vol.3 1848
422. Letter of Pandit Ramesh Chandra Sadashiv Vaishya 07.09.05 353A/15 491 Vol.3 1849
423. Letter of Jai Pal Singh, Former Minister of Home, Madhya Pradesh 02.01.93 353A/16 to 353A/19 492 Vol.3 1850
424. Letter from Bharat Dharam Mahamandal 07.04.01 353A/20 493 Vol.3 1850
425. Copy of Writ No. 29072/2006 Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Vs. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Allahabad and one other. 358C/1 to 358C/18 494 Vol.4 1881-1898
426. Copy of Amendment Application in Writ No. 29072/2006 Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Vs. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Allahabad and one other. 359C/1 to 359C/4 495 Vol.4 1899-1902
427. Copy of affidavit Writ No. 29072/2006 Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Vs. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Allahabad and one other. 360C/1 to 360C/3 496 Vol.4 1903-1905
428. Copy of order in Writ No. 29072/2006 Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Vs. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Allahabad and one other. 03.07.2006 362C/1 & 362C/2 (361C/4) 497 Vol.4 1906-1907
429. Negative, (Statement of Nijanand Brahamchari PW 23) 500A/2 88 Vol.1 278 to 300
430. Negative, (Statement of Nijanand Brahamchari PW 23) 500A/3 89 Vol.1 278 to 300
431. Negative, (Statement of Nijanand Brahamchari PW 23) 500A/4 90 Vol.1 278 to 300
432. Negative, (Statement of Nijanand Brahamchari PW 23) 500A/5 91 538 278 to 300
433. Negative, (Statement of Nijanand Brahamchari PW 23) 500A/6 92 Vol.1 278 to 300
434. Negative, (Statement of Nijanand Brahamchari PW 23) 500A/7 93 Vol.1 278 to 300
435. Negative, (Statement of Nijanand Brahamchari PW 23) 500A/8 94 Vol.1 278 to 300
436. Negative, (Statement of Nijanand Brahamchari PW 23) 500A/9 95 Vol.1 278 to 300
437. Copy of the judgement of Civil Judge-IV, Varanasi in Case No. 93/80, Swami Dwarkeshanand Vs Swami Vishnuedevanand and Shantanand Sarswati. 25.10.1980 538C/7 to 538C/9 138 Vol.4 1986 to 1989
438. Copy of the orders in Case no. 93/80 Dwarkeshanand Vs Vishnudevanand.
27.01.1994 to 19.02.2008 538C/10 to 538C/16 139 Vol.4 1986 to 1989
439. Copy of the plaint in case no. 955/1989 titled as Dwarkeshanand Vs Vasudevanand.
538C/17 to 538C/24 140
440. Copy of the application by tenants of Shri Krishnanand Sarswati Trust for depositing rent in the name of Swami Swaroopanand 538C/25 -34 141
441. True copy of Case No. 6 of 2005 u/s 107/116 IPC 538C/35-39 142
442. Copy of judgement passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chamoli in original suit no. 7/98, titled as 'Swami Swaroopanand Sarswati Vs Indu Prasad Upadhyay' and in another matter, the said respondents were restrained. 24.02.2003 538C/41 to 538C/43 143
443. Copy of judgement in case no. 13A/2003, Swami Swaroopanand Sarswati Vs Proprietor, Asia Scientific Gayatri Pathshala. 07.01.2003 538C/44 to 538C/48 144
444. CA 1148/08 True copy, order dated 8.4.2006 08.04.2006 538C/44-50 144
445. Copy of decree in the aforesaid case.
538C/49 to 538C/50 498
446. Copy of the judgement in the case titled as 'Swami Swaroopanand Sarswati Vs Proprietor Katiya Toppers', case No. 40A/03. 12.09.2006 538C/51 to 538C/54 145
447. Copy of the decree in the aforesaid case.
538C/55 499
448. Copy of the judgement in case no. 44A/03, Swami Swaroopanand Vs Kalam Scooter.
12.09.2006 538C/57 to 538C/62 146
449. CA 1151/08, True copy, order dated 8.4.2006 12.9.2006 538C/63-68 147
450. CA 1154/08, True copy, order dated 12.9.2006 12.9.2006 538C/63-68 148
451. CA 1157/08 True copy, order dated 7.4.2006 538C/75-79 149
452. True copy of judgment in C.A.1151 of 2008 538C/63-68 147
453. CA 1158/08 True copy, order dated 7.4.2006 538C/80-84 150
454. CA 1156/08 True copy, order dated 7.4.2006 538C/85-89 151
455. CA 1155/08 True copy, order dated 7.4.2006 538C/90-94 152
456. Copy of the judgement passed by the Jabalpur Court against the tenants in favour of Swami Swaroopanand. 538C/63 to 538C/94 147 to 152
457. Copy of the judgement in the appeal no. 11/07, Gulati Enterprises Vs Swami Swaroopanand. 04.07.07 538C/95 to 538C/99 153
458. Copy of First Appeal no. ..of 2007 and copy of order 13.04.2007 538C/100-104 154
459. Copy of the 5-year Khasara of Jaardguru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeeth Mandir Shri Laxmi Narayan, Khasara of Mauja Saraud, Khasara of Patan, Khasara of Gayatri Sanskrit Pathshala and Khasara of Math Taal. Form 02.01.2008 538C/105 155 Vol.4 2080
460. Copy of 5- year Khasra 02.01.2008 538C/106 156 Vol.4 2080
461. Copy of 5- year Khasra 20.12.2007 538C/107 157 Vol.4 2083
462. True copy of application 20.12.2007 538C/108 158 Vol.4 2081
463. True copy of application 02.01.2008 538C/109 159
464. Original mukhtarnama by Rajendra Prasad Mihsra.
538C/110 to 538C/114 160
465. The statement of Chandrashekhar Shastri in the case No. 3/54; who had proved that abhishek (investiture) of Krishna Bodhashram was performed at Joshi Math. 538C/115 to 538C/121 161
466. Certified copy of employees' address register number 1, Geeta Press Gorakhpur Shri Ram Ji Tripathi S/o Lal Bihari 538C/122 162
467. Copy of certificate issued by Manager, certifying that Sri Ram Ji Tripathi had been Kar Binder at Geeta Press Gorakhpur. 538C/123 163
468. Copy of information dated 19.04.2008 given through certified photocopy dated 5.10.1989, by the Inspector, Sanskrit Pathsaalayein, Allahabad, U.P. to Shri Ajai Tiwari Advocate under Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of substantive appointment of Somnath Dwivedi in pay-scale of Rs. 650-1989 on 10.08.1979. 19.04.2008 538C/124 500 Vol.4 2087
469. Copy of information given under the Right to Information Act, 2005, through certified copy dated 05.10.1989 regarding fixation of seniority of Manager and Assistant Teachers of Jyotishpeeth Sanskrit,thereby fixing seniority of Shri Raj Narayan Tripathi, Head of Department in Sahitya (Literature) at number 1 and that of Shri Somnath Dwivedi, Head of Department in Vedant at number 3. 5.10.1989 538C/125 131 Vol.4 2088
470. Report under Right to Information Act 11.09.1991 538C/126 132 Vol.4 2089
471. Report under Right to Information Act 11.09.1991 538C/127 133 Vol.4 2090
472. Report under Right to Information Act 16.10.1991 538C/128 134 Vol.4 2091 to 2096
473. Report under Right to Information Act 16.10.1991 538C/134 135 Vol.4 2091 to 2096
474. Copy of show cause notice u/s 314 of the Siksha Samhita (Education Code) pertaining to irregularities committed by two teachers in the school, thereby charging Shri Somnath Dwivedi, Head of Department (Vedant), of misappropriating Government Money to the tune of Rs. 6,915/- availed towards foreign journeys, for two weeks from 10.12.1982 and further from 5.2.1983 to 4.4.1983 (total 73 days) and similarly, charging Sri Shivarchan Upadhyay of misusing Government Money to the tune of Rs. 3,389/-, as stated in paragraph 5 at page number 2. 10.12.1982 & 05.02.1983 to 04.04.1983 538C/126 to 538C/127 132 to 133 Vol.4 2089
475. The clarification given by Shri Baburam Tripathi, Prabandhak (Manager) Shri Jyotishpeeth Mahavidyalaya Alopi Bagh, Aallahabad to Director of Education, Samanya-2, Vistar Anubhag, Allahabad, with respect to details of salary paid to Somnath Dwivedi and Shivarchan Prasad Upadhyay while being on leave for foreign journey for 73 days as stated in paragraph no.2, page no.5. 16.10.1991 538C/128 to 538C/134 134 to 135 Vol.4 2091 to 2097
476. Receipt of required amount deposited for copy.
23.04.2008 538C/135 501 Vol.4 2099
477. Copy of the order given to Swami Vasudevanand by Registrar, Societies & Chits, Allahabad informing that he had been restrained from declaring himself as 'Shankaracharya'. 12.01.2005 538C/136 to 538C/137 Vol.4 2101 to 2102
478. A letter given to Assistant Registrar, Chit Fund.
538C/138 to 538C/140 502 Vol.4 2103
479. Photocopy of the details of budget (income and expenditure) for the year 1988-1989 sent by Managers of Sanskrit Pathshalas of Uttar Pradesh financially aided by Education Department of Uttar Pradesh, details furnished by Manager, Jyotishpeeth Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Alopibagh, contained in total 9 pages; showing payment of the salary made despite being on foreign tour and forged signatures, as mentioned at page no.3 and tendering resignation by Shri Somnath Dwivedi from his post on 13.11.1989 and thus being relieved from duty from the said date, as stated in column 4 of page no.5 03.03.1990 13.11.1989 538C/141 136 Vol.4 2104
480. Account of income and expenditure for the year 1988-1989.
538C/142 to 538C/149 503 Vol.4 2105 to 2106
481. Certified copy of photocopy of permission letter no. 4-2 Vistar 92-93 for appointment of Manager of Jyotishpeeth, Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Prayag, Allahabad, granted by Director of Education, U.P., Shi.-2 Vistar/Anubhag, Allahabad, stating the said vacancy caused on account of resignation by Somnath Dwivedi. 04.08.1992 13.11.1989 538C/150 137
482. Certified copy of the mutation on the basis of order in Appeal no. 56/1997, Swami Swaroopanand Sarswati Vs Vasudevanand Sarswati 538C/151 to 538C/157 164
483. Letter of Jagatguru Shankaracharya Mahasansthanam Dakshinamnyay Shri Sharda Peetham Shringeri Peeth, sent by B.R. Gauri Shankar on behalf of Jagatguru to Swami Avikteshwaranand Saraswati informing that declarations of May 1979 and 1993 are sent along with photographs 28.08.2006 540 C/16 504 Vol.7, Plff/ Respt PB.
3123-3124
484. Declarations signed by Bharti Tirth Shringeri Mathadheesh, Swaroopanand Saraswati Dwarkia Mathadheesh, again Swaroopanand Saraswati JtotirMathadheesh, Nichhalanand Saraswati Puri Mathadheesh, Jayant Saraswati, Kanchi Peethadheeshwar. 27.06.1993 540C/17 & 540C/18 505 Vol.7 3125-3126
485. Photographs and negatives 540C/23 to 52 169-197 Vol.7 3127-3178
486. Message signed by Shringeri Peethadheeshwar Vidyateerth, Jyotispeethadheeshwar Swaroopanand Saraswati, Govardhan Peethadheeshwar and Abhinav Sachhidanand Teerth Dwarika Peethadheeshwar. 540C/19 506 Vol.7 3126
487. Photographs of all the aforesaid Shankaracharyas worshipping together 540 C/20 181 Vol.7 3127
488. Photograph of the plaintiff with the Shankaracharyas.
540 C/21 182 Vol.7 3127
489. Photograph of Krishna Bodhashram with other Shankaracharyas 540 C/22 183 Vol.7 3127
490. Bill/ Cash memo of photographer Tiwari 540 C/23 184 Vol.7 3129
491. Photograph along with negative of Banglamukhi, Jabalpur.
540 C/24 to 24/1 185 Vol.7 3131
492. Photographs with negative of the Banglamukhi Temple.
540 C/25 to 540 C/27 186 to 188 Vol.7 3132
493. Photograph with negative of the compound of Banglamukhi Temple Ashram 540 C/28 189
494. Photograph of the building of Banglamukhi Ashram, being place for stay of plaintiff Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, Jyotispeethadheeshwar and Dwarika Sharda Peethadeeshwar. 540 C/29 190
495. Photograph with negative of Shankaracharya Math Banglamukhi Temple.
540 C/30 191
496. Photo with negative of Banglamukhi Temple 540 C/31 192
497. Photo with negative of Yagyashala constructed by the plaintiff in the Banglamukhi Ashram. 540 C/32 193
498. Photograph with negative of Banglamukhi Ashram, Jabalpur.
540 C/33 194
499. Photograph with negative of Shankaracharya Ashram, Banglamukhi, Jabalpur.
540 C/34 195
500. Photograph with negative of Banglamukhi Ashram 540 C/35 196
501. Photograph with negative of new building in Banglamukhi Ashram constructed by the plaintiff 540 C/36 197
502. File no.2/2 Invitation Letter.
92-143 198
503. File no.2/3 Photograph digital 44-181 199
504. File no.2/4 Photograph digital 182-251/ 3 200
505. Photograph with negative of Banglamukhi Gate 540 C/37 507
506. Photograph with negative of temple situated at Banglamukhi Ashram 540 C/38 508
507. Photograph with negative of Banglamukhi Ashram/ Temple 540 C/39 509
508. Photograph with negative of Shankaracharya Math.
540 C/40 510 Vol.7 3137
509. Photograph with negative of Shankaracharya Math Lakshmi Narayan Temple, Ramnagara. 540 C/41 511
510. Photographs with negative of Lakshmi Narayan Temple Ramnagra.
540 C/42 to 540 C/45 512
511. Photograph with negative of Garbha Grih of Lakshmi Narayan Temple 540 C/46 513 Vol.7 3143
512. Photograph with negative of Pakka Ghat Ramnagra.
540 C/46 to 540 C/49 513 Vol.7 3144 to 3146
513. Photograph with negative of Shri Shankaracharya Agricultural Farm Ramnagra, Tilwaraghat, Jabalpur 540 C/50 to 540 C/52 514 Vol.7 3147 to 3149
514. Photograph of plaintiff Jyotishpeethadheeshwar with Shankaracharyas of the other Peeths . 540 C/53 to 540 C/54.
515 Vol.7 3150 to 3153
515. Photograph of the plaintiff with Shringeri Peethadheeshwar 540 C/55 to 540 C/57 516 Vol.7 3150 to 3153
516. Photograph of the plaintiff sitting with Dwarika Peethadheeshwar at the time of his Abhishek ceremony as Jyotishpeethadheeshwar at Delhi 540 C/58 to 540 C/61 517 Vol.7 3150 to 3153
517. Photograph of Rajju Bhaiya, Sanchalak, Rastriya Swayam Sewak Sangh discussing with Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Ji Mahraj 540 C/62 518 Vol.7 3154
518. Photograph of Sh. Sunder Lal Bahuguna and R.S.S. Chief Sh. Rajju Bhaiya sitting beside Singhasaseen Jyotispeeth-adheeshwar Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj at Haridwar camp conducted by the Ganga Mahasabha 540 C/63 519 Vol.7 3154
519. Photographs of Sh. Ashok Singhal, President, Vishwa Hindu Parishad discussing with the plaintiff 540 C/64 to 540/66 520 Vol.7 3155
520. Photograph no. 51 of Ashok Singhal, President, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, taking blessings from the plaintiff 540 C/67 521 Vol.7 3156
521. Photograph No. 52 Jagatguru Ramanandacharya with Nischalanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj and Ramnareshacharya sitting on the podium on the occasion of Shatabdi Mahatsav 540 C/68 522 Vol.7 3157
522. Photograph No. 53 of Swami Avimukteshwaranand, representative and disciple of plaintiff Jyotispeedheeshwar and Puri Peethadheeshwar with Yogi Adityanath, MP, BJP 540 C/69 523 Vol.7 3157
523. Photograph of the Chatuspeeth Sammelan held at Shrengeri Peeth in relation to "Ramsetu Bachao"
540C/70 524 Vol.7 3158
524. Photograph of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi performing Charan Poojan of plaintiff 540C/71 525 Vol.7 3158
525. Photographs 56 to 66 of the plaintiff with Shringeri Peethadheeshwar.
540C/72 to 540C/82 526 Vol.7 3159 to 3162
526. Paper of Akhil Bhartiya Hindu Suraksha Samiti 540C/79 201
527. Paper of Akhil Bhartiya Ved Prachar Parishad 540C/80 202
528. The envelope of letter sent to plaintiff's disciple Avimukteshwaranand by Dayanand Saraswati Karvinar H.D.A.S. 540C/83 527 Vol.7 3163
529. Signed Declaration given by the Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Convener of Hindu Dharm Acharya Sabha 540C/84 528 Vol.7 3163
530. Letter written on behalf of Swami Dayanand Saraswati to Swami Sutridanand Saraswati. 09.04.08 540C/85 529 Vol.7 3164
531. Letter declaring Krishbodhashram as Sankaracharya of the Jyotirmath 10.01.65.
540C/86 530 Vol.7 3165
532. Letter expressing happiness on installation of 4 feet high divine idol of Adi Guru Shankaracharya and granting recognition to plaintiff as Peethadheeshwar of Dwarika Peeth and Jyotispeeth. 540C/87 531 Vol.7 3166
533. Envelope 540C/88 532
534. Letter of Yogi Adityanath, addressing the plaintiff as Jyotispeethadheeshwar. 540C/89 533 Vol.7 3167
535. Letter sent by Karat Kesar Singh to Swami Swaroopanand 540C/90 534 Vol.7 3168
536. Letter sent by Akhil Bhartiya Peeth Parishad 540C/91 535 Vol.7 3169
537. Declaration of Setu Bandhu Rameshwaram Raksha Samiti signed by Nishchalanand Saraswati, Jyotispeethadheeshwar Swaroopanand, Kashi Peethadheeshwar Chinmayanand Saraswati and Kalika Peethadheeshwar Mahant Surendra Nath 09.03.2007 540C/92 536 Vol.7 3170
538. Letter of Shivji S. Navteke 16.02.2007 540C/93 537 Vol.7 3171
539. Letter of good wishes from the Chief Minister, Rajasthan 13.08.2002.
540C/94 538 Vol.7 3172
540. Letter of Swami Harinarayananand, Akhil Bhartiya Hindu Suraksha Samiti and Akhil Bhartiya Ved Prachar Samiti 27.01.2007 540C/95 539 Vol.7 3175
541. Letter of Rastriya Mantri, Bharat Sindhu Samaj.
540C/96 540 Vol.7 3176
542. Letters from various Hindu Societies addressing Swami Swaroopanand as Jyotispeethadheeshwar 540C/97 to 540C/101 541
543. Hindi translation of Shlokas of Mathamnay & Mahanushashnam by Kashi Vidwat Pashishad explaining meaning of Nigrah. 540C/102 542
544. Shankhnad (declaration) by all four Sankaracharyas on the occasion of 2500th Sanyas Diwas of Aadi Shankaracharya congregation held from 26.1.2001 to 28.11.2001 from a common stage wherein plaintiff participated as Jyotispeethadheshwar and Sharda Peethadheeshwar 540C/103 543 Vol.7 3190
545. Programme of Akhil Bhartiya Sanskrit Patra Karit Darshane Sanskrit Patrakar Sangoshthi. 540C/104 544 Vol.7 3193
546. Pamphlet of Conference organized by Virat Ramsetu Raksha Sabha, Ramleela Ground. 540C/105 545 Vol.7 3194
547. Letter of Kamal Kishor Agrawal, Ramleela Society, Parade, Meston Road, Kanpur at 540C/106 546 Vol.7 3195
548. Photograph no. 152 showing Sankaracharyas of all four Peeths in which plaintiff had participated as Jyotispeethadheeshwar and Sharda Peethadheeshwar. 540C/169
549. File no 2/3 Various photographs 540C/161 to 540C/198 199
550. File no. 2/4 Total 64 photographs 540C/199 to 540C/201 200
551. Photograph Nos 223, 223/1, 227/1, 228, 228/1 showing the Shankaracharyas of all four Peeths 547 Vol.7 3426, 3429 & 3430
552. Photograph no 240/1, 241/1 to 241/3, 242/1 and 242/2, 243/1, 244/1, 245 and 245/1, 246 to 246/3 and 249 showing Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati present with the Shankaracharyas of other Peeths. 548 Vol.7 3441 to 3445, 3447 & 3450
553. Paper no 343/1 contains papers A1 to A78 which are the original documents whereby Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati has been recognized as Jyotispeethadheeshwar and Dwarika Peethadheeshwar. A1 to A78 49 to 82
554. Will of Abhinav Sachhidanand Teerth by whereby Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati was nominated as Shankaracharya of the Dwarika Peeth. 11.01.1980 A-8 to A-11 47
555. Envelopes got printed by Vedant Bharti for inviting people in the Chatushpeetha Sammelan held at Bangalore from 12.05.07 to 20.05.07 12.05.07 to 20.05.07 92 198 Vol. 8 Plff/ Respt PB 3580-4363
556. Pamphlet for publicity of Bangalore Chatushpeetha Sammelan, 2007 2 198 Vol. 8 3581 & 3582
557. Letter of Director, Vedant Bharti 28.04.2008 3 132 Vol. 8 3583
558. Invitation card in Hindi for Bangalore Chatushpeetha Sammelan, 2007 4 549 Vol. 8 3585 3586
559. Invitation card in Kannada for Bangalore Chatushpeetha Sammelan,2007 5 550 Vol. 8 3587 3588
560. Invitation card in English for Bangalore Chatushpeetha Sammelan, 2007 6 551 Vol. 8 4589 3590
561. Extract of newspaper regarding convening of Vedanta Goshthi in Bangalore Chatushpeetha Sammelan, 2007 7 552 Vol. 8 3591
562. Extract of news item published in the newspaper 'Sanmarg' in connection with Bangalore Chatushpeetha Sammelan, 2007 8 553 Vol. 8 3593
563. Extract of news item published in a Kannada daily in connection with Karnatak-Bangalore Chatushpeetha Sammelan, 2007 with the photographs of Shankaracharyas of all the four peethas lightning the lamp. 20.05.07 9 554 Vol. 8 3594 to 3596
564. Times of India newspaper, Bangalore edition 21.05.2007 10 & 11 555 Vol. 8 3598
565. Deccan Herald newspaper 21.05.2007 12 556 Vol. 8 3599
566. A Kannada newspaper 13 to 14 557 Vol. 8 3600 3601
567. Bangalore Monday newspaper 21.05.2007 15 558
568. Extract of the newspaper Rashtra Times 16 559 Vol. 8 3602
569. An envelope addressed to K.K. Sharma, President Jyotishpeetha Sewa Mandal 17 560 Vol. 8 3603
570. A Letter addressed to OSD to the President by K.K. Sharma 18 561 Vol. 8 3603
571. Envelope 18/1 562 Vol. 8 3604
572. A Letter of Harish Rawat 18/2 562 Vol. 8 3604
573. An envelope 19 566 Vol. 8 3606
574. A Letter of Tapan Rai 18/3 564 Vol. 8 3605
575. An envelope 18/4 565 Vol. 8 3605
576. A letter from Shivraj Patil addressed to K.K. Sharma 2.11.1995 20 567 Vol. 8 3606
577. An envelope addressed to K.K. Sharma 21 568 Vol. 8 3607
578. A letter from Sunil Shastri addressed to K.K. Sharma 2.11.1995 22 569 Vol. 8 3607
579. A envelope addressed to K.K. Sharma and sent by Shantan Das 23 570 Vol. 8 3608
580. A letter from Shantanu Das, Joint Secretary to the Governor of Tripura addressed to K.K. Sharma 24 571 Vol. 8 3608
581. An envelope 25 572 Vol. 8 3609
582. A letter from S.C. Jain, Additional Private Secretary to the Minister of Home, Government of India addressed to K.K. Sharma 24.11.1995 26 573 Vol. 8 3609
583. An envelope addressed to K.K. Sharma 27 574 Vol. 8 3610
584. A letter from Daawa Sherya, Raj Bhawan, Lucknow addressed to Kaushal Kishore Sharma 28 575 Vol. 8 3611
585. An envelope letter addressed to the Leader of Opposition Atal Bihari Vajpai by K.K. Sharama 29 576 Vol. 8 3612
586. A letter by Atal Bihari Vajpai, Leader of Opposition addressed to Kaushal Kishore Sharma 27.11.1995 30 577 Vol. 8 3612
587. An envelope 31 578 Vol. 8 3613
588. A letter by Kamal Nath addressed to Kaushal Kishore Sharma 30.11.1995 32 579 Vol. 8 3619
589. A letter by Karan Singh addressed to Kaushal Kishore Sharma 33 580 Vol. 8 3614
590. An envelope 34 581 Vol. 8 3615
591. A letter by N. Bal Chandran, OSD to the Vice President addressed to Kaushal Kishore Sharma 35 582 Vol. 8 3615
592. An envelope 35/1 583 Vol. 8 3616
593. A letter from Inder Bahadur Pandey 35/2 584 Vol. 8 3616
594. A letter from George Fernandes 35/3 585 Vol. 8 3617
595. Extract of the newspaper Rashtra Times 36 586 Vol. 8 3618
596. Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 01.12.96 37 587 Vol. 8 3619
597. An envelope addressed to K.K. Sharma 38 588 Vol. 8 3620
598. A letter by Mahabir Prasad, Governer of Haryana addressed to K.K. Sharma 02.12.96 39 589 Vol. 8 3620
599. Extract of the newspaper Punjab Kesari 02.12.96 40 590 Vol. 8 3621
600. Extract of the newspaper Dainik 03.12.96 40/1 591 Vol. 8 3622
601. Extract of the newspaper Jansatta 03.12.96 40/2 592 Vol. 8 3623
602. Extract of the newspaper Hindustan 03.12.96 41 593 Vol. 8 3624
603. Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Prahari 04.12.96 42 594 Vol. 8 3625
604. Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Times 06.12.96 43 595 Vol. 8 3626
605. Extract of the newspaper Navbharat 06.12.96 44 596
606. Extract of the newspaper Punjab Kesari 06.12.96 45 597 Vol. 8 3627
607. Extract of the newspaper Hindustan 08.12.96 46 598 Vol. 8 3628
608. Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 08.12.96 47 599 Vol. 8 3629
609. Extract of the newspaper Rashtriya Sahara 08.12.96 48 600 Vol. 8 3630
610. Extract of the newspaper Jansatta 09.12.96 49 601 Vol. 8 3631
611. Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 09.12.96 50 602 Vol. 8 3632
612. Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Times 09.12.96 51 603
613. Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Times 09.12.96 52 604 Vol. 8 3633
614. Extract of the newspaper Punjab Kesari 09.12.96 53 605
615. Extract of the newspaper JBC Times 09.12.96 54 606
616. Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Veer Arjun 10.12.96 55 607 Vol. 8 3635
617. Extract of the newspaper Dainik Arpan 10.12.96 56 608
618. Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 12.12.96 57 609
619. Extract of the newspaper Amar Ujala 13.12.96 58 610
620. Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 13.12.96 59 611
621. Letter of Satya Narayan Reddy, Former Governor addressed to Kaushal Kishore Sharma 60 612 Vol. 8 3637
622. Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 23.11.97 61 613 Vol. 8 3638
623. Extract of the newspaper Jansatta 25.11.97 62 614 Vol. 8 3639
624. Extract of the newspaper Punjab Kesari 19.11.97 63 615 Vol. 8 3640
625. Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Times 19.11.97 64 616 Vol. 8 3641
626. Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 19.11.97 65 617 Vol. 8 3641
627. Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 19.11.97 66 618 Vol. 8 3642
628. Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Times 05.12.97 67 619 Vol. 8 3643
629. Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 05.12.97 68 620 Vol. 8 3644
630. Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Times 06.12.97 69 621 Vol. 8 3645
631. Extract of the newspaper Hindustan Times 06.12.97 70 622 Vol. 8 3646
632. Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 06.12.97 71 623 Vol. 8 3647
633. Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 06.12.97 72 624 Vol. 8 3648
634. Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 06.12.97 73 625
635. Extract of the newspaper Rashtra Times 06.12.97 74 626 Vol. 8 3649
636. Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 08.12.97 75 627 Vol. 8 3650
637. Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Mahalaxmi 08.12.97 76 628 Vol. 8 3651
638. Extract of the newspaper Punjab Kesari 08.12.97 77 629
639. Extract of the newspaper The Hind 08.12.97 77/1 630 Vol. 8 3652
640. Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 08.12.97 77/2 631 Vol. 8 3653
641. Extract of the newspaper JBC Times 08.12.97 78 632 Vol. 8 3654
642. Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Times 08.12.97 79 633 Vol. 8 3655
643. Extract of the newspaper Hindustan 09.12.97 80 81 634 635 Vol. 8 3656 3657
644. An envelope addressed to K.K. Sharma 82 636 Vol. 8 3658
645. A letter by A.N. Khanna/P.L. of R. Venkatraman 83 637 Vol. 8 3658
646. Narayan Dutt Tiwari addressed to K.K. Sharma 84 638 Vol. 8 3659
647. Letter of Narendra Nath, Minister of Industrial Education addressed to K.K. Sharma 85 639 Vol. 8 3660
648. Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Laxmi 05.12.1998 86 640 Vol. 8 3661
649. Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Laxmi 06.12.1998 87 641 Vol. 8 3661
650. Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 08.12.1998 88 642 Vol. 8 3662
651. Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Laxmi 08.12.1998 89 643
652. Extract of the newspaper Hindustan 08.12.1998 90 644 Vol. 8 3663
653. Letter of Vidya Charan Shukla addressed to K.K. Sharma 91 645 Vol. 8 3664
654. Extract of the newspaper Punjab Kesari 10.12.1999 92 646 Vol. 8 3665
655. Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 04.12.1999 93 647 Vol. 8 3666
656. Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 07.12.1999 94 648 Vol. 8 3669
657. Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 07.12.1999 95 649 Vol. 8 3669
658. Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 08.12.1999 96 650
659. Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 09.12.1999 97 651 Vol. 8 3670
660. Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 11.12.1999 98 652 Vol. 8 3671
661. Extract of the newspaper Times of India 04.12.2000 99 653 Vol. 8 3672
662. Extract of the newspaper Rashtriya Sahara 04.12.2000 100 654 Vol. 8 3673
663. Extract of the newspaper Jansatta 04.12.2000 101 655 Vol. 8 3674
664. Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 04.12.2000 102 656 Vol. 8 3675
665. Extract of the newspaper Hindustan 04.12.2000 103 657 Vol. 8 3676
666. Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 04.12.2000 104 658 Vol. 8 3677
667. Extract of the newspaper Sandhya Times 07.12.2000 105 659 Vol. 8 3678
668. Extract of the newspaper Hindustan 08.12.2001 106 660 Vol. 8 3679
669. Extract of the newspaper Amar Ujala 08.12.2001 107 661 Vol. 8 3680
670. Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 08.12.2001 108 662 Vol. 8 3681
671. Extract of the newspaper Rashtriya Sahara 01.12.2002 109 663 Vol. 8 3684
672. Extract of the newspaper Navbharat Times 01.12.2002 110 664 Vol. 8 3685
673. Extract of the newspaper Dainik Jagran 01.12.2002 111 665 Vol. 8 3686
674. Paper cuttings of several newspapers 112 to 389 666 Vol. 8 3687 to 3966
675. Paper cuttings of several newspapers 11.05.1941 390 to 709 667 Vol. 8 3967 to 4289
676. Letter of trust/Declaration of Trust 552A/8-17 129
677. Copy of application, Swami Shantanand etc. 556C 668 Vol.4 1971-1973
678. Certified copy of minutes of meeting of Bharat Dharam Mahamandal 568C/1-289 203
679. Copy of amendment application in Execution Case No.22 of 1977 585C 669 Vol.4 1979-80
680. Paper cuttings of several newspapers 710 to 789 670
681. Extract from magazine relating to installation of idol of Aadi Guru Shankaracharya at Dakor containing photographs of photos of the then Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Swami Krishan Bodhashram, the then Puri Peethadheeshwar Swami Niranjan Dev Teerth Ji Maharaj and the then Dwarka Sharda Peethadheeshwar Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Teerth Ji Maharaj. 790 671
682. Magazine "The Apex Hindu Body Its Vision and The Mission" published by Hindu Dharmacharya Sabha 791 672
683. Book Brahmasiddhi written by Acharya Shri Mandal Mishra, the then Vice Chancellor Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya 792 672
684. Special edition of 42nd Akhil Bhartiya Prachay Vidya Sammelan of Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi 793 672
685. Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert Sri MM Kackar's report.
15.01.2011 839A 124 Vol.4 1933-1943
686. Admitted signatures of Sri Vishnudevanand Saraswati Photographs 840A 124 Vol.4 1944
687. CD kept in small box for safety purpose 841A/CD 207
688. Handwriting and Finger Print Expert's Examination report 23.4.2011 842A/1-8 204 Vol.4 1945-1952
689. Report of Sri MM Kackar, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert 28.04.2011 842A/1-8 205 Vol.4 1945 to 1952
690. Admitted Signature of Vishnudevanand Saraswati, photo 843A/2 A1 to A6 205 Vol.4 1953
691. Admitted Signature of Vishnudevanand Saraswati, photo 843A/3 A12-13 205 1955
692. Disputed signature of Vishnudevanand Saraswati, photo B-1 to B-4 844 Ka/1 206 Vol.4 1956
693. Disputed signature of Vishnudevanand Saraswati, photo B-5 844 Ka/2 206 Vol.4 1957
694. Report of Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert 15.01.2011 844A/708/1-5 206
695. Copy of Izara No 22/77 Swami Shantanand Saraswati against Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati 875C 673 Vol.4 1959-1960
696. Copy of objections on behalf of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati filed in Execution Suit No. 22/77 09.07.1977 876C 674 Vol.4 1961-1962
697. Copy of Amendment Application on behalf of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati 25.07.1977 filed in the suit. 25.07.1977 877C/2 675 Vol.4 1963-1964
698. Copy of objections on behalf of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati 05.04.1977 878C 676 Vol.4 1965-1968
699. Copy of affidavit of Narayan Swaroop Brahmchari 879C 677 Vol.4 1969-1977
700. Copy of application on behalf of Swami Shantanand Saraswati 880C 678
701. Copy of affidavit of Bhagwati Prasad 881C 679
702. General Attorney of Swami Shantanand Saraswati in favour of Bhagwati Prasad 882C/1 882C/2 680 Vol.4 1977 & 1978
703. Copy of order passed in Execution suit no. 22/77 Swami Shantanand Saraswati versus Swami Swaroopanand 06.04.1985 883C 681 Vol.4 1979 & 1980
704. Copy of Amendment Application in Execution Suit no 2/77 Swami Shantanand Saraswati versus Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati 884C 682 Vol.4 1981 to 1982
705. Copy of Amendment Application in Execution Suit no. 2/77 Swami Shantanand Saraswati versus Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati 885C 683
706. Affidavit of Rajendra Prasad Mishra, General Attorney of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati 886C 684 Vol.4 1983
707. Booklet with respect to plot allotment, Kumbh Mela, Hardwar, Uttarakhand, Sector 12 verified by Officer On Special Duty, Kumbh Mela. 927C/1 685 Vol.4 Plff/ Rspdt PB 1852-1853
708. Khatauni 927C/2 685 Vol.4 1854-1855
709. Khasra/Khatauni 927C/3 685 Vol.4 1855A
710. Copy of Khasra, village JoshiMath, Chamoli.
927C/4 685 Vol.4 1855-B
711. Communication letter (Soochna Patra) by Shri Badrinath Kedarnath Mandir Samiti. 31.07.2012 927C/5 685 Vol.4 1856
712. List of the members of Badrinath Kedarnath Mandir Samiti year 2009-10.
927C/6 685 Vol.4 1857
713. Certified copy of land allotment by the office of Meladhikari, Kumbha Mela 2010, Mela Niyantran Bhawan, Haridwar. 08.02.2010.
927C/7 685 Vol.4 1858
714. Certified copy of land allotment by the office of Meladhikari Kumbha Mela 2010, Mela Niyantran Bhawan (Mela Control Office), Haridwar. 08.02.2010.
927C/8 685 Vol.4 1859
715. Certified copy of the office-order, office of Meladhikari, Kumbha Mela, Haridwar. 08.03.2010 927C/9 685 Vol.4 1860
716. Certified copy of the list of police personnel deputed during the Shobha Yatra (grand procession) of Jagatrguru Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Sarswati Ji Maharaj. 927C/10 to 927C/15 685 Vol.4 1861-1866
717. Copy of the amendment application in Civil Suit No. 09/10, Swami Swaroopanand Vs Nagar Palika, JoshiMath. 927C/16 and 927C/17 685 Vol.4 1867-1869
718. Copy of the plaint in Civil Suit No. 9/10, Swami Swaroopanand Vs Nagar Palika, JoshiMath. 927C/18 to 927C/21 685 Vol.4 1870-1874
719. Copy of the order in Civil Suit No. 09/10, Swami Swaroopanand Vs Nagar Palika, JoshiMath. 10.03.2010 927C/22 to 927C/24 685 Vol.4 1875-1879
720. Copy of the khatauni of JoshiMath for the fasali year 1408-1423.
927C/25 685 Vol.4 1855
721. Copy of the khasara of JoshiMath for the fasali year 1417.
927C/26 685 Vol.4 1855 B
722. Copy of the Khewat.
927C/27 to 927C/28 685
723. Copy of the electoral name-list, Machhalishahar Jaunpur, wherein previous name of Vasudevanand is registered as Shobhnath and his wife's name is registered as Savitri Devi and names of his brothers are registered as Yadvendra, Raghvendra and Kaushlendra 927C/29 685
724. Extract from newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' in which Vasudevanand and Narendranand are shown sitting on a tractor during procession passing through the Allahabad city. 928C/39 686
725. Copy of the plaint in Civil Suit No. 93/94 Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati Vs Swami.
1044C/1 (1045C) 687 Vol.5 2131-2138
726. Copy of the written statement in Civil Suit No. 93/94, Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati Vs Swami Shambhawanand. 1044C/2 (1046C) 688 Vol.5 plff./Respt.
2139-2146
727. Copy of the memo of Misc. Appeal No. 286/95, Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati Vs. Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati. 1044C/3 (1047C) 689 Vol.5 2147-2150
728. Copy of the affidavit, Misc. Appeal No. 286/95, Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati Vs. Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati. 1044C/4 (1048C) 690 Vol.5 2151-2157
729. Copy of the plaint in Misc. Case No. 321/98, Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Narendranand Sarswati Vs. Swami Shambhwanand Sarswati. 1049C 691
730. Copy of the written statement in Suit No. 321/98, Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Narendranand Sarswati Vs. Swami Shambhwanand Sarswati. 1050C 692
731. Copy of the plaint in Suit No. 122/96 Balyogi Narendra Chaitanya Vs Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati. 1044C/7 (1051C) 693 Vol.5 2158-2164
732. Copy of the written statement in Suit No. 122/96 Balyogi Narendra Chaitanya Vs Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati. 1044C/8 (1052C) 694 Vol.5 2165-2176
733. Copy of the order in Suit No. 122/96 Balyogi Narendra Chaitanya Vs Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati. 09.11.2000 1044C/9 (1053C) 695 Vol.5 2177-2180
734. Copy of the plaint in the Suit No. 321/98 Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Narendranand Vs Swami Shambhvanand Sarswati. 1054C 696
735. Copy of application in Suit No. 321/98 Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Narendranand Vs Swami Shambhvanand Sarswati. 1044C/11 (1055C) 697 Vol.5 2181
736. Press release of Akhil Bhartiya Akhara Parishad.
01.02.2013 1044C/12 (1056C) 698 Vol.5 2182
737. Copy of the letter of Akhil Bhartiya Akhara Parishad.
01.02.2013 1057C 699
738. Copy of the Order of Hon'ble High Court Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in writ petition 4976/2012 30.01.2013 1044C/14 (1058C) 700 Vol.5 Plff./Rspdt 2183-2184
739. Copy of the Nyas Patra (trust-letter) Urdhwamnyay Shri Kashi Sumeru Peeth Varanasi. 1044C/15 (1059C) 701 Vol.5 2185-2188
740. Questionnaire Suit No. 321/98, Civil Judge, Varanasi.
1044C/16 (1060C) 702 Vol.5 2189
741. Copy of the Revision No. 54/04 Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Narendranand Sarswati Vs. So called Jagatguru Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati, Urdhwanyay Shri Kashi Sumeru Peeth Nyas. (1061C) 703 Vol.5 2190-2194
742. Copy of the judgement in Civil Revision No. 54/04 Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Narendranand Sarswati Urdhwanyay Vs So called Jagatguru Shankaracharya Chinmyanand Sarswati. 31.01.2008 1044C/19 (1062C) 704 Vol.5 2195-2199
743. Application for obtaining information.
1044C/20 (1063C) 705 Vol.5 2200
744. Copy of the order in the original Suit No. 1171/1992 Swami Chinmayanand Vs Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati, in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varanasi. 06.04.1995 1044C/21 (1064C) 706 Vol.5 2201-2205
745. Copy of the application of original Suit No. 1171/1992, Swami Chinmayanand Vs Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati, in the Munsif Court, Varanasi. 31.07.1992 1044C/22 (1065C) 707 Vol.5 2206-2213
746. Copy of the application of the original Suit No. 1171/1992, Swami Chinmayanand Vs Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati, in the Munsif Court, Varanasi. 01.09.1992 1044C/23 (1066C) 708 Vol.5 2214-2220
747. Copy of the order sheet in the original Suit No. 1171/1992, Swami Chinmayanand Vs Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati. From 31.7.1992 to 29.8.1995 1044C/24 (1067C) 709 Vol.5 2221-2231
748. Copy of the application 19C in the original Suit No. 1171/1992, Swami Chinmayanand Vs Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati. 1068C 710
749. Original Suit No. 1171/1992, Swami Chinmayanand Vs Swami Shambhawanand Sarswati. (1069C) 711 Plff./Rspdt Vol.5 2232-2238
750. Copy of the order in the original Suit No. 321/1998, Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Narendranand Vs Narendranand Sarswati. 21.09.2011 1044C/27 (1070C) 712 Vol.5 2239-2240
751. Copy of the application in the original Suit No. 321/1998, Jagatguru Shankaracharya Vs Narendranand Sarswati. 1071C 713
752. Copy of the order in the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 286/95, Swami Shambhawanand Vs Swami Chinmayanand. From 28.10.1996 to 09.01.1997 1044C/29 (1072C) 714 Vol.5 2241-2244
753. Copy of the Vakaalatnama in the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 286/95, Swami Shambhawanand Vs Swami Chinmayanand. 1044C/30 (1073C/1 and 1073C/2) 715 Vol.5 2245
754. Copy of the plaint in the original Suit No. 141A/1966 Swami Vasudevanand Sarswati Vs Swami Vishwanath Tripathi. 1044C/32 1073C/3 and 1073C/10 715 Vol.5 2246-2254
755. Statement of witness Dayashanker Pandey in the original Suit No. 7A/93, Swami Vasudevanand Sarswati Vs Smt. Sharda Devi and others. 1074C/1 and 1074C/10 716
756. Copy of the claim in Suit No. 1171/1992 Swami Chinmayanand Vs Swami Shambhawanand. 1044C/35 (1075C) 717 Vol.5 2255-2262
757. Copy of the written statement in Suit No. 1171/1992, Swami Chinmayanand Vs Swami Shambhawanand. 1076C 718
758. Copy of the order-sheet in Case No. 3999/11, case crime no. 26/05, u/s 120B, 394 IPC PS Jhunsi, Allahabad, State Vs Swami Vasudevanand and others in the Court of ACJM, Court No. 7, Allahabad. From 31.08.2005 to 01.10.2013 1044C/36 (1077C) 719 Vol.5 2263-2271
759. Copy of the order-sheet in Suit No. MJC 91/03 Swami Swaroopanand Vs Swami Vasudevanand in the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur. 3.5.2000 to 26.10.2013 1044C/38 1078C 720 Vol.5 2272-2336
760. Copy of the objection under Rule 97 Order 21 CPC in Suit No. MJC 91/03, Swami Swaroopanand Vs Swami Vasudevanand in the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur. 1044C/39 (1079C) 721 Plff./Rspdt Vol.5 2337-2345
761. Copy of the affidavit in Suit No. MJC 91/03 Swami Swaroopanand Vs Swami Vasudevanand in the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur. 1044C/40 1080C 722 Vol.5 2346-2350
762. Copy of the application, Suit No. MJC 91/03 Swami Swaroopanand Vs Swami Vasudevanand in the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur. 03.05.2010 1081C 723
763. Copy of the order in Suit No. 321/98, Swami Narendranand Vs Swami Shambhawanand in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Varanasi. 03.04.1998 to 17.10.2013 1082C 724
764. Copy of the order in the Civil Revision No. 54/04 Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Narendranand Vs So called Jagatguru Shankaracharya, in the Court of Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (Essential Commodity Act) Varanasi. 31.01.2008 1044C/44 1083C 725 Vol.5 2351-2354
765. Copy of paper no. 4C, Nagar Nigam Appeal No. 58/2000, Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati Vs Nagar Nigam Varanasi, in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Varanasi. 1044C/45 (1084C) 726 Vol.5 2355-2361
766. Copy of the judgment in Nagar Nigam Appeal No. 58/2000, Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati Vs Nagar Nigam Varanasi, in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Varanasi. 15.09.2008 1045C/46 1085C 727 Vol.5 2362-2366
767. Copy of the vakalatnama in Nagar Nigam Appeal No. 58/2000, Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati Vs Nagar Nigam Varanasi, in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Varanasi. 1044C/47 (1085C) 727 Vol.5 2367-2369
768. Copy of memo of appeal in Nagar Nigam Second Appeal No. 157/2008, Swami Narendranand Sarswati Vs Nagar Nigam Varanasi, in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Varanasi. 1044C/48 1086C 728 Vol.5 2370-2385
769. Copy of the complete order-sheet in Nagar Nigam Second Appeal No. 157/2008, Swami Narendranand Sarswati Vs Nagar Nigam Varanasi, in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Varanasi. 1044C/49 (1087C) 729 Plff./Rspdt Vol.5 2386
770. Copy of the vakalatnama in Nagar Nigam Second Appeal No. 157/2008, Swami Narendranand Sarswati Vs Nagar Nigam Varanasi, in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Varanasi. 1044C/50 (1088C) 730 Vol.5 2387-2398
771. Copy of the order-sheet in Suit No. 122/96 Balyogi Narendra Chaitanya Vs Swami Shambhwanand in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) II, Varanasi. 1044C/51 1089C 731 Vol.5 2399
772. Copy of the plaint in the Suit No. 122/96 Balyogi Narendra Chaitanya Vs Swami Shambhwanand in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) II, Varanasi. 1044C/52 1090C 732 Vol.5 2400-2407
773. Copy of the plaint in Suit No. 321/98 Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Narendranand Sarswati Vs Swami Shmbhawanand Sarswati, in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) I, Varanasi. 1091C 733
774. Copy of the written statement in Suit No. 321/98 Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Narendranand Sarswati Vs Swami Shmbhawanand Sarswati, in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) I, Varanasi. 1044C/54 1092C 734 Vol.5 2408-2412
775. Copy of judgment 8.10.1999 1044C/55 1093C 735 Vol.5 2413-2418
776. Copy of plaint in Suit No. 13/94, Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati Vs Swami Shmbhawanand Sarswati, in the Munsif Court, city Varanasi. 1044C/56 1094C 736 Vol.5 2419-2426
777. Copy of application 6C and disposal thereof, in the Suit No. 93/94, Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati Vs Swami Shmbhawanand Sarswati, in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varanasi. 6.9.1995 1044C/57 1095C 737 Vol.5 2427-2428
778. Copy of memo appeal 4A, in Misc. Appeal No. 286/95, Swami Shmbhawanand Sarswati Vs Swami Chinmayanand Sarswati in the Court of District Judge, Varanasi. 1044C/58 1096C 738 Plff./Rspdt Vol.5 2429
779. Certified photocopy of application in O.A. No. 30 of 2005 : Uco Bank Vs. M/s Maya Cosmetics and Others in the DRT, Allahabad 27.10.2007 1154C/1 to 1154C/3 739
780. Certified copy of affidavit sworn by Ram Chandra Mishra in O.A. No. 30 of 2005, Uco Bank Vs. M/s Maya Cosmetics and Others in the DRT, Allahabad 27.10.2007 1155C/1 to 1155C/3 740
781. Certified copy of application for specimen signature in O.A. No. 30 of 2005 : Uco Bank Vs. M/s Maya Cosmetics and Others in the DRT, Allahabad 28.08.2007 1156C/1 to 1156C/12 741
782. Certified copy of order sheet in O.A. No. 30 of 2005, Uco Bank Vs. M/s Maya Cosmetics and Others in the DRT, Allahabad 27.05.2013 1157C/1 to 1157C/2 742
783. Certified copy of order sheet in O.A. No. 30 of 2005, Uco Bank Vs. M/s Maya Cosmetics and Others in the DRT, Allahabad 02.07.2007 1158C/1 to 1158C/2 743
784. Certified photocopies of order sheets in Original Suit No. 513/89, Swami Swaroopanand Vs. Swami Vasudevanand 10.11.1989 to 2.12.2006 (14.2.2007) 1160C/2 to 1160C/77 744
785. Two photographs at the time of nomination of Jyotishpeeth-adheeshwar, Jal Abhishek (anoinment) of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, being performed by Vedic Brahmins. In the photo, Swami Maheshwaranand (sitting below beside Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati), who announced his nomination D-1 337 Vol.3 1670
786. In the middle of photo, Swami Nishchalanand Saraswati, Shankar- -acharya of Puri, welcomes Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati D-2 338 Vol.3 1671
787. Challa Laxman Shastri, representative of Shringeri Peetha, performing Pattabhishek (investiture) of Swami Saraswati in the photograph below D-3 339 Vol.3 1672
788. In first photograph, Karpatri Ji Maharaj and Swami Maheshwaranand Saraswati Ji announcing nomination of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati as Shankaracharya of the Jyotishpeetha. Jal Abhishek (anointment) of plaintif at Jyotishpeetha with water collected from all Teerthas (pilgrimage sites) in the midst of vedic hymns, in the photograph below. D-4 340 Vol.3 1673
789. In both the photographs, photo of the plaintiff chairing the Kashi Vidwat Sabha and photo of the scholars of the Vidwat Parishad leaving the Sabha D-5 341 Vol.3 1674
790. Photograph of the Chatushpeetha Sammelan of all the four Peethas at Shringeripeeth in which Jyotishpeeth was represented by Swami Swaroopanand, Shringeripeeth was represented by Swami Abhinav Vidya Teerth, Puri Peeth was represented by Niranjan Dev Teerth and Sharda Peeth was represented by Swami Abhinav Sachchidanand Teerth. In the photo below, plaintiff sitting with Sachchidanand Teerth. D-16 352 Vol.3 1685
791. In the photographs, above and below, Swami Swaroopanand sitting with Shringeripeethadheesh-war Swami Bharti Teerth D-17, D18 353 354 Vol.3 1686
792. Acharya Mahamandaleshwar Awadh-eshanand Ji Maharaj of Joona Akhara with Swami Swaroopanand and in the middle of photograph he is garlanding. D-19 355 Vol.3 1688
793. Swami Swaroopanand sitting with Shankaracharya of Puri Peeth, and Agnipeethadheeshwar Ji and Kashi Peethadheeshwar and other Sadhu-Sants are also sitting. In the photograph below, plaintiff is sitting with Swami Abhinav Vidya Teerth, Shankaracharya of Shringeri Peetha D-20 356 Vol.3 1689
794. The photograph when Abhishek of plaintiff was done as Dwarika Peethadheeshwar, the then Shringeripeethadheesh-war performing Abhishek of Abhinav Vidya Teerth D-21 357 Vol.3 1690
795. Having conversation with Abhinav Vidya Teerth D-22 358 Vol.3 1691
796. Present Peethadheeshwar of Shringeripeeth sitting and conversing with the plaintiff D-23 359 Vol.3 1692
797. Photographs of the plaintiff with Puri Peethadheeshwar and Shringeri -peethadheeshwar in various Programmemes. In second photograph, Swami Karpatri Ji applying tilak on Krishanbodhashram D-24, 25, 26 & 27 360 361 362 363 Vol.3 1693 to 1696
798. Photograph with Central Minister Vidya Charan Shukla. In second photograph, plaintiff with Prime Minister P.V. Narsimha Rao and in the third photograph with Vice President Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma D-34 370 Vol.3 1703
799. Photograph with Mandan Mishra, Vice chancellor of Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya.In photograph below, Charan Poojan (feet worship) of the plaintiff by Ram Jeth Malani D-35 371 Vol.3 1704
800. Charan Poojan (feet worship) of the plaintiff by senior leader Pandit Lokpati Tripathi In the photo below, with members of the Kashi Vidwat Parishad D-39 375 Vol.3 1708
801. In the photo below, President of Kashi Vidwat Parishad Pandit Kedarnath Tripathi getting blessings (Ashirvad) from plaintiff D-41 377 Vol.3 1710
802. In the first photo, President of Akhil Bhartiya Akhada Parishad Shri Mahant Gyan Das Ji receiving blessings from plaintiff D-42 378 Vol.3 1711
803. In first photo, plaintiff with the Chief Minister Digvijay Singh and in the second photo, with the Vice Chancellor Rajendra Mishra D-46 382 Vol.3 1715
804. Gorakhpur's Vice chancellor Dr. R.K. Mishra Ji D-47 383 Vol.3 1716
805. In second photograph, Chief Minister Shri Ajeet Jogi receiving Ashirvaad (blessings) from the plaintiff. In the photo below, Rajendra Mishra, Legal Advisor to plaintiff offering banana to Ajeet Jogi. D-48 384 Vol.3 1717
806. Kashi Naresh receiving blessings from plaintiff D-49 385 Vol.3 1718
807. In the first photograph, President of Kashi Vidwat Parishad receiving blessings from plaintiff and in the second photograph, Justice Girdhar Malviya receiving blessings from him D-67 403 Vol.3 1736
808. In both the photographs, Kashi Naresh greeting the plaintiff D-68 404 Vol.3 1737
809. Distinguished Muslim persons obtaining instructions from the plaintiff in Ganga Safai Abhiyaan D-69 405 Vol.3 1738
810. In second photograph, Jai Prakash Sitlani, Minister of Minority Affairs, Pakistan, receiving blessings D-70 406 Vol.3 1739
811. In its third photograph, the plaintiff with Puri Peethadheshwar at Kumbh in Ujjain D-73 408 Vol.3 1742
812. Jagad Guru Ramanandacharya garlanding the plaintiff. In second photograph, garlanding by Mahamandaleshwar of Agni Akhara. In third photograph, garlanding by President of Joona Akhara, Parmanand Saraswati and Shri Awadheshanand Giri Ji is beside him D-75 410 Vol.3 1744
813. In its third photograph, with Awadheshanand Giri, Mathadheesh of Joona Akhara D-76 411 Vol.3 1745
814. Charan Poojan (feet worship) of the plaintiff by the President, Agni Akhara In second photograph, Dr. Vishwanath Shastri welcomes the plaintiff. In third photograph, Mantri of Joona Akhara Hari Giri welcomes the plaintiff D-77 412 Vol.3 1746
815. Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh Ajeet Jogi welcomes the plaintiff D-80 415 Vol.3 1749 Appendix-"D"
Defendant-appellant's Documentary Evidence Sl. No. Details of documents Paper No. Deft/appellant paper book Vol. & Part S. No. Details of document Date Paper No. Ext.
Copy of plaint in OS no.36 of 1965 30.1.1965 871C (43/C) 126 ka III(I) deft/ appellant.
16-21
1. Copy of judgment in Original Suit No.36 of 1965 (Munsif West Allahabad), Swami Shantanand Ji Mahraj Vs. Swami Krishna Bodhashram and two others, decided by Court of Vth Civil and Sessions Judge, Allahabad and copy of abatement order in Civil Appeal 59/1970 15.01.1970 45-C/2 to 45-Ga/52 127 ka III(I) III(I) 33-114 115-122
2. Certified copy of plaint of Original Suit No. 1A/1974 Jagat Guru Shankaracharya vs. Ram Ji Tripathi, Court of District and Sessions Judge/JSCC, Allahabad 28.06.1974 69C/1 to 69C/25 128 ka III(I) 123-134
3. Certified copy of written statement in aforesaid original suit in 1A of 1974 30.10.1979 70C/1 to 70C/31 129 ka III(I) 135-155
4. Certified copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in FAFO No. 20/56 Swami Swaroopananad Saraswati vs. Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati 31.07.1959 164C 130 ka
5. Certified copy of Bank statement of November 1998 in favour of Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati, Jyotispeethadheeshwar 165C 131 ka
6. Copy of extract of news paper Aaj 29.11.1998 166C 132 ka
7. Certified copy of judgement passed by Additional District Judge, Varanasi in Original Suit No. 3 of 1954 Swami Parmatanand Saraswati and others Vs. Sri Ramji Tripathi 20.10.1962 158C/172 11 ka III(I) 186-338
8. Copy of Khasra, Nagar Maha Palika, Allahabad in respect of house no.15/56, Alopi Bagh, Allahabad 09.11.1990 292C 1-Ka
9. Copy of Khasra, Nagar Maha Palika, Allahabad in respect of house no.169/107, Bahadurganj, Allahabad 293C 2-Ka
10. Copy of Khasra, Nagar Maha Palika, Allahabad in respect of house no.228/174, Bahadurganj, Allahabad 294C 3-Ka
11. Copy of Khasra, Nagar Maha Palika, Allahabad in respect of house no.13/55, Alopi Bagh, Allahabad 295C 4-Ka
12. Typed copy of will deed by Swami Shantanand 17.04.1989 296C/1 to 296C/5 5-Ka III(I) 339-352
13. Photocopy of signatures of Prayag Vidvat Parishad, saints and followers present at the time of Abhishek 297C/1 to 297C/6 133 ka
14. Photocopy of signatures of Prayag Vidvat Parishad, saints and followers present at the time of Abhishek 298C/1 to 298C/7 134 ka
15. Photocopy of signatures of Jyotirmath Vidvat Parishad, saints and followers present at the time of Abhishek 299C/1 and 299C/2 135 ka
16. Photo at the time of Abhishek Tilak of the office of Jyotispeeth- adheeshwar 300C/1 to 300C/24 136 ka
17. Paper Jyotispeethadheeshwar Mahotsav 301C 136 ka
18. Copy of writ petition no. 24085 of 2000, Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Vs. Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others 302C 137 ka Vol.III (Part II) Deft/ applnt.
PB 433-773
19. Copy of judgment and order in petition no. 24085 of 2000 23.1.2004 137 ka Vol. III Part II 774-811
20. Copy of will by Swami Brahmanand Saraswati 18.12.1952 378C 138 ka III(I) 156-185
21. Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati sitting on Main Seat (Gaddi) 508C/14 139 ka
22. Krishna Kant Chaturvedi delivering speech in Pra. Sammelan, Jabalpur in the presence of Jyotispeethadheeshwar 508C/15 140 ka
23. Popatacharya Sri Ram Sajeewan Manager in Pra. Sammelan, Jabalpur with Jyotispeeth-adheeshwar 508C/16 6 ka
24. Digital photo dated 14.11.1989 508C/A-16-I 6-Ka
25. Enthroned Abhinav Shankaracharya Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati 508C/16/A-16-II 69-Ka
26. Jyotispeethadheeshwar Sri Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati being honoured by Rajendra Trivedi 508C/17 7 ka
27. Taking Sankalp at the time of installation 508C/A-17-II 70-Ka
28. Digital Photo at the time of installation 14.11.1989 508C/A-17-I 7-Ka
29. Jyotispeethadheeshwar Sri Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati preaching in Sanskrit Sammelan 508C/18 8 ka
30. Photo digital at the time of installation 14.11.1989 508C/A-18-I
31. Photo digital at the time of installation 14.11.1989 508C/A-18-II 71-Ka
32. Jyotispeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya in the midst of counselors, speaking to Br. Somnath, Ramendra Tiwari regarding arrangement 508C/19
33. Photo digital at the time of installation 508C/A-19-I 9-Ka
34. Photo digital garlanding new Shankaracharya 508C/A-20-II 10 ka
35. Photo digital, on the occasion of Installation, garlanding.
508C/A 21-I 11-Ka
36. Jyotispeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati, speaking in Pr. Vidvat Parishad 508C/22
37. Photo digital Installation (Pattabhishek), Garlanding 15.11.1989 508C/A-22-II 12-Ka
38. Photo digital, Pattabhishek 15.11.1989 508C/A-23-I 13-Ka
39. Photo digital, Pattabhishek 15.11.1989 508C/A-23-II 75-Ka
40. Sri Motilal Shastri getting honour and blessings from Jyotispeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya in Sanskrit Sammelan 508C/24 141-ka
41. Photo digital, Pattabhishek 15.11.1989 508C/A-24-I 14-Ka
42. Photo digital, Pattabhishek 15.11.1989 508C/A-24-II 76-Ka
43. Sri Krishna Kant Chaturvedi speaking in Pr. Sanskrit Sammelan 508C/25 142-ka
44. Photo digital, Pattabhishek 15.11.1989 508C/A-25-I 15-Ka
45. Photo digital, Pattabhishek 15.11.1989 508C/A-25-II 77-Ka
46. Digital photo 508C/A-26 16-Ka
47. Digital photo at the time of installation of Jagatguru 21.11.1989 508C/A-27 17-Ka
48. Maharshi Mahesh Yogi worshiping Jyotispeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya 508C/28
49. Digital photo 21.11.1989 508C/A-28 18-Ka
50. Digital photo 15.11.1989 508C/A-29 19-Ka
51. Digital photo 15.11.1989 508C/A-30 20-Ka
52. Jyotispeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya sitting on main Seat (throne) 508C/31
53. Digital photo 12.11.1989 508C/A-31 21-Ka
54. Jyotispeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya sitting on main Seat (throne) alongwith local scholars 508C/32
55. Digital photo 22.11.1989 508C/A-32 22-Ka
56. Digital photo 22.11.1989 508C/A-33 23-Ka
57. Digital photo 22.11.1989 508C/A-34 24-Ka
58. Digital photo 22.11.1989 508C/A-35 25-Ka
59. Digital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-36 26-Ka
60. Digital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-37 27-Ka
61. Digital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-38 28-Ka
62. Digital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-39 29-Ka
63. Digital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-40 30-Ka
64. Digital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-41 31-Ka
65. Digital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-42 32-Ka
66. Photo digital 23.11.1989 508C/A-43-I 33-Ka
67. Digital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-44 34-Ka
68. Digital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-45 35-Ka
69. Digital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-46 36-Ka
70. Photo digital, Pattabhishek of New Shankaracharya 22.11.1989 508C/A-47-I 78-Ka
71. Photo digital, Pattabhishek of New Jyotishpeethadheeshwar 22.11.1989 508C/A-47-I 78-Ka
72. Photo digital, Pattabhishek of New Jyotishpeethadheeshwar 22.11.1989 508C/A-47-II 79-Ka
73. Photo digital, New Jyotishpeethadheeshwar 22.11.1989 508C/A-48-I 80-Ka
74. Photo digital, New Jyotishpeethadheeshwar 22.11.1989 508C/A-48-II 81-Ka
75. Photo digital, New Jyotishpeethadheeshwar 22.11.1989 508C/A-49-I 82-Ka
76. Photo digital 28.11.1989 508C/A-49-II 62-Ka
77. Photo digital 508C/A-50-I 63-Ka
78. Digital photo 23.11.1989 508C/A-51 122-Ka
79. Eminent scholar of Prayag, Pandit Krishna Dev Pathak and Natthu Lal Dixit applying Tilak and garlanding new Peethadishwar on the occasion of Pattabhishek (coronation/installation) 508C/52
80. Jyotirmath Nagar Shobha Yatra, Photo digital, 28.11.1989 508C/A-52-I 95-Ka
81. Photo digital, main seat of Jyotirmath 508C/A-53-I 64-Ka
82. Photo digital, sitting on main seat, Peethadheeshwar 508C/A-53-II 65-Ka
83. Digital photo, Jyotirmath, JoshiMath, Nrisingh Mandir 508C/A-54 123-Ka
84. Dandi Sanyasi Samaj, scholars and journalists etc., present on the occasion of Pattabhishek (coronation/installation) of new Shankaracharya 508C/55 143-ka
85. Sri Mahant Manohar Puri Ji of Joona Akhara welcoming new Shankaracharya and Dr. Shivarchan Prasad conversing, on the occasion of Pattabhishek (coronation/installation) 508C/56 144-ka
86. Senior Shankaracharya Sri Swami Shantanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj; performing Pattabhishek (coronation/installation) ceremony of new Jyotispeethadheeshwar Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati. 508C/57 145-ka
87. Representative of Mahanirvani Akhara, Mahants of Alopi Devi and Niranjani Akhara, performing Pattabhishek (coronation/ installation) ceremony of new Jyotispeethadheeshwar Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati. 508C/58 146-ka
88. Shobha Yatra in Sanganer, Jaipur 508C/A-58-II 120-Ka
89. Devotees and citizen present in Arvind Vidya Mandir Jaipur Temple, worshiiping Jagatguru 508C/A-59-I 121-Ka
90. Scene of Nagar Shobha Yatra in Varanasi on the occasion of Abhishek of Jyotispeeth- adheeshwar 508C/60 147-ka
91. Representatives of Vaishnav Akhara performing Pattabhishek of Shankaracharya 15.11.1989 508C/61 148-ka
92. Engineer Sri Rang Nath Dubey offering Patta to Shankaracharya 508C/62 149-ka
93. Sri Vigyan Ji, Mahant of Ramajuj Sect, garlanding and performing Pattabhishek of Jyotispeeth- -adheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya 508C/63
94. Photo digital 1998 508C/A-63-I 96-Ka
95. Photo digital, year 1998 1998 508C/A-63-II 97-Ka
96. Photo digital, year 1998, on the occasion of Haridwar Kumbh, Panch Dashnam Juna Akhara, 508C/A-64-I 98-Ka
97. Photo digital, year 1998 on the occasion of Haridwar Kumbh 508C/A-64-II 99-Ka
98. Photo digital, year 1998, on the occasion of Haridwar Kumbh 508C/A-65-I 100-Ka
99. Photo digital, year 1998, on the occasion of Haridwar Kumbh 508C/A-65-II 101-Ka
100. Photo digital, year 1998, on the occasion of Kumbh 508C/A-66-I 102-Ka
101. Photo digital, year 1998, on the occasion of Kumbh 508C/A-66-II 103-Ka
102. Jyotishpeethadhiswar Jagatguru whiole entering in the camp of Shobha Yatra, Photo 508C/A-67-I 104-Ka
103. Peshwai in Haridwar Kumbh, Photo digital 508C/A-67-II 105-Ka
104. Peshwai in Haridwar Kumbh 508C/A-68-I 106-Ka
105. Peshwai Shobha Yatra in Haridwar Kumbh 508C/A-68-II 107-Ka
106. On the occasion of Haridwar Kumbh 508C/A-69-I 108-Ka
107. On the occasion of Haridwar Kumbh 508C/A-69-II 109-Ka
108. On the occasion of Haridwar Kumbh in 1998 508C/A-70-I 110-Ka
109. On the occasion of Haridwar Kumbh in 1998 508C/A-70-II 111-Ka
110. On the occasion of Haridwar Kumbh in 1998 508C/A-71 112-Ka
111. Dr. Shivarchan Upadhyay with Maharaj Shree sitting on throne along with counselors in Shobha Yatra (procession) in Varanasi after Abhishek (coronation/installation) of New Shankaracharya 508C/72 150-ka
112. Maharaj Shree alongwith counselors entering the Ashram after returning from Nagar Shobha Yatra pursuant to Abhishek (coronation/installation) of New Shankaracharya 508C/73 151-ka
113. Enthroned New Shankarcharaya alongwith counselors addressing Vidvat Sabha, Varanasi after Abhishek (coronation/installation) 508C/74 152-ka
114. Maharaj Shree addressing congregation of Vidvat Sabha and on his left side is sitting Senior Shankarachaya. 508C/75 153-ka
115. Pt. Karuna Pati Tripathi, eminent scholar and chancellor, Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya Varanasi, Pt. Ram Prasad Tripathi, Pt. Dev Swaroop Misra and other scholars, present in Vidvat Sabha Kashi 508C/76 154-ka
116. Senior Shankaracharya in Varanasi consulting Pt. Bhupendra Pati Tripathi, renowned scholar of Kashi and residents of Ashram after Abhishek 508C/77 155-ka
117. Pt. Ram Preet Tripathi Head of Department of S. Sanskrit University and President of Kashi Vidvat Parishad, Karuna Pati Tripathi and other Learned persons addressing on the occasion of Varanasi Vidvat Sabha 508C/78 156-ka
118. Dr. Paras Nath Dwivedi and Karuna Pati Tripathi delivering Welcome speech on the occasion of Kashi Vidvat Sabha 508C/79 157-ka
119. Pt. Ram Prasad Tripathi and Pt. Dev Swaroop famous scholar of Kashi addressing congregation on the occasion of Vidvat Sabha 508C/80 158-ka
120. Pt. Dev Swaroop Misra, Pt. Karuna Pati Tripathi, Pt. Ram Prasad Tripathi and Pt. Raj Narain Tripathi addressing congregation and delivering speech in Kashi on the occasion of Vidvat Sabha 508C/81 159-ka
121. Brahmchari Mauni Ji, a learned scholar of Kashi reading out welcome speech on the occasion of Vidvat Sabha 508C/82 160-ka
122. Senior Shankaracharya present in Kashi Vidvat Sabha and Karuna Pati Tripathi, Pt. Ram Prasad Tripathi and Pt. Dev Swaroop Misra addressing the congregation 508C/83 161-ka
123. Bharti Mata hailing from Landon welcoming Maharaj Shree on the occasion of Vidvat Sabha 508C/84 162-ka
124. Former Secretary of Vidvat Parishad conferring blessings to son of Pt. Raj Narain Shukla 508C/85 163-ka
125. Pt. Vayunandan Misra garlanding enthroned Maharaj Shree 508C/86 164-ka
126. Scholar's of Kashi saluting enthroned Maharaj Shree 508C/87 165-ka
127. Maharaj Shree speaking in Kashi Vidvat Sabha in Sanskrit Language 508C/88 166-ka
128. Maharaj Shree enthroned on permanent Seat of Jyotishpeeth Shankaracharya in Kashi 508C/89 167-ka
129. Brahmchari Mauni Ji performing Aarti of Peethadheeshwar Maharaj Shree in Siddh Giribagh Ashram, Kashi 508C/90 168-ka
130. Maharaj Shree surrounded by followers after Abhishek (installation) and worship in Kashi 508C/91 169-ka
131. Senior citizen of Lucknow Pt. Dayashankar Pandey garlanding after worshiping on the occasion of Abhishek (installation) 508C/92 170-ka
132. Scholars of Kashi presenting book authored by them on the occasion of Abhishek (installation) 508C/93 171-ka
133. Pt. Karuna Pati Tripathi, eminent scholar of Kashi, garlanding Maharaj Shree after worship, on the occasion of Abhishek (installation) 508C/94 172-ka
134. Mauni Ji Brahmchari performing Aarti and Poojan after after Abhishek (installation) and Mahanth Shree Govindanand Brahmchari, Secretary Panch Agni Akhara and others, performing Poojan and welcome 508C/95 173-ka
135. Shree Dayashankar Pandey greeting new Jyotispeethadheeshwar by applying Tilak on the occasion of Abhishek 508C/96 174-ka
136. Pt. Raj Narain Tripathi and Mahant of Panch Agni Akhara, Br. Govindanand and others, offering greetings and paying tribute after Abhishek in Kashi 508C/97 175-ka
137. Maharaj Shree inspecting Bhandara after Abhishek (installation), Mahants of Akharas, saints and Dandi Sanyasis taking Prasad in Bhandara in Kashi 508C/98 176-ka
138. Maharaj Shree making survey of Dandi Sanyasis taking Prasad in Bhandara after Abhishek (installation), Senior Shankaracharya Swami Shantanand Saraswati sitting beside him. 508C/99 177-ka
139. Dandi Sanyasis taking aforesaid Prasad.
508C/100 178-ka
140. Senior Shankaracharya and Mauni Ji Brahmchari surveying Bhandara.
508C/101 179-ka
141. Dandi Swami Sect departing from Bhandara after taking Prasad from (A feast for all who come even without invitation) 508C/102 179-ka
142. Senior Shankaracharya supervising Bhandara arrangement in Kashi alongwith Secretary of Panch Agni Akhara, namely, Mahant Sri Govindanand, Swami Bhadranand, and Radhey Shyam Mishra 508C/103 180-ka
143. Abhinav Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati at the time of Pattabhishek (coronation/ enthronement) 508C/104 181-ka
144. A devotee greeting at the time of Pattabhishek 508C/105 182-ka
145. Mahant Sri proceeding for Jyotirmath Nagar Shobha Yatra (city procession) alongwith Parshads (counselors) 508C/106 183-ka
146. Mahant Sri sitting on chariot-throne alongwith Parshads (counsellors) at the time of Jyotirmath Nagar Shobha Yatra (city procession) 508C/107 184-ka
147. Senior Shankaracharya giving instructions for Nagar Shobha Yatra.
508C/108 185-ka
148. Sri Shankaracharya Ji Mahraj, having Darshan of Lord Nrisingh, at the time of Jyotirmath Nagar Shobha Yatra (city procession) 508C/109 186-ka
149. Maharaj Ji alongwith his followers entering the temple for Darshan of Narsingh Bhagwan 508C/110 186-ka
150. Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Ji Mahraj sitting on main seat alongwith Parshads (counsellors) 508C/111 187-ka
151. Br. Mauni Ji and devotees worshipping Maharajji seated on main seat (gaddi) 508C/112 188-ka
152. Maharajsri sitting near idol of Shankaracharya in Nrisingh Temple 508C/113 189-ka
153. Yatis and devotees sitting near Maharaj Sri in Nrisingh Temple 508C/114 190-ka
154. Shankaracharya Ji Maharaj, sitting right alongwith all Acharyas (Teachers) participating in Swarn Patotswa Jayanti Dharm Sammelan organized by Nimbarkacharya Sri Radha Sarveshwar Sharav Ji Maharaj 508C/115 191-ka
155. Sri Mahraj Ji, presiding over 6th Dharma Sansad Adhiveshan, Kashi, 508C/116 192-ka
156. Sri Mahraraj Ji sitting alongwith Parshads on the stage of Jaipur Chaturmas Gomata Dharm Sammelan and Panchkhand Peethadheeshwar Acharya Dharmendra Ji sitting beside him. 508C/117 193-ka
157. Acharya Dharmendra presenting photograph of Lord Krishna to Sri Mahraraj Ji while sitting on Seat (Singhasan). 508C/118 194-ka
158. Sri Mahraraj Ji sitting before devotees in Training Camp of Swami Balendu Giri in Arvind Vidya Mandir, Jaipur 508C/119 195-ka
159. Sri Shankaracharya Ji Mahraraj sitting on chariot in Shobha Yatra, organized by Swami Balendu Giri Yog Prashikshan Shivir, Sanganer, Jaipur. 508C/120 196-ka
160. Mahraraj Sri sitting on chariot in Poorvottar Shobha Yatra, in Maharaj Sri Arvind Vidya Mandir Jaipur and devotees of Forces and residents, performing Aarti of Jagat Guru Shankaracharya, a scene of Sanganer, Jaipur's Nagar Shobha Yatra. 508C/121 197-ka
161. Emotionally overwhelmed Senior Jyotishpeethadheeshwar seated on throne and Sri Ashok Singhal, paying tribute in Tribute Ceremony. 508C/122 198-ka
162. Swami Gopal Ji, Ashram Naini, sitting beside Maharaj Ji, paying tribute in Tribute Ceremony. 508C/123 199-ka
163. Sri Rang Nath Dubey, sitting beside Maharaj Ji, paying tribute in Tribute Ceremony. 508C/124 200-ka
164. Mahraj Sri seated on throne and scholars of Prayag in Tribute Ceremony.
508C/125 201-ka
165. Maharaj Sri alongwith his followers, observing Mahants of Akharas and distinguished saints who were taking Prasad in Tribute Ceremony, Prayag. 508C/126 202-ka
166. Maharaj Ji seated on throne in Peshwai Shobha Yatra, organized by Panch Dasnaam Joona Akhara in Haridwar Kumbh in the year 1998 508C/127 203-ka
167. Surging crowd for Darshan of Maharaj Ji in Shobha Yatra (procession) in Haridwar Kumbh. 508C/128 204-ka
168. Maharaj Ji seated on throne in Shobha Yatra organized by Panch Dasnaam Joona Akhara in Haridwar Kumbh in the year 1998 508C/129 205-ka
169. Maharaj Ji seated on throne along with followers in Peshwai Shobha Yatra, organized by Panch Dasnaam Joona Akhara and Kotwal Naga Sanyasi, in Haridwar Kumbh 508C/130 206-ka
170. Mahant Parmanand Ji, Former Secretary and Karvati and Br. Atmanand leading Peshwai Shobha Yatra in Hardwar Ardh Kumbh 508C/131 207-ka
171. Mahant Brahmswaroop Ji welcoming Maharaj Sri in Peshwai Shobha Yatra of Haridwar Kumbh Mela, in front of his Ashram 508C/132 208-ka
172. Secretary of Joona Akhara Umashankar Bharti and Brahmchari Atmanand Ji on the main gate of the camp of Peshwai Shobha Yatra of Haridwar Kumbh 508C/133 209-ka
173. Main gate of Jyotirmath Shankaracharya constructed on aforesaid occasion.
508C/134 210-ka
174. Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj and Naga Sanyasi, entering the camp after Shobha Yatra 508C/135 211-ka
175. Naga and Sanyasi Sects leading Peshwai Shobha Yatra in Hardwar Kumbh and surging crowd for Darshan, Enthroned Maharaj Sri moving with stick along with Naga Sanyasi of Joona Agni Avahan and devotees following them. 508C/136 212-ka
176. Surging crowd for darshan of enthroned Maharaj Sri in Peshwai Shobha Yatra.
508C/137 213-ka
177. Enthroned Maharaj Ji alongwith counsellors, preaching in Jyotirhpeeth Shankaracharya Camp, in Haridwar Kumbh Fair 1998 508C/138 214-ka
178. Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, preaching in Jyotirhpeeth Shankaracharya Camp, in Haridwar Kumbh Fair 1998 508C/139 215-ka
179. Maharaj Sri enthroned, alongwith his counsellors, surrounded by Chharidars, saints and Nagas in his camp. 508C/140 216-ka
180. Group of Naga Sanyasis, saints and Mahants offering worship and prayers to enthroned Maharaj Sri on stage after completion of Peshwai Shobha Yatra in 1998 Kumbh Fair, Haridwar 508C/141 217-ka
181. Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Brahmanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj seated on main seat (throne) of Jyotishpeeth Shankaracharya (Jyotirmath) 508C/142 218-ka
182. Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Shantananad Saraswati Ji Maharaj seated on main seat (throne) of Jyotishpeeth Shankaracharya (Jyotirmath) 508C/143 219-ka
183. Jyotishpeethadheeshwar Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj seated on main seat (throne) of Yotishpeeth Shankaracharya (Jyotirmath) 508C/144 220-ka
184. Letter of gratitude from Gyanodaya Pareek Sarvajanik Samiti, Bikaner 19.10.2000 509C/1 83-Ka
185. Felicitation Letter 509C/2 84-Ka
186. Felicitation Letter 509C/3 85-Ka
187. Felicitation Letter 509C/4 86-Ka
188. Telegram of Shankaracharya of Sringeripeeth Chandra Shekher Bhartiya Teerth, 05.06.1953 509C/6 221-ka
189. Felicitation Letter 509C/5 87-Ka
190. Felicitation Letter 509C/6 88-Ka
191. Telegram of Shankaracharya of Sringeripeeth Chandra Shekher Bhartiya Teerth, 07.06.1953 509C/7 222-ka
192. Letter of Sri Sri Sringeri Jagat Guru Mahasansthanam, Shardapeetham 02.09.1978 509C/8 223-ka
193. Letter of Badrinath Kedarnath Samiti 18.04.1948 509C/9 224-ka
194. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) of Second Prantiya Vidvat Sammalen 04.09.1982 and 05.09.1982 509C/10 225-ka
195. Letter of Sri Badrinath Kedarnath Mandir Samiti 22.05.2001 509C/11 226-ka
196. Letter of Shankaracharya Swami Nishchalanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj to Parampujya Jagatguru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati 509C/12 227-ka
197. Letter of Vedavyas Sabha Trust 26-08-1999 509C/13 228-ka
198. Letter to Sri Pujyapad Swami 1008 Sri Jagatguru Shankaracharya Ji Maharaj 29-07-1998 509C/14 229-ka
199. Letter of Tirumal Tirupati Devasthanam Dharm Pracharak Parishad 23-12-1995 509C/15 230-ka
200. Letter of Sri Bharat Dharma Mahamandal 10-04-1993 509C/16 231-ka
201. Swarn Jayanti Samahora Sabha Sri Nimbarka Peeth, Salemabad(Raj) 509C/17 232-ka
202. Jaipur Mahanagar Times 15-01-2001 509C/18 233-ka
203. Letter of Sub Divisional Magistrate, JoshiMath 509C/19 234-ka
204. True copy of letter of District Judge, Jabalpur, M.P. 509C/20 235-ka
205. Invitation of Vishwa Hindu Mahasangh, Nepal 27.05.2000 509C/21 236-ka
206. Letter of Sanatan Dharma Sewa Samiti 19.01.1995 509C/22 237-ka
207. Letter of Vishwa Guru Ji Maharaj Yog Samrat Mahamandleshwar on the occasion of laying down foundation stone of historical Vishwaguru Ghat 21.10.1996 509C/23 238-ka
208. Programme in Central Jail Jaipur, organized under "Bandi Kalyan Karyakram"
12.09.1994 509C/24 239-ka
209. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Hindu Chetana Samiti, Unnao 07.02.1999 509C/25 240-ka
210. Invitation to Sri Shankaracharya Maharaj in Programme of Swami Ram Bharti Ji Maharaj 09.12.1997 509C/26 241-ka
211. Letter of Vishwa Hindu Mahasangh 509C/27 242-ka
212. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Durgadutt Sharma 30.06.2001 509C/28 243-ka
213. Pamphlet programme 509C/B-28 113-Ka
214. Ramayan Mela Samiti 509C/B-30 114-Ka
215. Pamphlet 509C/B-31 115-Ka
216. Invitation letter 509C/B-32 116-Ka
217. Booklet of Bharatmata Poojan Samaroh.
509C/33 245-ka
218. All India Sanskrit Sammelan 14.02.2008 509C/34 246-ka
219. Registered Letter of Akhil Bhartiya Ramayan Mela Samiti Prayag 03.02.2007 509C/35 246-ka
220. Letter of Allahabad Kali Bari 20.11.1989 509C/36 247-ka
221. Patrika Yatra Agman 509C/B-36 117-Ka
222. Invitation 08.02.2008 509C/37 248-ka
223. Patrika 509C/B-37 37-Ka
224. Book Hindu Chetana 509C/38 38-Ka
225. Extract of newspaper Gandeevam 20.11.1989 509C/39 249-ka
226. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 509C/40 250-ka
227. Invitation Ganga Sanskrit Pravah Yatra 20.02.2008 509C/41 251-ka
228. Hindu Chetna magazine 509C/42 39-Ka
229. Bharti magazine, Guru Purnima Vishesank July 2001 509C/43 40-Ka
230. Panthey Kan Patrika 509C/45 41-Ka
231. Sri Tulsi Peeth Saurabh 01.03.1996 509C/46 42-ka
232. Hindu Chetna Patrika 15.09.2003 509C/46 42-Ka
233. Hindu Chetna Patrika 16.02.1995 509C/47 252-ka
234. Hindu Chetna Patrika 01.10.1997 509C/48 253-ka
235. Bhartiya Guru Purnima, Visheshank July 2001 509C/49 254-ka
236. Smarika 509C/50 43-Ka
237. Hindu Chetna Pakshik Patrika 01.09.2003 509C/51 44-ka
238. Jorata Hai Setu 509C/52 45-Ka
239. Ram Setu Sanatanam 509C/53 46-Ka
240. 6th Dharma Sansad Kashi Smarika 16.03.1994 509C/54 255-ka
241. Dhrama Pravah Masik Patrika 01.01.2008 509C/55 256-ka
242. Jodta Hai Setu Sri Ram Raksh Sammelan 30.12.2007 509C/56 257-ka
243. Ram Setu Satya Sanatanam Patrika 27.05.2007 509C/57 258-ka
244. Sadhna Mandir Pran Pratistha Samaroh Smarika 18.05.1997 509C/58 259-ka
245. Patrika "Nai Sadi"
509C/58 47-Ka
246. Magazine Kisan Features 01.08.2003 509C/59 260-ka
247. Devarshi Shikhar Samadar Samaroh 22.01.2007 509C/60 261-ka
248. Sringerpuram Smarika 01.11.1995 509C/61 262-ka
249. Rajim Kumbh Chhattisgarh Sarkar 2006 509C/62 48-Ka
250. Jyotirgamay, Jaipur 14.01.1995 509C/63 263-ka
251. Shiv Sankalp 509C/64 49-Ka
252. Patrika "Antim Vikalp"
509C/65 50-Ka
253. Amrit Ghat Devasur Sangram 01.01.2002 509C/66 51-Ka
254. Hindu Vishwa Patrika 01.03.2007 509C/67 264-ka
255. Shiv Sankalp Patrika 509C/68 265-ka
256. Antim Vikalp Patrika 01.07.2007 509C/69 266-ka
257. Amrit Ghat Devasur Sangram 01.01.2002 509C/70 267-ka
258. Akhil Bhartiya Daddhichi (Dayama) Brahmin Mahasabha Smarika, Salasar, Rajasthan 13-04-1996 509C/71 268-ka
259. Sarvabrahman Sammelan, Jabalpur Smarika, 20-05-1994 509C/72 269-ka
260. Lok Jagran, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad 1998-99 509C/73 270-ka
261. Chhadma Veshdhari Sanyasi 509C/B-73 118-Ka
262. Seema Sapoot Paschimi Rajasthan Ka Sahasi Saptahik Patrika 26-01-1995 509C/74 271-ka
263. Sri Ram Leela Smarika Daraganj, Ramleela Committee, Annual-1993 509C/75 272-ka
264. Letter of Thanks,Sri Gyanodaya Parikh Sarvajanik Sampati Trust, Bikaner 19-10-2000 510 C/2 and 510 C/3 273-ka
265. Abhinandan (Welcome) Kashi Vidvatgan 27-12-1997 510 C/4 274-ka
266. 108 Kundalatmak Sri Laxmi Mahayagya, Chhatarpur, Welcome Letter by Agarwal Samaj 29-10-2004 510 C/5 85-Ka
267. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) by Palanpur Sadhvi Chandraprabha Jan Kalyan Trust, Gujarat 510 C/6 86-Ka
268. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter), Mahant Rajendra Giri Surajgaon, Gujarat 13.11.2002 510 C/7 87-Ka
269. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) Brahman Sanskar Sammelan, Dharma Prachar Samiti, Mahasi Bazar, Bahraich, 09.03.2007 510 C/8 88-Ka
270. Dharma Prachar Samiti, Nainital, Haldwani Chaitra Krishna Chaturthi, Samvat 2062 Vikrami 510 C/9 89-Ka
271. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) 510C/10 275-ka
272. Shubhabhisansan Patram (letter of appreciation) Vedic Sanskrit Pracharak Samghasya Adhikari, Sadasya evam Jaipur Rajasthan 10-09-1994 510C/12 276-ka
273. Ganga Bachao Sandesh Yatra 29.03.2006 510C/13 277-ka
274. Abhinandan Patra (Felicitation Letter) , Dharma Prasar Samiti, Haldwani Kartik Shukla Chaturthi Samvat 2061 510C/14 278-ka
275. Dainik Jagran, Varanasi 17.09.1990 511C/5 279-ka
276. Indian Express, Dew Delhi 11.11.1990 511C/6 280-ka
277. Aaj, Allahabad 24.07.1991 511C/7 281-ka
278. Dainik Jagran, Viswamitra, Kolkata and Mumbai 31.10.1991 511C/8 282-ka
279. Swatantra Bharat, Lucknow 21.07.1991 511C/9 283-ka
280. Oswal Jyoti, Jaipur May 1993 511C/10 284-ka
281. Dainik Jajran, Allahabad 20.10.1993 511C/11 285-ka
282. Navin Duniya, Jabalpur 16.02.1993 511C/12 286-ka
283. Aaj, Varanasi 26.03.1993 511C/13 287-ka
284. Patrika, Jaipur 22.09.1994 511C/14 288-ka
285. Navbharat Times, Jaipur 22.09.1994 511C/15 289-ka
286. Sandhya Jyoti Darpan, Jaipur 04.08.1994 511C/16 290-ka
287. Vande Matram 12.07.1994 to 18.07.1994 511C/17 291-ka
288. Patrika Jaipur 22.09.1994 511C/18 292-ka
289. Sandhya Jyoti, Jaipur 26.08.1994 511C/19 293-ka
290. Jabalpur Express 12.02.1995 511C/20 294-ka
291. Panchjanya 03.04.1994 511C/21 295-ka
292. Swadesh, Jabalpur 18.10.1995 511C/22 296-ka
293. Dainik Bhaskar, Jabalpur 13.12.1995 511C/23 297-ka
294. Swadesh, Jabalpur 12.12.1995 511C/24 298-ka
295. Dainik Bhaskar, Jabalpur 12.12.1995 511C/25 299-ka
296. Dainik Madhya Pradesh 15.12.1995 511C/26 300-ka
297. Deshbandhu, Jabalpur 12.12.1995 511C/27 301-ka
298. Nav Bharat, Jabalpur 12.12.1995 511C/28 302-ka
299. Nai Duniya 12.12.1995 511C/29 303-ka
300. Jansatta, Mumbai 28.06.1996 511C/30 304-ka
301. Dainik Jagran, Allahabad 26.12.2000 511C/31 305-ka
302. Dainik Jagran, Allahabad 09.12.2000 511C/32 306-ka
303. Dainik Jagran, Allahabad 10.12.2000 511C/33 307-ka
304. Dainik Jagran, Allahabad 22.11.2000 511C/34 308-ka
305. Hindustan, Lucknow 11.01.2001 511C/35 309-ka
306. Dainik Jagran, Allahabad 13.01.2001 511C/36 310-ka
307. Aaj, Allahabad 02.02.2001 511C/37 311-ka
308. Dainik Jagran, Kanpur 01.02.2001 511C/38 312-ka
309. Northern India Patrika, Allahabad 29.04.2001 511C/39 313-ka
310. Aaj, Allahabad 11.01.2001 511C/40 314-ka
311. Rashtriya Swaroop, Lucknow 11.01.2001 511C/41 315-ka
312. Aaj, Allahabad 12.01.2001 511C/42 316-ka
313. Amar Ujala Allahabad 11.01.2001 511C/43 317-ka
314. Dainik Jagran Allahabad 11.01.2001 511C/44 318-ka
315. Rashtriya Sahara, Lucknow 11.01.2001 511C/45 319-ka
316. Dainik Jagran Allahabad 25.01.2001 511C/46 320-ka
317. Dainik Jagran Allahabad 04.01.2001 511C/47 321-ka
318. Aaj, Allahabad 04.01.2001 511C/48 322-ka
319. Amar Ujala Allahabad 04.01.2001 511C/49 323-ka
320. Amrit Prabhat, Allahabad 11.01.2001 511C/50 324-ka
321. Amar Ujala, Allahabad 09.01.2001 511C/51 325-ka
322. Dainik Bhaskar, Allahabad 24.02.2001 511C/52 326-ka
323. Dainik Jagran, Allahabad 15.01.2001 511C/53 327-ka
324. Aaj, Allahabad 25.01.2001 511C/54 328-ka
325. Aaj, Allahabad 11.01.2001 511C/55 329-ka
326. Amar Ujala, Dehradun 08.06.2007 511C/56 330-ka
327. Dainik Bhaskar, Jaipur 11.06.2007 511C/57 331-ka
328. Dainik Jagran, Dehradun 08.06.2008 511C/58 332-ka
329. Amar Ujala, Allahabad 06.02.2008 511C/59 333-ka
330. Dainik Jagran, Allahabad 16.12.2007 511C/60 334-ka
331. Dainik Jagran, Allahabad 10.02.2008 511C/61 335-ka
332. Dainik Jagran, Allahabad 04.02.2008 511C/62 336-ka
333. Hindustan, Varanasi 12.02.2008 511C/63 337-ka
334. City Allahabad 10.02.2008 511C/64 338-ka
335. Aaj, Allahabad 17.03.1994 511C/65 339-ka
336. Swatantra Bharat, Lucknow 18.03.1994900 511C/66 340-ka
337. Amrit Prabhat, Allahabad 12-09-2007 511C/67 341-ka
338. Jagran, Jamshedpur 17-10-2007 511C/68 342-ka
339. Hindustan, Jamshedpur 17.10.2007 511C/69 343-ka
340. Hindustan, Allahabad 10-02-2008 511C/70 344-ka
341. Will (Vasudevanand) 708A/1 to 708A/5 94-Ka
342. Photo digital (statement of Sri Balkrishna DW 17) 812A/9 53-Ka
343. Photo digital (statement of Sri Balkrishna DW 17) 812A/10 54-Ka
344. Photo digital (statement of Sri Balkrishna DW 17) 812A/11 55-Ka
345. Photo digital (statement of Sri Balkrishna DW 17) 812A/14 56-Ka
346. Photo digital (statement of Sri Balkrishna DW 17) 812A/20 57-Ka
347. Photo digital (statement of Sri Balkrishna DW 17) 812A/21 58-Ka
348. Photo digital (statement of Sri Balkrishna DW 17) 812A/26 59-Ka
349. Rashtriya Ramayan Mela Shringverpur Dham Prayag, Card 812A/29 60-Ka
350. Photo digital 812A/30 61-Ka
351. Expert Sri MM Kackar's report 839A/1 124-Ka
352. Enclosures, Jyotirmath Ka Nirnay, Court of Garhwal Commissioner 889A 66-Ka
353. Poster Jyotirmath Sri Badrikashram 892A/6 Enclosure 1 67-Ka
354. Chaturmas Vrat Mahotsava Ramayan Mahayagya 892A/7 Enclosure -2 68-Ka
355. Annexure-4, digital photo 900A/11 89-Ka
356. Annexure-5, digital photo 900A/12 90-Ka
357. Annexure-6, digital photo 900A/13 91-Ka
358. Annexure-7, digital photo 900A/14 92-Ka
359. Annexure-1, letter, office of Public Information Officer, Haridwar 18.08.2011 900A/6 93-Ka
360. Report of Sri R.K. Gupta expert.
1131C/1- -9 125-Ka
361. Typed copy of trust deed of BDM of year 1941 11/05/41 Vol III (I) 390 to 412 Alphabetical Index of Citations S.N. Citation Para no.
Pages no.
1 A.G. of Bengal Vs. Prem Lal Mullick (1895) ILR 22 Cal. 788 (PC) 436 433 2 A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu Vs. State of A.P. and others, 1996(9) SCC 548 295 241 3 Abdul Ghani VS Musammat Babni, I.L.R. 25 All. 256 687 622 4 Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta and others Vs. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and another 1983 (4) SCC 522 313 250 5 Aligarh Muslim University vs. Vinay Engg. Enterprises (P) Ltd. (1994) 4 SCC 710 675 607 6 Alimiya Vs. Sayed Mohd. AIR 1968 Guj. 257 496 467 7 Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Janapada Sabha Chhindwara, AIR 1964 SC 1013 528 489 8 Amba Bai and others Vs. Gopal and others (2001) 5 SCC 570 421, 422 425, 427 9 Anil Basudev Salgaonkar Vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar (2009) 9 SCC 310 666, 679, 680 596, 613, 614 10 Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993 533, 534 493, 494 11 Asrar Ahmed Vs. Durgah Committee AIR 1947 PC 1 498 469 12 Babajirao Vs. Laxmandas 1904 ILR 28 Bom. 215 at 223 275 224 13 Bachhaj Nahar Vs Nilima Mandal and another, (2008) 17 SCC 491 695, 698 626, 628 14 Baiju Lal Vs. Bulak Lal, (1897) 24 Cal 385 510 475 15 Bal Mukandji Maharaj vs. Gokaran Singh and another, AIR 1956 All 124 144 112 16 Balmakund Vs Dalu, I.L.R. 25 All. 498 687 622 17 Bhagawati Prasad Vs Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735 684, 686 617, 620 18 Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar, 2005(1) SCC 787 527, 541 489, 502 19 Bibi Rahmani Khatoon and others Vs. Harkoo Gope and others (1981) 3 SCC 173 417, 421, 422, 424 422, 426, 427, 428 20 Bihar State Board of Religious Trust Vs. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das, AIR 1971 SC 2057 267 220 21 Bijoe Emmanuel and others Vs. State of Kerala and others, 1986(3) SCC 615 317 252 22 Blair Vs. Churran (1939) 62 CLR 464 490 463 23 Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1995 SC 2089 303, 314 244, 250 24 Brij Narain Singh Vs. Adya Prasad, JT 2008 (3) SC 1 460 450 25 Byathaiah (Kum) and others Vs. Pentaiah (Kum) and others, 2000 (9) SCC 191) 504 472 26 Cassomally Vs. Carrimbhoy (1911) 36 Bom. 214 478 459 27 Chand Kaur vs. Partab Singh (1987-88) 15 Indian Appeals, 156 674 607 28 Chandu Lal Vs. Khalilur Rahman, AIR 1950 P.C. 17 472 455 29 Chattar Singh Vs. Thakur Prasad Singh AIR 1975 SC 1499 420, 424 424, 428 30 Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. JT 2009 (6) SC 29) 448, 464 446, 452 31 Commissioner of Endowments and others Vs. Vittal Rao and others (2005) 4 SCC 120 514 480 32 Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt AIR 1954 SC 282 290, 303, 309, 313, 321, 522 238, 244, 248, 249, 255, 486 33 Dadu Dayal Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) Vs. Mahant Ram Niwas and another, 2008(11) SCC 753 537, 539 495, 497 34 Daryao Vs. State of U.P, AIR 1961 SC 1457 527 489 35 Dhan Singh Vs. Jt. Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow and others, AIR 1973 All. 283 471, 472 454, 454 36 Dhanajishaw Vs. Fforde (1887) ILR 11 Bom 649 566 519 37 Dill Vs. Watson, (1836) 2 Jones Rep. (Ir Ex) 48) 319 254 38 Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2014(5) SCC 75 520, 524 484, 487 39 Erach Boman Khavar Vs. Tukaram Shridhar Bhat and another, 2013(15) SCC 655 531, 535 491, 495 40 Feroze Din and Ors. vs. Nawab Khan and others, AIR 1928 Lahore 432 141 111 41 Free Church of Scotland Vs. Overtoun; 1904 AC 515 319 254 42 Giyana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi Vs. Kandasami Thambira I.L.R. 10 Mad 375 213, 262, 264 173, 216, 219 43 Gorie Gouri Naidu (Minor) and another Vs. Thandrothu Bodemma and others, AIR 1997 SC 808 473 455 44 Government of Province of Bombay Vs. Peston Ji Ardeshir Wadia AIR 1949 PC 143 501 471 45 Greater Cochin Development Authority Vs. Leelamma Valson, 2002(2) SCC 573 527 489 46 Greedharee Doss Vs. Nandokissore Doss, Mohunt (1867) M.I.A. 405 213 174 47 Guda Vijayalakshmi Vs. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, AIR 1981 SC 1143 479 459 48 Gulabchhand Chhotalal Parikh vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1153 530 490 49 Gulam Abbas Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 2199 452 447 50 H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B. N. Thimmajamma & others AIR 1959 SC 443 716 642 51 H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt and others Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and others 1979 (4) SCC 642 276 224 52 Hansraj Gupta and others Vs. Dehradun Mussorie Electric Tramway Company Ltd., AIR 1933 PC 63 484 461 53 Hari Singh vs. Firm Karam Chand-Kanshi Ram, AIR 1927 Lahore 115 140 111 54 Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh (2005) 13 SCC 511 677 610 55 Hook Vs. Administrator General of Bengal 1921 (ILR) 48 (Cal.) 499 (P.C.) 450 446 56 Hope Plantations Ltd. Vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade, JT 1998 (7) SC 404 458, 477, 529 449, 458, 490 57 Iftikhar Ahmed Vs. Syed Meharban Ali 1974 (2) SCC 151 449 446 58 Imam-ud-Din and Anr. vs. Sri Ram Perbhu Dial, AIR 1928 Lahore 142 140 111 59 Jagdeo Misir Vs. Mahabir Tewari, AIR 1927 All. 803 470 454 60 Jagdish Chandra Sharma Vs. Narain Singh Saini, (2015) 8 SCC 615 716 642 61 Jamna Vs. Jhalli AIR 1920 All 111 412 417 62 Jamshed Ji Vs. Soonabai, (1909) 22 Bom 122 316 252 63 Jaswant Singh Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property 1985 (3) SCC 648 474 455 64 Jenkins Vs. Robertson, (1867) LRIHL 117 454 448 65 Jitu Patnaik Vs. Sanatan Mohakud and others, (2012) 4 SCC 194 666, 681 596, 615 66 Jujjuvarapu Vs. Pappala, AIR 1969 A.P. 76 503 472 67 K. Ethirajan Vs. Lakshmi and others, AIR 2003 SC 4295 458 449 68 Kailasam Pillai Vs. Nataraja Thambiran and Ors. 1910 I.L.R. 33 Madras 265 264 219 69 Kalipada De Vs. Dwijapada Das, AIR 1930 PC 22 451 447 70 Kanhiya Lal Vs. Ashraf Khan AIR 1924 Alld. 355 502 471 71 Kewal Singh Vs. Smt. Lajwanti 1980 (1) SCC 290 501 471 72 Kidar Lall Seal and another Vs Hari Lall Seal, AIR 1952 SC 47 691 624 73 Krishna Behary Ray Vs. Bunwari Lal Ray, (1875) 1 Cal. 144 (146) 441 439 74 Kumaravelu Chettiar and others Vs. T.P. Ramaswami Ayyar and others, AIR 1933 PC 183 509 474 75 Kunju Kasavan Vs M.M. Philip, I.C.S. and others, AIR 1964 SC 164 694 625 76 Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another (2004) 6 SCC 254 666, 673, 675 596, 606, 607 77 Lal Chand Vs. Radha Kishan, AIR 1977 SC 789=1977(2) SCC 88 457 449 78 Lalji Sahib Vs. Munshi Lal, AIR 1943 All 340 471 454 79 Laxmi Raj Shetty and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1988(3) SCC 319 154, 158 116, 119 80 M/s Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1992 (1) SCC 659 311 249 81 Ma Fatima and others vs. Momin Bibi and others, AIR 1929 Rangoon 211 143 112 82 Madhavan Vs. Chathu AIR (38) 1951 Madras 285 502 471 83 Madhukar D. Shende Vs. Tarabai Aba Shedage, 2002(2) SCC 85 517 481 84 Mahadeorao Sukaji Shivankar Vs. Ramaratan Bapu and others (2004) 7 SCC 181 666, 676 596, 608 85 Mahant Girjanand Bhagat Vs. Bhagwan Bhagat and others AIR 1967 (Patna) 101 75 68 86 Mahant Harnam Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh and another, AIR 1967 SC 1415 512 477 87 Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) VS. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy (2005) 1 SCC 481 424 428 88 Marimuthu Dikshitar v. The State of Madras and Anr., 1952(1) MLJ 557 520, 522 485, 487 89 Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal and others Vs. Dossibai AIR 1971 SC 2355 462, 463 450, 451 90 Matuka Mistry Vs. Kamakhaya Prasad, AIR 1958 (Patna) 264 (FB) 485 461 91 Midnapur Zamindari Company Limited Vs. Naresh Narayan Roy AIR 1922 PC 241 406 413 92 Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. Vs. Kumar Naresh Narayan Roy and others, AIR 1924 P.C. 144 468 453 93 Mohammad Sher Khan Vs. Bharat Indu AIR 1928 All 59 412 417 94 Mohan Lal Vs Anandibai and others, 1971 (1) SCC 313 688 623 95 Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee and Ors. AIR 1953 SC 65 524 488 96 Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others Vs. Moran Mar Marthoma and another, 1995 (Supple) (4) SCC 286 294, 298 241, 243 97 Ms. Aruna Roy and others Vs. Union of India and others, JT 2002 (7) SC 103 297 242 98 Musa Vs. Manilal (1905) ILR 29 Bom 368 566 519 99 Mussammat Lachhmi Vs. Mussammat Bhulli, 1927 ILR (VIII) 384 437 434 100 Nagubai Ammal and others Vs B. Shama Rao and others, AIR 1964 SC 164 692 624 101 Nallor Marthandam Vellalar and others Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and others 2003 (10) SCC 712 312 249 102 Nana Tukaram Jaikar Vs. Sonabai Mahadav and others AIR 1982 Bom. 437 405 412 103 Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta vs. New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2015 SCC (9) 755 148 114 104 Narayana Dutt and another Vs. Smt. Molini Devi, AIR 1964 (Rajasthan) 269 485 461 105 Nathaniel Uraon Vs. Mahadeo Uraon and others AIR 1957 Patna 511 412 416 106 Nibovet Vs. Nibovet (1878) P.D. (CA) 1 218 177 107 Nundo Lall Bhuttacharjee and others Vs. Bidhoo Mookhy Debee 1886 ILR 13 Cal. 17 406 413 108 Pandurang Dhondi Chougule Vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav AIR 1966 SC 153 447 446 109 Paras Nath Rai and others Vs. State of Bihar and others (2012 ) 12 SCC 642 423 427 110 Parthasaradi Ayyangar and others Vs. Chinnakrishna Ayyangar and others Vol. V ILR Madras Series (1882) 304 443 440 111 Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji Vs. Ishwarlalbhai Narsibhai 1952 SCR 513 498 469 112 Prem Narain Vs. Ram Charan and others, AIR 1932 P.C. 51 469 454 113 Priddle Vs. Napper 6 Coke IA 1777 448 446 114 Quamarul Islam vs. S.K. Kanta and others, 1994 Supp.(3) SCC 5 154, 161 116, 122 115 R. Venugopala Naidu and others Vs. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities and others, AIR 1990 SC 444 512 479 116 R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and another, 2003(8) SCC 752 145, 147, 149, 163 112, 114, 114, 124 117 Radharani Vs. Binodamoyee AIR 1942 Cal. 92 478 459 118 Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh and Others, AIR 1996 SC 2358: 1996 (7) SCC 486 665 596 119 Ragho Prasad Gupta Vs. Krishna Poddar AIR 1969 SC 316 495 465 120 Raghoonath Vs. Gobindnarain (1895) ILR 22 Cal. 451 566 519 121 Raghu Nath Vs. Shib Charan Lal (1895) ILR 17 All 174 406 413 122 Raj Narain Vs. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and another (1972) 3 SCC 850 666, 669 596, 600 123 Raja Gopa Chettiar Vs. Hindu Religion Endowment Board, Madras, AIR 1934 Madras 103 484 461 124 Rajah of Venkatgiri Vs. Provinces of Madras AIR (34) 1947 Madras 5 478 459 125 Rajendra Prasad Vs. Khirodhar Mahto 1994 Supp (3) SCC 314 421 426 126 Ram Adhar Singh Vs. Ramroop Singh AIR 1968 SC 714 420, 424 424, 428 127 Ram Gobinda Daw Vs. Smt. H. Bhakta Bala Dassi, AIR 1971 SC 664 505 473 128 Ram Kirpal Vs. Rup Kuari (1883) ILR 6 (Alld.) 269 (P.C.) 444 443 129 Ram Nandan Sahay Vs. Jai Gobind Pandey AIR 1919 Pat 445 412 417 130 Ram Parkash Das Vs. Anand Das and Ors. AIR 1916 Privy Council 256 265 219 131 Ram Sarup Gupta Vs Bishun Narain Inter College, AIR 1987 SC 1242 699, 700 629, 630 132 Ramalingam Pillai Vs. Vythialingam Pillai (1893) 20 I.A. 150 213 174 133 Ramalingam Pillai Vs. Vythialingam Pillai I.L.R. 16 Mad 490 213 174 134 Ramaswami Reddi Vs. Talaivasal Marudai Reddi and others AIR 1924 Mad 469 406 413 135 Rameshwar Prasad and others Vs. Shyam Beharilal Jagannath and others AIR 1963 SC 1901 415 421 136 Rani Purnima Devi And Another vs Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev And another, AIR 1962, 567 716 642 137 Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. The State of Bombay and others, AIR 1954 SC 388 291, 317 238, 252 138 Roman Catholic Mission v. The State of Madras and another 1966(3) SCR 283 148 114 139 Run Bahadur Singh Vs. Lucho Koer ILR (1885) 11 Cal 301 498 469 140 S. R. Bommai and others Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1994 SC 1918 311 249 141 S.P. Mittal Vs. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 1 292, 310 239, 248 142 S.P.A. Annamalay Chetty vs. B.A. Thornhill AIR 1931 PC 263 406 413 143 Sadik Husain Khan vs Hashim Ali Khan and others, 1916 ILR (38) All 627 139 111 144 Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others vs Yelamarti Satyam alias Satteyya and others, AIR 1971 SC 1865 142 111 145 Saiyad Jaffar El Edroos Vs. Saiyad Mahomed El Edroos AIR 1937 Bom. 217 496 465 146 Sajjadanashin Sayed Md. B.E. Edr. (D) By LRS. Vs. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and others 2000 (3) SCC 350 496, 497, 499 465, 468, 469 147 Salvesan Vs. Administrator of Austrian Property (1927) A.C. 641 217 176 148 Samant N. Balkrishna and another vs. George Fernandez and others, 1969(3) SCC 238 154 116 149 Sammantha Pandara v. Sellappa Chetti I.L.R, 2 Mad. 175 69, 261, 263 65, 214, 218 150 Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah and another, 1955(2) SCR 1 135 109 151 Sardar Sarup Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1959 SC 860 321 255 152 Sardar Syedna Tahel Saifuddin Saheb Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853 318 253 153 Sat Narayan Singh Vs. Anant Prosad AIR 1919 Pat 549 412 417 154 Satya Charan Sarkar Vs. Mohanta Rudrananda Giri AIR 1953 Cal. 716 272 223 155 Satyadhyan Ghosal Vs. Deorajin Debi, AIR 1960 SC 941 526, 532, 542 489, 493, 502 156 Sayed Abdula Edrus Vs. Sayad Zain Sayad Hasan Edrus ILR (1889) 13 Bom. 555 496 465 157 Sayed Mohd. Vs. Alimiya (1972) 13 Guj.LR 285 496 467 158 Secretary of State vs. (Shrimati) Sarla Devi Chaudhrani, AIR 1924 Lahore 548 140 111 159 Shah Shivraj Gopalji v. Edappakath Ayissa Bi and Ors., AIR 1949 PC 302 524 488 160 Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries) and others, 2010(8) SCC 423 146, 163 114, 124 161 Shantha Nand Gir Chela Vs. Basudevanand AIR 1930 Alld. 225 436 433 162 Sharadchandra Ganesh Muley Vs. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 1996 SC 61 500 470 163 Sheodhar Rai and others Vs Suraj Prasad Singh and others, AIR 1954 SC 758 685 619 164 Sheoparsan Singh and others Vs. Ramnandan Prasad 43 IA 91(PC)= 20 C.W.N. 738 (P.C.) 448 446 165 Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Vs. Mahant Harnam Singh and others, AIR 2003 SC 3349 512 476 166 Shri Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir and others 1981 (3) SCC 689=AIR 1980 SC 707 268, 269, 273, 275, 279 220, 221, 223, 224, 225 167 Shri Udhav Singh Vs. Madhav Rao Scindia (1977) 1 SCC 511 666, 671, 672 596, 601, 603 168 Shripati Quer Vs. Malti Devi, AIR 1967 (Patna) 320) 485 462 169 Sitaram Vs. Amir Begum (1886) ILR 8 Alld. 324 478 459 170 Sitaram vs. Ram Charan and Ors. AIR 1995 MP 134 142 112 171 Smt. Raj Lakshmi Dasi and others Vs. Banamali Sen and others AIR 1953 SC 33 456, 505, 525 448, 472, 488 172 Soorjomonee Dayee Vs. Suddanund Mahapatter (1873) 12 BLR 304, 315 (P.C.) 440 439 173 Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1997(4) SCC 606 304 245 174 Sri Gopal Vs. Pirthi Singh (1902) ILR 24 Alld. 429 (PC) 501 471 175 Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal Vs. His Holiness Sri La Sri Kasivasi Arulnandi Thambiran Swamiga (1974) 1 SCC 150 213, 214, 219, 221 171, 174, 177, 178 176 Sri Ramjee and others Vs. Bishwanath Pd. Sah and others AIR 1978 Patna 129 507 473 177 Sri Vidya Varuthi Thirth Swamigal Vs. Baluswami Ayyar and Ors. AIR 1922 P.C. 123 266, 278 220, 225 178 Srikanti Vs. Indupuram (1866) 3 M.H.C.R. 226 509 474 179 State of Karnataka and another Vs. All India Manufacturers Organization and others, 2006(4) SCC 683 461 450 180 State of Punjab Vs. Nathu Ram AIR 1962 SC 89 413 418 181 State of U.P. Vs. Nawab Hussain AIR 1977 SC 1680 501, 540 471, 500 182 Sulochana Amma Vs. Narayanan Nair, AIR 1994 SC 152 459, 498 449, 469 183 Sundar Pande and others Vs. Musammat Kumari 1919 (50) Indian Cases 935 (Alld.) 411 415 184 Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati and another Vs. Ramji Tripathi, 1974 (2) SCC 695 62, 391 58, 373 185 Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai Vs. Mohd. Hanifa AIR 1976 SC 1569 466 453 186 T.B. Ramachandra Rao and another Vs. A.N.S. Ramchandra Rao and others, AIR 1922 PC 80 450 447 187 T.K. Gopal alias Gopi Vs. State of Karnataka, 2000 (6) SCC 168 296, 242 188 Talluri Venkata Seshayya and others Vs. Thadikonda Kotiswara Rao and others, AIR 1937 P.C. page 1 475 455 189 Tarak Chandra Das and another Vs. Anukul Chandra Mukherjee A.I.R. 1946 Cal 118 220 178 190 Thamba Vs. Arundel I.L.R. 6 Mad. 287 271 222 191 Trojan and Company Ltd. Vs Rm.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235 684 618 192 U.P. State road Transport Corporation Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2005(1) SCC 444 542 502 193 Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs. Sardara Singh and others, AIR 1981 (Punjab and Haryana) 354 484 461 194 Vanagiri Sri Selliamman Ayyanar Uthirasomasundar-eswarar Temple Vs. Rajanga Asari Air 1965 Mad. 355 498 469 195 Venkata Chandrayya Vs. Venkata Rama Reddy, (1899) 22 Madras 256 484 461 196 Venkataramana Devaru Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255 321 255 197 Vidyapurna Tirtha Swami Vs. Vidyanidhi Tirtha Swami 1904 ILR Vol. XXVII Madras 435 263 218 198 Virender Nath Gautam vs. Satpal Singh (2007)3 SCC 617 678 612 199 Vithal Yeshwant Jathar Vs. Shikandarkhan Makhtumkhan Sardesai AIR 1963 SC 385 515 480 200 Waqf Khudawand Taala Banam Masjid Mauza Chaul Shahabudinpur vs. Seth Mohan Lal 1956 ALJ 225 511 475 201 Waris Khan and Others Vs. Ahmadullakhan and others AIR 1952 Nag 238 406 413 Index-Subjectwise in First Appeal No. 309 of 2015 S.No. Particulars Date Paras Pages 1 Parties and Counsels' name 1 2 Plaint of Suit 513 of 1989 10.11.1989 3-17 2-11 3 Amendment of plaint after appellant's installation 22.12.2006 18 11 4 Appellant's defence in written statement 12.05.1992 19-21 12-18 5 Replication 19.04.1995 22-23 18-22 6 Amendment application 01.09.2005 24 22-24 7 Additional written statement 03.01.2007 25 24-26 8 Issues 26-27 26-31 9 Evidence:
28-31 31-38 10 Plaintiff's witnesses 29-30 30-35 11 (I) To prove Installation of plaintiff as Shankar- acharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth.29
31-33 (II) To prove authenticity and mandatory character of Rules for installation, qualification, eligibility and procedure for installation to the office of Shankaracharya with reference to Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan. 29 33 III. Experts in religious matters 29 34 IV. Handwriting expert 34 V. Photographer 34 Other witnesses on specific aspects 30 34-35 12 I. Defendants witnesses to prove appellant as Shankaracharya 31 35-38 II. Experts in religious matters 31 37 III. About qualification of plaintiff 31 37 IV. Handwriting expert 31 38 V. Photographer 31 38 13 Findings of Trial Court 32-34 38 14 Amendment in Memo of Appeal 35 38 15 Misc. Proceeding during trial of Suit 36-41 39-40 16 Previous litigation 42-96 41-92 17 Misc. case no. 44 of 1953 45-50 42-47 18 Suit 3 of 1954 51-62 47-57 19 Suit 47 of 1954 63 57-58 20 Suit 3 of 1963 (abated)
-
58 21 Suit 36 of 1965 64-81 58-73 22 Civil Suit 1-A of 1974 82-96 73-92 23 Marking of documents as exhibits 97-164 93-125 24 Points for Determination and Adjudication First Point: Shankaracharya, his antiquity, his philosophy, work carried out by him for propagating Sanatan Dharma, his influence over followers of Sanatan Dharma and position and status of Shankaracharya and his Peethas vis a vis the persons occupying those Peethas in the eyes of Hindu followers of Adi Shankaracharya's philosophy. Second point: Whether for installation of any person to head the Peethas established by Adi Guru Shankaracharya, are there any set of discipline, Rules and Regulations? Third Point: Whether Mathamnaya and Mahanushasan are written work containing and prescribing Regulations laying down mode, manner, eligibility and other instructions for selection and installation of an appropriate person to Head the said Peethas. 169-172 129-130 25 About Adi Shankaracharya 173 130 26 About Four Peethas: The Concept of Mutt:
224 179 27
Sharda Peeth Dwarka 232 186 28 Shri Goverdhan Peeth-Puri 234 187 29 Shri Jyotirpeeth at Shree Peeth-Badarikashram 236 188 30 Shri Shreengeri Peeth-Shreengeri 237 189 31 Concept of 'Mutt' and "Religious Denomination"
247-321 205-255 32 About Mathamnaya-Mahanushasan 322-342 255-270 33 Sanyasi 343-376 279-362 34 Answer (First Point): Adi Shankaracharya and four Amnaya Peeths established by him have a special but great reverence and significance in the entire religious denomination of this Country following Sanatan Dharma and Shankar Philosophy and we can take judicial notice of this fact that this denomination constitute majority people of this Country.
Answers (Second and Third Points): "Mathamnaya" and "Mahanushasan" are commands of regulations of eligibility and suitability of person to be installed as Shankaracharya, the manner in which one can be appointed or removed and also containing conditions for regulation of these Peethas.
For installation of Shankaracharya, the essential eligibility conditions includes that one must be a Sanyasi, well conversant in Sanskrit, well read of religious scriptures like Vedas, Upnishads, Brahmans etc., must be disciple of an Acharya of Amnaya Peeth in which he is to be selected and installed, and, should also follow all regulations and instructions which are provided in various scriptures like "Mathamnaya", "Mahanushasan" and Upnishads etc. 377 362-363 35 Fourth Point: Whether at Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth, installation of Shankaracharya has always followed Guru-Shishya Parampara or there has been an exception for installation of Shankaracharya thereat?
378-387 363-372 36 Answer Fourth Point: In the past Guru-Shishya Parampara was followed in Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth but due to unavoidable circumstances, it had broken sometimes in 1833 Vikram Swavat (1776 AD) and after 165 years, installation of Shankaracharya was made by selection of a suitable person by Manishigans and not following Guru-Shishya Parampara pursuant whereto Swami Brahmanand Saraswati came to be installed and functioned as such for about 12 years.
387A 372 37 Fifth Point: Who came to be installed as Shankaracharya after Swami Brahmanand Saraswati in 1953?
388-396 372-380 38 Answer Fifth Point: On 12.06.1953 after death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, following nomination made by him vide ''Will' dated 18.12.1952, his first choice, namely, Ramji Tripathi, i.e., Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati was installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 12.06.1953.396 380 39
Sixth Point: Whether Swami Shanta Nand Saraswati was removed (Nigrah) from office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth?
Seventh Point: Whether Swami Krishna Bodhashram was installed as Shankaracharya on 25.06.1953 validly, i.e., if there was no person holding the said office so as to give an opportunity of making appointment/installation in the said office on 25.06.1953?
Eighth Point: Whether this issue having already been decided by Court in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965, would operate as res judicata and related issues in suit in question would be barred by the said principle in view of decision in Suit No. 36 of 1965?
Ninth Point: Whether judgment dated 15.01.1970 passed by Trial Court in Suit No. 36 of 1965 can be said to have attained finality after dismissal of first appeal having abated due to death of sole defendant-appellant and non substitution of his legal representatives and if so, this question cannot be considered in any subsequent proceeding. In other words, what is the status and effect of abatement of appeal on the judgment of Trial Court dated 15.01.1970 in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 after the appeal was dismissed as abated.
397-398 380-381 40 Effect of Abatement 410-426 414-429 41 Whether judgment dated 15.01.1970 would operate as res-judicata 427-586 429-538 42 Answer Sixth Point: Point for determination no. 6 is answered in negative holding that Swami Shantanand Saraswati was not removed from the office of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth after his installation on 12.06.1953.
Answer Seventh Point: Point for determination no. 7 is answered in negative holding that alleged installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram in the seat of Shankaracharya on 25.06. 1953 was invalid, illegal and contrary to the customs, traditions and usages laid down in relevant religious scriptures having force of law, as discussed in this judgment.
Answer Eighth and Ninth Points: Points of determination no. 8 and 9 are answered in affirmative holding that judgment dated 15.01.1970 passed in Original Suit No. 36 of 1965 attained finality and would operate as res judicata. Hence the issue regarding valid installation of Swami Shantanand Saraswati in the seat of Shankaracharya and that he was qualified for such installation and that Swami Krishna Bodhashram was not validly installed on 25.06.1953 would also operate as res judicata and the said judgment attained finality after appeal abated, in view of judgments of Supreme Court, which we have already discussed above.587
538-539 43 Tenth Point:Whether plaintiff has claimed any independent right in the office of Shankaracharya or his claim is connected with the issue of installation of Swami Krishna Bodhashram?
Answer Tenth Point: Answered in negative against plaintiff, i.e., in favour of appellant.588 539
Eleventh Point: Whether plaintiff has proved that a ceremony for his installation as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth was held on 07.12.1973?
Twelfth Point: Whether the alleged installation of plaintiff in the seat of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth in the ceremony held on 07.12.1973 conferred a right upon him to hold the said office and can be said to be a valid installation, particularly when we have already held that Swami Shanta Nand Sarawati was holding the said office in 1973 and Swami Krishna Bodhashram having not been validly installed in the seat of Shankaracharya on 25.06.1953 did not cause any vacancy on his death on 10.09.1973?589
539-540 44 Answer Eleventh and Twelfth Points:Questions No.-11 and 12 are answered by holding that there is evidence on record to show that ceremony was held for installation of plaintiff in the seat of Shankaracharya on 07.12.1973, but his installation is invalid. The finding of Trial Court taking an otherwise view, therefore, to that extent is reversed accordingly.644 587 45
Thirteenth Point:Whether suit in question filed by plaintiff rendered infructuous after installation of appellant in the seat of Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth on 14/15.11.1989?
646-658 587-592 46 Answer Thirteenth Point:Question No.-XIII is answered in negative and against appellant holding that suit did not rendered infructuous as pleaded by appellant.658 592 47
Fourteenth Point: Whether appellant is disqualified, lacking essential qualification/eligibility to become Shankaracharya of an Amanya Peeth and in particular Jyotirmath/Jyotishpeeth?
Fifteenth Point: Whether pleadings lack material facts or relevant particular pointing out the alleged disqualification on the part of appellant and Court below erred in law by proceeding to consider this aspect despite lack of appropriate pleading on this aspect?659 592 48
Answer Fifteenth Point: Point for determination no. 15 is answered against appellant.705 636 49
Answer Fourteenth Point: Points for determination no. 14 is answered against appellant 736 668 50 Point for determination regarding Section 10 C.P.C.737 668 51
Answer Point for determination regarding Section 10 C.P.C.:Condition of section 10 CPC are not attracted in the case in hand. Therefore, there was no error on the part of Court below in not staying the proceedings of suit in question. Aforesaid question is, therefore, answered against the appellant.739 669 52
Summary of Judgment 745 674 53 Result 746-748 677-678 54 Appendix 'A' Plaintiff's witnesses 679-682 55 Appendix 'B' Defendant's Witnesses 683-688 56 Appendix 'C' Plaintiff's Documentary Evidence 689-759 57 Appendix 'D' Defendant-appellant's Documentary Evidence 760-787 58 Alphabetical Index of Citations 779-789 59 Index Subjectwise 790-796 Dated: 22.09.2017 Akn/AK/PS/Pravin