Bangalore District Court
Shree Kashi Math Samsthan Varanasi vs Raghavendra Tirtha Alias Shivananda on 26 February, 2024
KABC010174722017
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-9) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2024.
PRESENT:
Sri HAREESHA A., B.A., LL.B.,
XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.4838/2017
PLAINTIFFS : 1. Shree Kashi Math
Samsthan, Varanasi.
Having its Headquarters at
K 22/87, Brahma Ghat,
Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh -
221 001.
Also having Branch at:
No.14, 19th Cross, Shree
Kashi Math Road,
Malleswaram, Bengaluru-
560 055.
Represented herein by its
Mathadipathi H.H.Shrimad
Samyamindra Tirtha
Swamiji.
Represented herein by his
Power of Attorney Holder
Shri K. Narayana Shenoy.
2. H.H.Shrimad Samyamindra
Tirtha Swamiji,
Sanyasi, Disciple of
H.H.Shrimad Sudhindra
Tirtha Swamiji,
Cont'd..
-2- O.S. No.4838/2017
Aged about 34 years,
presently camping at
Konchady Shree Kashi
Math, Padavinagady,
Mangalore -575 008.
Also at No. 14, 19th cross,
Shree Kashi Math Road,
Malleswaram, Bengaluru-
560 055.
Represented herein by his
Power of attorney holder
Shri K.Narayana Shenoy.
[By Sri Sushanth Pai, Advocate]
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. Rahavendra Tirtha @
Shivananda Pai,
S/o. Late N.Ranganatha Pai,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at No.103, 2nd
Floor Creative Arcade,
Nagashettihalli,
Sanjaynagar, Bengaluru-
560 094.
2. Dr. U.V. Shenoy,
S/o. Upendra Shenoy,
Aged about 77 years,
Sowbhagya, Near Radha
Clinic, Thayineri, Payyanur
P.O. Kannur, Kerala -
670 307.
3. Nandakumar Prabhu,
S/o. K.G. Padmanabha Prabhu,
Aged about 63 years,
Residing at Kalappura
Kovilakam, Sathguru
Raghavendra Kripa Sadan,
Sree Padmanabhapuram,
Cont'd..
-3- O.S. No.4838/2017
Pullr P.O. Pullur, Thrissur,
Kerala-680 663.
4. K. Achuta Pai
S/o. K.Nagesha Pai,
Aged about 62 years,
Residing at Shrinivasa Nilaya,
Ratha Bidi, Karkala Taluk,
Karkala, Udupi -574 101.
5. Jagadish Gopalakrishna Kamat,
S/o. Gopalakrishna Kamat,
Aged about 73 years,
Residing at P.A.-6, Plot No.120,
Jasud Bhavan, Part-1, Scheme 6
Road, 24-A, Shiv (W) Plot No.
133, Mumbai-400 022.
6. K. Ramesh Bhat,
S/o. Krishna Bhat,
Aged about 52 years,
Residing at No.15/8, 2nd Trust
Link Street, Mandaveli, Raja
Annamalaipuram,
7. Anantha Mallan,
S/o. Sreenivasa Mallan,
Aged about 83 years,
Residing at Kundelattu,
S.L.Puram, Mararikkulam, North
Village, Alapppuzha-688523.
8. Narayana Pai,
S/o. B.Madhava,
Aged about 74 years,
Residing at No.1039, Near Veera
Vittal Temple, Koipady, Kumbla,
Kasargod-671321.
9. Bhamy Sudhakara Shenoy,
S/o. Bhamy Vamana Shenoy,
Aged about 65 years,
Residing at No.4-213, BSVS
Cont'd..
-4- O.S. No.4838/2017
College Road, Bantwal Kasaba,
Bantwal, Bantwal-574211.
10. Shre Kashi Math Samsthan
Varanasi (Banaras),
An illegally and fraudulently
constituted Trust created and
registered by its Trustees the 1st
to 9th defendants herein on
16.05.2017. Having office at No.
103, 2nd Floor Creative Arcade,
Nagashettihalli, Sanjaynagar,
Bengaluru-560 094, Represented
by its alleged author and Fouder
Trustee & Managing Trustee,
Raghavendra Tirtha, the 1st
defendant herein.
11. "Sub Registrar,
Byatarayanapura, No. 641, 1st
Floor, Kodigehalli Main Road,
BBMP Ward No.8, Bengaluru-
560 092."
(Deleted vide order 11.3.2019).
(D1 - By Sri N.D, Advocate)
(D2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 - Exparte)
(D10- By Sri DN, Advocate)
(D11- By III ADGP)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 17-07-2017
Nature of the Suit : Declaration and
Injunction Suit.
Date of the commencement : 01-02-2020
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 26-02-2024
was pronounced
Cont'd..
-5- O.S. No.4838/2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
-----------------------------------------
Total duration : 6 year/s, 7 months, 19 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(HAREESHA A.)
XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking, inter alia, declaratory relief to adjudge and declare the Trust dated: 16.05.2017 registered as Document No.BYP-4-00040-2017-18 in Book-IV stored in CD No.BYPD243 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru as null and void and consequently, to cancel the said Trust Deed and restrain the defendants No.1 to 9, from acting upon the said Trust Deed and from interfering with the administration and affairs of the 1st plaintiff Math.
2. The succinct narrative of the plaintiff's contention is as follows:
The plaintiff No.1 is the Math represented by 2nd plaintiff the Mathadipathi of 1st plaintiff Math, Cont'd..
-6- O.S. No.4838/2017 represented through their duly constituted Power of Attorney Holder. It is alleged that the 10th Defendant is a fraudulent and illegal entity established by Defendants 1 through 9. The name of the 10th Defendant is deceptively styled in a Trust Deed as "Shree Kashi Math Samsthan Varanasi (Banaras),"
identical to the Plaintiff Math. Furthermore, it is alleged that the 1st Defendant, acting as the Author & Founder Trustee and Managing Trustee of the aforementioned fraudulent 10th Defendant Trust, and Defendants 2 and 9, who also serve as Trustees of the 10th Defendant, knowingly and with malicious intent created and registered the entity under a name identical to the Plaintiff Math. This course of action, it is further alleged, was undertaken with the express purpose of fraudulently misrepresenting their authority and affiliation with the Plaintiff Math. The Defendants, through this act of deception, intended to exploit the esteemed reputation and goodwill associated with the Plaintiff Math for their personal gain. Additionally, it is alleged that they aimed to utilize the cover of the Plaintiff Math's well-established reputation to engage in Cont'd..
-7- O.S. No.4838/2017 illicit activities. It is further averred that, by such devious and dubious methods they seek to take over all the assets and properties of the 1st plaintiff Math and disrupt its functioning and create confusion and chaos amongst its lakhs of devotees spread all over the world and the public at large.
3. Further it is averred that, the 1 st plaintiff Math is a Dharma Peetha of the Gowda Saraswat Brahmin (G.S.B.) Community, a religious institution with glorious traditions and a hoary past. It is currently headed by its Mathadipathi H.H.Shrimad Samyamindra Tirtha Swamiji, the 2nd plaintiff herein. The 1 st plaintiff Math was established in the year 1542 A.D. H.H.Shrimad Vijayendra Tirtha Swamiji of the Kumbakonam Math initiated Shrimad Yadavendra Tirtha Swamiji-I, into Sanyasa and anointed him the Mathadipathi of the 1st plaintiff Math. Since then, the 1st plaintiff Math has been under the able guidance of a long and illustrious line of Yatis- Swamis and the current Mathadipathi (i.e., the 2nd plaintiff) is carrying Cont'd..
-8- O.S. No.4838/2017 on the great traditions and customs of the 1 st plaintiff Math.
4. It is further averred that, the 1st plaintiff Math's disciples are from the Goud Saraswath Brahmin community, who are those Saraswats who migrated from Goudadesh known as Trihotrapura in the Puranas. They are largely spread over the Konkan coast of South India. They speak Konkani and are a microscopic minority. The Dharma Guru/Mathadipathi occupies a unique position and plays a very significant role as he is the head of the Math not only in respect of religious affairs but also secular affairs. He guides the community in all religious, cultural, social and other activities. All the temples, institutions and other organizations of the community also owe their allegiance to the Math and Mathadipathi and function under the guidance and blessings of the Math/Mathadipathi. Further it is averred that, the Math is a monastic institution which is headed by the Mathadipathi who is its spiritual and temporal head and the custodian of all its idols, assets and properties.
Cont'd..
-9- O.S. No.4838/2017 The disciples/followers owe their allegiance to the Math through the Mathadipathi and to the Mathadipathi through the Math. The Mathadipathya denotes and connotes the supreme authority of the Math in all its aspect and affairs. In the conception of Mathadipathya, both the elements of office and property, of duties and personal interest are blended. Mathadipathi is the Dharma Guru of the community and issues edicts, orders and directions guiding the religious, cultural and social activities of the community and its institutions. It is averred that, the Mathadipathya is a position which is neither divisible nor transferable. It is unitary and there cannot be more than one Mathadipathi at a given point of time. Succession to the position of Mathadipathi is governed by age old tradition and custom. It is the custom and practice of a particular institution which determines as to how a successor is to be appointed. The concepts of Math and Mathadipathi as detailed herein above apply with full force to the traditions, customs and practices of the 1" plaintiff Math since its inception about 500 years ago. The 1 st plaintiff Math is a "Mourashi' Math, i.e., succession to Cont'd..
- 10 - O.S. No.4838/2017 the Peetha is decided by the extant Guru/Mathadipathi choosing and nominating a Shishya as his successor. Ascension to the position of Mathadipathi of the 1 plaintiff Math is governed by its specific tradition, usage and rites. It is an event to take place only after the lifetime of the existing Mathadipathi. Ascension to the Mathadipathya of the 1st plaintiff Math is not automatic. The extant Mathadipathi is exclusively vested with the right to choose a competent person to pass on the said position after his attaining Samadhi. The Mathadipathi, by initiating into Sanyasa a Shishya, has the to assess the competency, acceptability and worthiness or otherwise of the Shishya to hold the position after his lifetime.
5. The Plaintiffs further asserts the existence of a well- established custom and tradition governing succession to the Peetha (spiritual seat). This custom dictates that only a worthy and competent disciple ("Shishya"), as assessed by the Guru, can succeed to the position of Mathadipathi following the Guru's Samadhi (enlightened death). Beyond other established criteria, Cont'd..
- 11 - O.S. No.4838/2017 succession hinges upon the Guru's explicit nomination. Moreover, the Shishya must manifest the qualities of a virtuous pupil, a "Satshishya," as determined by the Guru. This requirement serves as a prerequisite for eligibility and entitlement to assume the role of Mathadipathi, as outlined in relevant religious texts and as recognized and affirmed by judgments of the Honorable Supreme Court. It is averred that, a Sanyasi who is well versed in the religious scriptures and texts and observes the highest practices and principles of Sanyasa alone is eligible to be a Mathadipathi. It is the prerogative of the Mathadipathi to induct a disciple into the religious order of the Math and train him so as to equip him with the requisite qualities and experience and education that would be required and expected of a Mathadipathi. Only a disciple/Shishya who has all the required attributes, qualities and the aptitude is then nominated as a successor by the Mathadipathi. The Mathadipathi has not only the power and prerogative to induct a disciple and nominate him as his successor if found worthy, but also the power and prerogative to revoke such nomination and disown the disciple if he Cont'd..
- 12 - O.S. No.4838/2017 considers him unworthy of occupying the exalted position of Mathadipathi. Therefore follows that succession to the position of Mathadipathi is dependent solely on the incumbent Mathadipathi-Guru nominating a Shishya who has to be a 'Satshishya.' This principle has been followed and applied by the Courts consistently. The assessment of the qualities and the evaluation of the eligibility for being nominated the successor is essentially the exclusive prerogative of the Guru Mathadipathi and none else. It is averred that, the Mathadipathi, as part of his functions, also manages the properties and assets of the 1st plaintiff Math and all its affairs. This includes establishment and management of branches of the Math at various places, particularly important pilgrim centres and also in those cities and towns where a large number of the Math's devotees reside. The properties are also used for other social welfare objects like establishment of old age homes, hospitals, healthcare centres, homes for the poorer sections of the devotees, schools and educational institutions for the poorer sections of the devotees, etc. Cont'd..
- 13 - O.S. No.4838/2017
6. The plaintiffs assert that the first plaintiff Math holds the status of a 'Notified Institution' as per Section 10(23C)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby subjecting it to the obligations of maintaining meticulously audited accounts and filing income tax returns. Moreover, the first plaintiff Math possesses its own Permanent Account Number (PAN) and has been issued a PAN Card, attesting to its establishment since the historic date of 21st January 1542. The 1st plaintiff Math maintains true and correct accounts of all its incomes and expenditures and the accounts of each of its branches are duly audited. Then all such audited accounts are sent to the Central Accounts Office of the 1st plaintiff Math at Mangalore, which then verifies the same and arranges to file the consolidated returns with the Income Tax Department. The returns are filed only after the same have been verified by the Mathadipathi and it is he who signs the returns and has them filed. Thus, the Mathadipathi oversees and takes care of the religious, charitable, social and cultural activities as well as the accounts and administration of the 1"
plaintiff Math and institutions affiliated to the Math and Cont'd..
- 14 - O.S. No.4838/2017 also guides the temples of the community in religious matters and the devotees of the Math in leading a righteous and virtuous life.
7. Further it is alleged that, the background facts leading to this litigation are the Guru of the current Mathadipathi and the immediate preceding Mathadipathi, Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji was inducted into Sanyasashrama by his Guru, the then Mathadipathi, Shrimad Sukrathindra Tirtha Swamiji on 24.05.1944. Upon Shrimad Sukrathindra Tirtha Swamiji attaining Maha-Samadhi on 10.07.1949, Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji assumed the position of the Mathadipathi of the 1st plaintiff Math being the disciple and nominated successor of his Guru, the then Mathadipathi Shrimad Sukrathindra Tirtha Swamiji. Forty years later, on 07.07.1989, the 1 st defendant was inducted into Sanyasashrama by Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji and given the name Raghavendra Tirtha. The Guru, Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji, with the fond hope of 19. ensuring his then Shishya, the 1st defendant herein, is acquainted Cont'd..
- 15 - O.S. No.4838/2017 with some of the responsibilities, entrusted certain duties and functions to him and to facilitate the due performance thereof he handed over the idols and paraphernalia of the 1st plaintiff Math to the 1st defendant vide proclamation dated 04.11.1994. This was done with the sole intention of providing the 1 st defendant with some practical training and knowledge. The Guru, Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji continued to function as the Mathadipathi and was so recognized by all within the Math as well as outside the Math. In any event, Mathadipathya is not a position that can be abdicated/transferred/divided or otherwise parted with. It is unitary and non-transferable. The 1 st defendant however did not acquit himself well and did not behave in a manner expected of a Sanyasi. The then Guru, received numerous complaints from various quarters about the deviant, unbecoming, arbitrary and high-handed behaviour and conduct of the 1 st defendant. He did not evince any interest in his studies or functions and showed a total disinclination towards the life of a Sanyasi. Hence, the Guru and then Mathadipathi, Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji Cont'd..
- 16 - O.S. No.4838/2017 asked him to mend his ways vide letter dated 31.10.1999. Instead of mending his ways, on
04.11.1999, the 1st defendant addressed a letter to the then Mathadipathi Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji that he (1st defendant) had firmly decided not to involve in the matters of the 1 plaintiff Math and the community and wanted to be relieved at the earliest. Subsequent thereto, the 1 defendant refused to meet his Guru and the then Mathadipathi and when he did meet the Guru in January, 2000 in Bengaluru, he only created a ruckus and insulted his Guru and the then Mathadipathi and when he did meet the Guru in January, 2000 in Bengaluru, he only created a ruckus and insulted his Guru. It is averred that, the matters came to a head when in June, 2000, the 1st defendant claimed to be held himself out as the Mathadipathi of the 1st plaintiff Math to the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (TTD) authorities and sought all the temple honours and special darshan at Tirumala meant only for the Mathadipathi. He also issued invitations for the Chaturmasa Vritham for the year 2000, claiming to be the Mathadipathi of the I" plaintiff Math. The Cont'd..
- 17 - O.S. No.4838/2017 Mathadipathi, after giving the matter due consideration and providing the 1st defendant ample opportunities to explain all his actions since the entrustment of certain duties to him and his incorrigible behaviour and conduct and consistent defiance of the Guru and the Math, realised that the situation was beyond repair and that the 1st defendant was unworthy to be associated with the 1st plaintiff Math. Hence, the Guru/Mathadipathi by a proclamation dated 19.07.2000 accepted the 1st defendant's request dated 04.11.1999 and relieved him.
8. However, to the shock and surprise of all, the 1 st defendant, suppressing all of the above, immediately thereafter filed a suit bearing O.S. No. 34/2000 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Tirupati for the relief of declaration and injunction. He sought a declaration against his own Guru and Mathadipathi that he (1st defendant) was the Mathadipathi of the 1st plaintiff Math and an injunction to restrain his Guru and then Mathadipathi, Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji from interfering with the administration and affairs of the Cont'd..
- 18 - O.S. No.4838/2017 Math. The then Mathadipathi, Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji contested the said suit and also filed a counterclaim to injunct the 1st defendant from interfering with the administration and affairs of the 1st plaintiff Math and also for a mandatory injunction to return all the idols and paraphernalia which had been handed over to him by the Mathadipathi in good faith. Pursuant to the aforesaid proclamation dated:
19.07.2000 of the then Mathadipathi that the 1st defendant had been relieved of all that was entrusted to him vide proclamation dated: 04.11.1994, another proclamation dated 16.03.2001 was issued by the then Mathadipathi declaring that the 1st defendant was no longer his Shishya and that the 1 st defendant was no longer associated with the 1st plaintiff Math. He was disowned and disinherited by his Guru and Mathadipathi. In fact, the 1st defendant filed an Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 574/2001 in the said O.S. No. 34/2000 seeking a direction to the Guru and then Mathadipathi of the 1 st plaintiff Math Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji to withdraw the proclamation dated: 16.03.2001 that was issued to further clarify the Cont'd..
- 19 - O.S. No.4838/2017 earlier proclamation dated 19.07.2000. The said LA.
was significantly not pressed and was dismissed. The suit of the 1st defendant was ultimately dismissed by IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati with costs and the counter claim of the then Mathadipathi, Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji was decreed vide judgement and decree dated: 28.01.2009. Thus, the 1st defendant's prayer to declare him as the Mathadipathi was rejected after a full-fledged and lengthy trial which lasted close to a decade and the counter claim of the then Mathadipathi to restrain the 1st defendant from interfering with the affairs and administration of the 1st plaintiff Math and to return all the idols and paraphernalia was decreed. The 1st defendant appealed against the said judgment and decree before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in A.S. No. 90/2009 and A.S. No. 91/2009. The High Court declined to grant a stay of the operation and execution of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court vide its order dated 25.03.2009 and also refused by the same order to grant a temporary injunction restraining H.H. Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji Cont'd..
- 20 - O.S. No.4838/2017 from interfering with Raghavendra Tirtha (1st defendant herein) functioning as the of the plaintiff Math as alleged by him. This order refusing to grant stay was challenged by the 1st defendant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which too declined to interfere and dismissed the 1st defendant's appeal by a detailed and reasoned order on 02.12.2009 reported in AIR 2010 SC 296 (2010)1 SCC 689. Ultimately, the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad vide its common final judgment and decree dated 01.06.2015 affirmed and upheld the judgment and decree of the lower court in O.S. No. 34/2000. This has not been challenged and thus the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 34/2000 have attained finality.
9. Further it is alleged that, the then Mathadipathi filed Execution proceedings on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, which was then transferred to the file of I Additional District Judge, Ernakulam, Kochi, Kerala and renumbered as E.P. No. 167/2011 as the 1st defendant then claimed to reside within the jurisdiction of the Court at Ernakulam. However, the 1 st Cont'd..
- 21 - O.S. No.4838/2017 defendant had no intention of honoring the decree passed against him and evaded service of the summons as well as the warrants issued by the executing court and absconded with all the decretal items. He was also proclaimed as an absconder. Owing to his recalcitrant conduct, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala on 12.08.2015 was pleased to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to launch a search for the 1 st defendant and produce him before the executing court. He was eventually apprehended and produced by the CBI before the executing Court only in March, 2017 after having evaded the authorities for several years. The said execution case is still pending. Meanwhile, in October, 2011, based on a complaint by some locals in Indira Gandhi Colony within the jurisdiction of CK Dinne Police Station, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, on the suspicious movements of some hermits, the 1st defendant was arrested by the local police at Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, where he was in hiding to evade the warrants of the executing court. He was in possession of the idols of the 1st plaintiff Math and cash of about Rs. 8 Lakh. All the idols of the 1 st plaintiff Math that he Cont'd..
- 22 - O.S. No.4838/2017 was illegally holding onto were also seized by the He was arrested for offences under Sections 42(1) & 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and case bearing Crime No. 183/2011 was registered against him. On a complaint filed by the Power of Attorney Holder of the then Mathadipathi, H.H. Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji, the jurisdictional police also booked the 1 st defendant for offences under Sections 379, 403, 406, 408, 409, 411, 414, 417,420, 477-A R/W section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said Power of Attorney Holder also filed a petition for interim custody of the aforementioned seized idols to be given to the 1st plaintiff Math. The Court handed over the 28 idols to the Mathadipathi of 1st plaintiff Math through his General Power of Attorney Holder, Sri G.G. Prabhu. This order was challenged before the Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa who confirmed the order of the lower court. It is pertinent to mention that the other decretal items have still not been returned by the 1 defendant to the 1" plaintiff and he has even refused to reveal the whereabouts of the same during his interrogation by the investigating officer. The 1st defendant was enlarged Cont'd..
- 23 - O.S. No.4838/2017 on bail. The chargesheet was filed without securing the other decretal items. As the investigation was incomplete, it was handed over to the CBCID, Andhra Pradesh for further investigation which still remains incomplete as the 1" defendant is absconding. The 1 st defendant was managing the Tirumala branch of the 1 st plaintiff Math as per the interim order of the Trial Court in O.S. No. 34/2000. The 1st plaintiff Math, upon re- entering the said branch, realised that, there were no accounts or records maintained by the 1st defendant during the period of his management of the Tirumala branch of the 1st plaintiff Math. Hence, the 1st plaintiff Math lodged a complaint with the DGP, Andhra Pradesh and the CBCID registered Crime No. 55/2014 at Hyderabad PS of CBCID under Section 403, 406, 420 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The same is under investigation and has not been completed as the 1st defendant has been absconding. The 3rd and 6th defendants herein, viz., K.P. Nandakumar Prabhu and K. Ramesh Bhat respectively, have also been arrayed as co-accused with the 1st defendant in the said criminal Cont'd..
- 24 - O.S. No.4838/2017 case along with several other associates of the 1 st defendant.
10. Further plaintiffs asserts that, the 1 st defendant was arrested on 03.03.2017 and remanded to judicial custody. He was enlarged on conditional bail on 05.5.2017 by IV Additional Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor. He was directed to not leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the said Court and was to report before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday and Monday between 10 am and 5 pm and to co-operate with the investigation. On 08.05.2017, his application for relaxation of bail was filed and thereafter his whereabouts are not known. This application was dismissed on 17.05.2017. The Revision Petition filed against the same has been dismissed on 27.6.2017 by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. It is learnt that the Investigating Officer has now filed an application for cancellation of the bail of the 1 st defendant.
Cont'd..
- 25 - O.S. No.4838/2017
11. It is averred that, on 20.06.2002, subsequent to the 1 st defendant being disowned and disinherited, the current Mathadipathi and 2nd plaintiff, Shrimad Samyamindra Tirtha Swamiji was inducted into Sanyasashrama by the previous Mathadipathi Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji and appointed as his Shishya. The previous Mathadipathi also executed a Will dated 06.11.2003, stating the angst and pain caused to him by the 1 st defendant and how the 1st defendant had gone astray from the path of a Sanyasi, showed an avowed disinclination to that and denigrated the image of the 1st plaintiff Math, the Guru and the trust and faith of the devotees. It was further stated that the current Mathadipathi, Shrimad Samyamindra Tirtha Swamiji was chosen and nominated as the successor worthy to assume the Mathadipathya of the 1 st plaintiff upon the Samadhi of Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji. Thereafter, in November 2013 the Guru and then Mathadipathi on being satisfied of the equipment and calibre of Shrimad Samyamindra Tirtha Swamiji, the 2nd plaintiff delegated to him powers and functions and reiterated that he would succeed as the next Cont'd..
- 26 - O.S. No.4838/2017 Mathadipathi vide a General Power of Attorney dated 25.11.2013, registered as KUN-4-00168-2013-14 in Book-IV and stored in C.D. No. KUND158 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kundapura. The succession of the 2nd plaintiff and present Mathadipathi to the Mathadipathya of the 1st plaintiff Math was further affirmed by a Proclamation dated 08.09.2015 issued by the previous Mathadipathi, H.H. Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji. The said Proclamation was sent to all branches of the 1st plaintiff Math, temples and institutions affiliated to the 1 st plaintiff Math and was read out and given wide publicity. It is averred that, the previous Mathadipathi, Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji attained Maha Samadhi on 17.01.2016, the disciple and nominated successor, Shrimad Samyamindra Tirtha Swamiji, the 2nd plaintiff, automatically assumed the position of the Mathadipathi of the 1st plaintiff Math and has been discharging all functions of a Mathadipathi since then. The Shrimad Samyamindra Tirtha Swamiji in his capacity as the disciple and nominated successor performed the last rites and rituals of his Guru at Haridwar. There was a Cont'd..
- 27 - O.S. No.4838/2017 function on 28.01.2016 to celebrate the ascension of the 2nd plaintiff to the Mathadipathya of the 1" plaintiff Math at Haridwar. The devotees of the 1 st plaintiff Math gathered in large numbers to participate in the joyous occasion of the ascension to the Mathadipathya by the successor to the Peetha. This was held on a grand scale where devotees from all over the country convened and the representatives of all the temples and institutions affiliated to the 1st plaintiff Math gathered to reiterate their allegiance to the Math and the Mathadipathi and seek his blessings. The said function was also widely publicised in print, electronic and social media. Thus, upon the 2nd plaintiff's ascension to the Mathadipathya of the1st plaintiff Math on 17.01.2016 there is no vacancy for anyone else to lay claim to the same. Thereafter, the 2nd plaintiff has been performing all functions of the Mathadipathi.
12. Further it is averred that, though the 1st defendant was inducted as a Shishya by his Guru and the then Mathadipathi in 1989 he was never nominated as a successor. Any such reference to him as such was only Cont'd..
- 28 - O.S. No.4838/2017 as a matter of courtesy. As has been the custom and tradition of the1st plaintiff Math it is the prerogative of the extant Mathadipathi to evaluate and assess the Shishya so inducted and determine if he is worthy to ascend the Peetha and become the next Mathadipathi. This is not only a well-recognised custom but also has been recognised, upheld and confirmed by the Privy Council and the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. The 1st defendant was relieved of all his duties vide proclamation dated: 19.7.2000 and thereafter disowned and disinherited as a Shishya by the Guru/Mathadipathi and it was further declared that he had nothing to do with the 1 plaintiff Math vide proclamation dated: 16.03.2001. Thus, having been so disowned and disinherited, he was no longer the Shishya of the extant Mathadipathi and thereby had no right, if at all any, to claim succession to the Mathadipathya of the 1st plaintiff Math As stated above, his application for direction to withdraw such proclamation dated: 16.03.2001 came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. It is significant to note that such order of dismissal was never challenged and was not Cont'd..
- 29 - O.S. No.4838/2017 even one of the grounds taken in appeal before the High Court. Thus, the 1st defendant acquiesced in his removal and his attempt at challenging such proclamation was a mere formality. Even otherwise it would abide by the result in the suit and the suit having been dismissed everything inconsistent with the finality of the conclusions therein also does not survive. Moreover, entrustment of duties and functions as Shishya and succession are inextricably related. Implicit in the withdrawal of duties and functions by the then Mathadipathi and his seeking return of everything that was entrusted and given to the 1 st defendant which was decreed by the Trial Court and upheld in appeal by the High Court is sufficient to deny the 1st defendant any position much less succession as Mathadipathi. It is cancellation of the status as the Shishya and his right to succeed, if any. Further, the 1st defendant's relief for declaring himself as the Mathadipathi was rejected by the Trial Court in O.S. No. 34/2000 which dismissed his suit with costs on 28.01.2009. The same was confirmed by the High Court in appeal and has now attained finality. It is settled law that the judgment and Cont'd..
- 30 - O.S. No.4838/2017 the findings therein as well as the reasons therefor operate as res judicata. The judgment operates by way of estoppel as regards all the findings which are essential to sustain it. The party against whom the judgment has been delivered is estopped from acting in a manner contrary to the said judgment. The succession to the Mathadipathya was reaffirmed by the previous Mathadipathi vide Will dated: 06.11.2003 and proclamation dated: 08.09.2015 where the current Mathadipathi, 2nd plaintiff, was declared as the nominated successor to the Mathadipathya of the 1 st plaintiff Math. It is relevant to mention that, as stated the 1st defendant had firmly decided not to involve himself in the affairs of the 1st plaintiff Math and requested to be relieved of all that was entrusted to him. The then Mathadipathi after giving it due thought and consideration, as stated above, relieved him. It has been categorically found by the Trial Court that the 1 st defendant intended to give up all his duties and responsibilities relating to the 1 st plaintiff Math. Thereafter, events overtook him and attained finality. He cannot blow hot and cold. He cannot now seek to Cont'd..
- 31 - O.S. No.4838/2017 turn around and set himself up and pretend to have anything to do with the 1 st plaintiff Math or claim to be its Mathadipathi. By his own conduct and turn of events he is estopped from claiming or from so holding himself out. Furthermore, there was sufficient cause and material for the previous Mathadipathi to disown and disinherit the 1st defendant and thereby prevent him from becoming the next Mathadipathi. This is also amply clear from the findings of the Trial Court in its judgment that, the 1st defendant was guilty of misdeeds and misbehaviour and misdemeanour. He has been expressly held to be guilty of "Guruninda". There can be no misdemeanour by a Sanyasi-Shishya both according to the scriptural texts and judicial dicta.
"Gurudroha" and "Guruninda" are inconsistent with the vows of the Sansyasashrama and it is considered the most heinous sin. That, without more, is sufficient to disassociate him totally from the 1st plaintiff Math and deny him any position, leave alone Such findings have not been challenged or interfered with appeal by the High Court and have attained finality. Thus, his de-
recognition has also got judicial imprimatur. It is Cont'd..
- 32 - O.S. No.4838/2017 pertinent to state that the 1st defendant is even now leading a life wholly inconsistent with the monastic order and its tenets and requirements.
13. It is averred that, On 16.05.2017, the 1 st defendant along with his coterie has fraudulently created and registered a Trust at Bengaluru (10th defendant Trust) with the same name as that of the 1 st plaintiff Math and portraying the 1st defendant as the "Declared Mathadipathi" of the 1st plaintiff Math. It is averred that, the 1st defendant's act of portraying himself as the Mathadipathi of the plaintiff Math is blatantly false and contrary to the decree passed against him in O.S. No. 34/2000 and affirmed in appeal by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. Thus, the 1st defendant, along with the 2nd to the 9th defendants, is knowingly and deliberately with the mala fide intention of causing confusion, chaos and usurping the 1 st plaintiff Math to further his nefarious ends holding himself out falsely and fraudulently to be the Mathadipathi of the 1st plaintiff Math. A plain reading of the recitals of the Trust Deed makes it abundantly clear Cont'd..
- 33 - O.S. No.4838/2017 that the intention of the 1st to 9th defendants is to usurp the accounts, properties and other assets of the 1 st plaintiff Math and appropriate the same for their own benefit. By mischievously registering the 10 th defendant Trust with the same name as that of the 1 st plaintiff Math, it is evident that it has been done with the mischievous intention of deceiving the devotees, the general public, banks and other authorities so as to create confusion and chaos and disrupt the normal and smooth functioning of the 1 plaintiff Math and bring it into disrepute. The fact that, the 1 st to 9th defendants have indulged in such acts notwithstanding the decree in O.S. No. 34/2000 and the pending execution proceedings against the 1st defendant and criminal cases against some of them, shows that they have scant regard for the authority of the Courts and are willing to go to any extent to achieve their evil ends. By portraying facts which are in complete contradiction to the decree passed against him, and by the perpetual injunction against him, the defendant is guilty of gross contempt of court. Further averred that, the formation of a trust with the same name as that of the 1 st plaintiff Math Cont'd..
- 34 - O.S. No.4838/2017 which has a long standing reputation spanning about five centuries is nothing but passing off by slander of its title and the 1st to 9th defendants are only seeking to misuse the good name and goodwill of the 1 st plaintiff Math to further their nefarious intentions. This is a deliberate act on the part of the 1st to 9th defendants to mislead the devotees of the 1 st plaintiff Math and the public at large and appropriate the name of the 1st plaintiff Math. The cause of action arose on 15.06.2017, when the certified copy of the Trust Deed under which the fraudulent 10th defendant Trust was and registered by the 1st to 9th defendants as the Trustees was obtained on 09.07.2017, when the devotees of the 1st plaintiff Math obtained a copy of the letter of authorisation dated: 07.07.2017 allegedly issued by the 1st defendant in favour of one Mr. Upendra Shenoy V. to represent the 10th defendant Trust in legal proceedings. The cause of action is a continuing one as the threat of the 1st to 9th defendants interfering with and disrupting the affairs and administration of the 1 st plaintiff Math is imminent and continuous as long as the 10 th defendant Trust exists. The suit is filed within limitation and is not Cont'd..
- 35 - O.S. No.4838/2017 barred by time. Therefore, the plaintiffs have sought for the aforesaid reliefs and directing the defendants No.1 to 9 to make over to the 1 st plaintiff Math to all funds, assets and properties which may stands in the name/ belongs to the 10th defendant Trust and consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants.
14. In response to the suit summons, the tenth defendant has duly appeared through counsels, filed a comprehensive written statement wherein the entirety of the plaintiff's averments in the plaint are vehemently refuted. It is explicitly asserted that there exists no valid cause of action to substantiate the initiation of the instant legal proceedings, and all allegations proffered therein are deemed as baseless fabrications, warranting dismissal. Any assertions not expressly traversed herein are hereby categorically denied as unfounded. Additionally, the contention is advanced that the plaintiffs have approached this Court by deliberately concealing pertinent and substantive facts, rendering the present suit bereft of any legal merit. Furthermore, it is posited that the second plaintiff has made Cont'd..
- 36 - O.S. No.4838/2017 erroneous assertions before this Court, specifically contesting his status as the Mathadhipathi of the first plaintiff trust. Notably, the defendant disputes the characterization of the plaintiff trust as an unregistered entity, emphasizing its non-inclusion within the constitutional framework governing trusts. Conversely, the tenth defendant trust is duly registered under the nomenclature 'Shree Kashi Math Samsthan Varanasi (Banaras),' documented as BYP-4-00040/2017-18 in Book-IV, archived in CD No. BYPD243, at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru Urban, faithfully adhering to its stated aims and objectives. It is further asserted that His Holiness Srimad Raghavendra Thirtha Swamiji holds the exalted position of the 21st Pontiff and Mathathipathi of Shree Kashimath, Varanasi, overseeing various branches throughout India, including but not limited to Bangalore. The 21st pontiff diligently performs rituals and worship to the Deity and Saligrams, thereby confirming his role as the esteemed Mathadhipathi of Shree Kashi Math Samsthanam. The Guru Parampara is of Shree Kashimath Samsthan is at follows:-
Cont'd..
- 37 - O.S. No.4838/2017
1) His Holiness Srimad Yadavendra Thirtha Swamiji
2) His Holiness Srimad Keshavendra Thirtha Swamiji
3) His Holiness Srimad Upendra Thirtha Swamiji
4) His Holiness Srimad Yadavendra(II) Thirtha Swamiji
5) His Holiness Srimad Raghavendra Thirtha Swamiji
6) His Holiness Srimad Devendra Thirtha Swamiji
7) His Holiness Srimad Madhavendra Thirtha Swamiji
8) His Holiness Srimad Jnaneendra Thirtha Swamiji
9) His Holiness Srimad Yadavendra Thirtha Swamiji
10) His Holiness Srimad Upendra(II) Thirtha Swamiji
11) His Holiness Srimad Rajendra Thirtha Swamiji
12) His Holiness Srimad Surindra Thirtha Swamiji
13) His Holiness Srimad Vishnu Thirtha Swamiji
14) His Holiness Srimad Vibhudendra Thirtha Swamiji
15) His Holiness Srimad Sumateendra Thirtha Swamiji
16) His Holiness Srimad Vasudendra Thirtha Swamiji
17) His Holiness Srimad Bhuvanendra Thirtha Swamiji
18) His Holiness Srimad Varadendra Thirtha Swamiji
19) His Holiness Srimad Sukruteendra Thirtha Swamiji
20) His Holiness Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamiji
21) His Holiness Srimad Raghavendra II) Thirtha Swamiji (declared)
15. Further, it is asserted that the plaintiffs have deliberately withheld the aforementioned facts from this esteemed Court and, by resorting to 'SUPPRESIO VARI AND SUGGESTIO FALSI,' obtained an interim order. The representation of the second plaintiff as the Cont'd..
- 38 - O.S. No.4838/2017 Mathadipathi of Shree Kashi Math Samsthan (Shree Samsthan) is categorically denied as false. The identification of the second plaintiff in the plaint as 'H.H. Shrimad Samyamindra Thirtha Swamiji' is deemed inaccurate; his actual name being Umesh Mallan. Importantly, he has neither been selected nor appointed as the Mathadipathi of the Samsthan at any juncture. The first defendant asserts their rightful position as the successor in interest to H.H. Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji, following the Samadhi of the latter. According to the proclamation dated 18th May 1989, signed and executed by H.H. Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji, the first defendant was adopted as Shishya (Successor to the Gadhi of Shree Kashi Math Samsthan). This proclamation, valid and in force, culminated in the official appointment of the first defendant as the Successor to H.H. Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji during the ceremony conducted on 7th July 1989. Notably, the said proclamation has never been revoked by Shree Samsthan to date. Under these circumstances, the only successor in interest to H.H. Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji remains the first Cont'd..
- 39 - O.S. No.4838/2017 defendant. Consequently, no individual is entitled to approach this Hon'ble Court claiming the mantle of successor to the deceased H.H. Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji.
16. Further, it is asserted that, through a proclamation dated 4th November 1994, the late H.H. Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji, in a gratifying gesture, entrusted all religious, dharmic, and social responsibilities of Shree Samsthan to the first defendant, expressly recognizing the latter as a capable and esteemed successor from 12th December 1994 onwards. In accordance with the terms of the said proclamation, the first defendant has diligently discharged all religious, dharmic, and social obligations of Shree Samsthan since the specified date without any lapse. It is further contended that, based on the aforementioned documents, the first defendant is unequivocally the sole successor in interest to the late H.H. Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji. In consonance with the customs, rules, and regulations of Shree Samsthan, the concept of simultaneous successors to Cont'd..
- 40 - O.S. No.4838/2017 the Gadhi of Shree Samsthan is expressly precluded. In light of this factual backdrop, the present legal action initiated by Mr. Umesh Mallan, claiming succession to the late H.H. Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji and Shree Samsthan through a Power of Attorney not legally recognized, is patently unlawful and devoid of any legal sustainability. Further, it is averred that, the 2 nd plaintiff's claim to become Mathadipathi of Shree Samsthan as per customs and traditions of the Math is absolutely false and the tenth defendant unequivocally denied. There is absolutely not even a whisper in the plaint about the custom and tradition of Shree Kashi Math Samsthan by which the 2nd plaintiff himself to be the Mathadipathi. The further averment that Registered Will dated: 06.11.2003 and the proclamation dated:
08.09.2015 of the former Madathipathi fortifies and substantiates the recognition of the 2nd plaintiff as the Mathadipathi as per customs and traditions of Math is absolutely false and hence denied. The so called Will is absolutely document In fact Shree Samsthan is not the property over which any person could claim ownership or possession and could never be subject matter of Cont'd..
- 41 - O.S. No.4838/2017 bequest by anyone. Precisely saying the deceased H.H.Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji did not have any right, power, or authority to make any such a proclamation, or execute any will with respect to the succession of the properties belonging to Samsthan as alleged in the plaint. The proclamation dated:
18.05.1989 issued in the name of the 1st defendant is the actual form of the proclamation to be issued as per the custom, rules and regulations of the Math and a proclamation like the one dated: 18.05.1989 is never ever issued in favour of the 2nd plaintiff at any point of time and the alleged proclamation issued in favour of the 2nd plaintiff is absolutely unsustainable in view of the custom, rules, regulations and traditions of the Math. The further allegation that the so called proclamation was sent to all temples belonging to Gowda Saraswathas and the same was read in public and accepted by the entire community are fully incorrect and false and hence emphatically denied. It is pertinent to see that mere sending of alleged proclamation to the temples and reading the same in public will not confer any title as successor in interest of Cont'd..
- 42 - O.S. No.4838/2017 the deceased H.H.Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji as claimed by the 2nd plaintiff.
17. Additionally, it is contended that the 10th defendant, Shree Kashi Math Samsthan, Varanasi (Banaras), represents the singular trust accorded legal protection, with the first defendant holding the esteemed positions of its supreme head and Mathadhipathi. The first plaintiff and the 10th defendant Samsthan are asserted to be synonymous entities. The second plaintiff, along with associates, purportedly fabricated the narrative contained in the plaint, falsely appropriating the name of the 10th defendant and assuming the role of its Matadhipathi with malicious intent. The first defendant's initiation into the stage of Sanyasashram adhered to rigorous religious protocols delineated in the Manusmrithi and Hindu Sastra Brahma Karma Samuchayam (procedures for the initiation of a Vatu, or Shishya). H.H. Shrimad Sukruthindra Theertha Swamiji of Kashi Math Samsthan served as the Guru Swamiji, initiating the deceased H.H. Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji into Sanyashram. Subsequently, the deceased Cont'd..
- 43 - O.S. No.4838/2017 H.H. Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji, in his capacity as Guru Swamiji, initiated the first defendant into Sanyasashram. The procedure for the achievement of Sanyasam, as per the Sanyasa Grahana Vidhi outlined in the Brahma Karma Samuchayam, designates the Utharayana Period in accordance with the Shakha Era as the optimal period for the initiation of Sanyasashram. Shree Samsthan adheres to specific customs and practices as contemplated under the aforementioned Brahma Karma Samuchayam for the selection of a Shishya, who subsequently assumes the role of the Successor to the Gaddhi. The details of the procedure are as follows:
A. A Brahmachari in the GSB community will be selected as Shishya. For the same by a Kalpana (Order) of Guru Swamiji of Kashi Math Samsthan after prayer before the Holy Deities, gather Kundaly of Brahmacharis from the various families belonging the GSB Community, confidentially through the Chief Purohit of Kashi Math Samsthan. An important aspect in this process is that a Karmadhikari (Elder Son) in a family would not submit his horoscope or H.H. Swamiji would not gather his horoscope for the initiation of his Shishya. After gathering Horoscopes a deep scrutiny will be done on the same for sorting out a Shishya by the Guru Swamiji. Final sorting out of a eligible horoscope of Brahmachary who will be Cont'd..
- 44 - O.S. No.4838/2017 initiated as Shishya by Guru Swamiji will be done after due prayers before the Holy Deities of Kashi Math Samsthan and spiritually seeking permission from the earlier Guru Varyas of the Samsthan. A reference on the Holy epic "Bhagavath Geetha" is done for this purpose. After the selection of a good horoscope the interest of Guru Swamiji of Samsthan will be intimated to the family of the Brahmachari to initiate him as his Shishya for giving (Sanyasa Deeksha). The father's consent is required for the transformation of selected Brahmachari to initiate him into a sanyasi, eventually to lead a sizeable portion of Vaishnava Gowda Sarasvata Brahmana community in the righteous path of Vaishnava Dharma. The interested family of the GSB community offer their son who is not eldest one (Karmadhikari) before the Guru Swamiji of Kashi Math Samsthan. This is a one of great sacrifices of the said family for their Community. After giving and taking consent from the family of Brahmachari the further religious processes will start. As part of administrative process of the Kashi Math Samsthan H.H. Swamiji will issue a "Rayasa Pathram" (letter) to all the members of the GSB community as their beloved disciples, Sasasti Anthroji Konkana Desiya Gowda Saraswatha Brahmana Vidwath Vaidika Grahastapramukhas, the Mahajan of the various places in the GSB Community with mediations on the Lord Sri. Narayana and thereby declare their decision to adopt the selected Brahmachari as their Shishya (Successor to the Gadhi of Shri. Kashi Math Samsthan) and also invite the members of GSB Community to attend the ceremonials related therewith a fixed date, time and venue.
Cont'd..
- 45 - O.S. No.4838/2017 B. Thereafter, as a part of custom and usage and procedures contemplated under the Brahma Karma Samuchayam, the selected Brhamachari by the Guru Swamiji, who will be instigated as his Shishya by giving Sanyasa Dheeksha has to perform some procedures. This will be guided and directed by H.H. Swamiji of the Samsthan. C. First of all the selected Brhamachari has to study the Yathi Dharma (Dharma of a Sanyasi in the Sanyasharam) for a three months before the Srimad Pramahamsa Guru Swamiji. Thereafter he should perform Gayathri Japam, Rudra Japam, Kushmanda Havanam, Chathurkrasham, Navashrardham, Shodasha shrardham, Sapindikarana shrardham, Ashtowshrardham in order. He should also perform the following in order: Savithri Praveshanam, Viraja Homam, Prayanga Showcham, Nama Grahanam, Dhanda Grahanam, Sanyasa Sweekaranam (Acceptance of Sanyasa Dheeksha from Guru).
D. The performance of Kushmanda Havanam is for the purpose of resolution of all causes from his birth and to attain Sharira Shudhi (clean human body). Performance of Chathurkrasham is a penance by way of Godhana (offering cows) to four Brhamanas and thereby achieve their blessings so as to enter the Sanyasashram. He should further perform various funeral functions named as "Shrardham". There are 34 numbers of funeral functions. Some of them are, Shrardham of "Brahma, Vishnu, Maheswara". Rishi Shrardham, Vasu Rudra Adithya Shrardham, Sanaka, sananda, sanathana shrardham, Shardhams of Five Bhootha Ganas (Pancha Bhootham - Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Sky), funeral function of his living Cont'd..
- 46 - O.S. No.4838/2017 or late father, grandfather, great grandfather and funeral function of his living or late mother, grandmother, great grandmother in the paternal side. He should perform the shrardham of Atma, Antharatma, Parmathma i.e. his own funeral by giving swapinda. The above funeral functions should be performed in front of his elders in the family by offering them all respects and food and seek permission from them for entering Sanyasashram and thereafter he has to leave is birth home.
E. The performance of Viraja Homa is for the main purpose of achievement of purity of human life and his live body. During this process he should take bath from all holy rivers like Ganga, Yamuna, Kaveri, Godavari, Prayaga etc. and visit all holy places, like Varanasi (Kashi), Haridwar, Tirupathi, Rameswaram, Badri, etc. At last before attaining Sanyasa Dheeksha from Guru Swamiji after doing all the aforesaid custom and usages, process stated in the Brahma Karma Samuchayam he should enter in a holy river by announcing that "I am leaving my human life, Varnashrama Dharma (all earlier three stages ie., Brahma Charyam, Grihastha and Vanaprastha) for the achievement of Sanyashram thereby way of Mukthi or Moksha". At that time he should perform a process named as "Tharpana" for Gods. Further by pronouncing the word "Sarvanyastham" he should break his holy threads attained during the Upanayanam" (Thread Ceremony - way to Brahmacharyam).
F. The final procedure before attaining the Sanyasa Dheeksha from the Guru Swamiji, while standing in the holy river he should chant the following Sanskrit Sloka:
Cont'd..
- 47 - O.S. No.4838/2017 "Thrahimaam Sarvalokesha Vasudeva Santhana Sanyasthama Jagathyone Mokshada Pundaikasha Yushmadh Charana Mapanam Thrahiman Purushothama II"
The meaning of above sloka is:
"Oh! Almighty (Sarva Lokesha, Vasudeva Sanathana) Please save Me, protect me, who is before your lotus feets after accepting the Sanyasashram to achieve the Mukthi or Moksha leaving all my Human life and nature".
G. After all these processes, he has to bow before the Guru Swamiji for the acceptance of Sanyasa Deeksha. Guru Swamiji will offer saffron to wear so as to signify sacrifice which is a key to human happiness, a Kamandalu (a vessel), a Venu Danda (Bamboo stick) as a mark of their authority on religious and spiritual matters. Thereafter he should sit before the Guru Swamiji's leg and make request before the Guru Swamiji to initiate him as his Shishya. Then Guru Swamiji by Chanting Purusha Sukatha Manthra places his right hand on Shishya's head. Thereafter he will place his right hand on Sishya's heart by chanting mantra "Mama Vrite Hridyam Tey Dadhayi". He would also chant Pranavathi mathram in the right ear of Shishya. All these processes and procedures would be conducted before the Holy Deities of Kashi Math Samsthan and the Shishya's new name would be declared to the GSB Community after due prayers.
18. Furthermore, it is asserted that an individual who undergoes the process of attaining Sanyasashram, as Cont'd..
- 48 - O.S. No.4838/2017 prescribed under the Brahma Karma Samuchayam, undergoes a transformative commitment that is irreversible. This transformative journey involves the renunciation of one's human and temporal existence, culminating in the performance of various rites, including approximately 34 funeral functions, resulting in the individual assuming the status of a Pretha (Ghost). Nowhere in the Manusmrithi or any other sacred texts is there a mention of a procedure or process for reverting to human life subsequent to achieving Sanyashram. A Sanyasi is an individual who embraces Sanyasa, necessitating the relinquishment of all material possessions, leading a life of austerity, and practicing yoga and meditation with unwavering devotion to attain Samadhi and, subsequently, moksha. According to the Manusmrithi, 'Sanyasa' represents the ultimate phase of an individual's life, characterized by the renunciation of worldly thoughts and desires, leading to a spiritual existence. 'Sanyasa' is a Sanskrit term wherein 'San' signifies integration, and 'nyasa' denotes 'path.' It is contended that H.H. Swamijis, upon severing family ties during the assumption of Cont'd..
- 49 - O.S. No.4838/2017 Sanyasashram, become integral members of the broader community and, specifically, the Samsthan. The revered Swamijis of Kashi Math Samsthan preside over daily worship of deities that hold significant religious appeal to disciples. These deities receive thrice-daily rituals, during which followers witness the Swamijis conducting poojas. In the ordinary course, Swamijis are revered as living gods, possessing supernatural powers, and manifesting regal splendor with attributes such as silver thrones and royal umbrellas. As spiritual leaders, H.H. Swamijis, simultaneously brahamachari sanyasis and dignitaries, exude royal splendor while ruling over the minds, hearts, and spirits of the members of the GSB Community. Enlightened Swamijis represent a profound asset to society, their words carrying immense weight and respect. In this materialistic world, they serve as beacons of spiritual wisdom, imparting blessings and inspiring devotion to God, with the impact reaching one in a thousand, while others find solace in their bestowed blessings.
Cont'd..
- 50 - O.S. No.4838/2017
19. The defendant No. 10 has contended that, in light of the aforementioned factual matrix and considering the well- established legal principles and traditions, along with the referenced documents, it becomes evident that the second plaintiff stands precluded from succeeding H.H. Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji as the Mathadipathi. He lacks entitlement to represent Shree Samsthan and its estate. As elucidated in the preceding paragraphs, it is emphatically asserted that, in accordance with the customs and traditions of Shree Samsthan, the selection of a Shishya is divinely ordained, and the prospective candidates' horoscopes undergo meticulous scrutiny, with undesirable candidates eliminated through this process. The few most suitable horoscopes are then presented before the revered deities of Shree Samsthan, including Lord Shri Veda Vyasa and Lord Shri Rama (Reghupathi), who are objects of worship within the Samsthan. The subsequent selection process involves divine intervention in the presence of these deities, without any human involvement. It is only after such a meticulous selection process that the name of the Cont'd..
- 51 - O.S. No.4838/2017 Shishya is declared. The first defendants were selected as Shishya through this established custom and tradition and were subsequently proclaimed as the successors of Shree Kashi Math Samsthan by H.H. Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji, as evidenced by the proclamation dated 18th May 1989. Importantly, the former Mathadipathi lacked the right or authority to arbitrarily revoke such a selection and declaration, especially in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. Notably, the former Mathadipathi, H.H.Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji, was fully cognizant of these limitations, and there was no attempt on his part to rescind or annul the proclamation already made by him declaring the first defendants as the successors to the Gadhi. Consequently, the second plaintiff cannot legitimately assert himself as the successor to the former Mathadipathi, as claimed by him. He is not entitled to represent the first plaintiff, which is none other than the 10th defendant, Shree Kashi Math Samsthan, and its estate or prosecute legal proceedings on its behalf. The decree obtained by the deceased Mathadipathi, H.H. Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Cont'd..
- 52 - O.S. No.4838/2017 Swamiji, in the counterclaim of O.S. No.34/2000 in the Tirupathi Court, constitutes a personal decree. In fact, the said decree was not secured on behalf of Shree Kashi Math Samsthan, a public religious trust. The suit and the counterclaim were indisputably initiated by the deceased H.H. Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji exclusively for personal reasons. Consequently, the decree from the counterclaim is to be treated as a personal decree and, in any event, cannot be regarded as a decree obtained for and on behalf of Shree Kashi Math Samsthan.
20. Further it is averred that, the claim of the 2 nd plaintiff that, it was under his directions that function in connection with the Samadhi of the H.H.Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji was conducted is absolutely false and hence denied. As alleged, the conducting of Aaradhana Maholsav at Vysaashram, Haridwar, convening of Mahasabha of devotees, conducting of Peetarohana, offering of Pattu Kanikkya and obtaining of Phala-mantrakshara do not create any special right on the 2nd plaintiff as claimed by him. These were all Cont'd..
- 53 - O.S. No.4838/2017 dramas enacted by the 2nd plaintiff and his coterie with a view to create a false impression among the devotees that the 2nd plaintiff is the Successor of the former Mathadipathi. The functions such as Mahasabha, Peetarohana, Pattu Kanikka ог Pahalamanthakshara do not make the 2nd plaintiff the Mathadipathi as claimed by him as the same are not indicative of Succession as claimed by the 2nd plaintiff and so long as the Proclamation dated 18/05/1989 in favor of the 1 st defendant holds good and valid. No valid Mahasabha of the devotees of the Math was conducted on 28/01/2016 as claimed by the 2nd plaintiff. As alleged, all the trustees of all the temples and the Managing Committee members of the Branch Maths and other office bearers have not attended such a meeting. There is no provision in the custom and traditions of 10th defendant and 1st plaintiff Shree Kashi Math Samsthan for any "Peetarohana" of a Mathadhipathi witnesses by Mahasabha. Further it is contended that, the alleged conduct of Dig Vijaya tours, camps at various places etc. on the basis of Vinanthipathras from various temples do not make the 2 nd plaintiff the Mathadhipathi Cont'd..
- 54 - O.S. No.4838/2017 and the successor to the Gadhi of Shree Kasi Math Samsthan. The 2nd plaintiff has no legal right and control of the Shree Kashi Math Samsthan or its assets and properties. The performances of functions mentioned in paragraph No.40 of the plaint will not confer the 2nd plaintiff, the legal status as Mathadhipathi of Shree Kashi Math Samsthan. The plaint Visits of temples at Tirumala Thirupathi Devasthanam by the 2nd plaintiff and the alleged extending of honours given by the said temple authorities also do not recognize and confer the 2 nd plaintiff, the status of the Mathadhipathi of Shree Kashi Math Samsthan as the said Devasthanam is not competent to declare the status of a person as the Mathadhipathi of Shree Kashi Math Samsthan.
21. Further it is averred that, the 2nd plaintiff or his POA is not at all entitled to further prosecute the present plaint against this defendant or other defendants and also to initiate and prosecute other proceedings. In fact, the 1st defendant is the real Mathadhipathi as per the Proclamation dated: 18.05.1989. The 1st defendant is Cont'd..
- 55 - O.S. No.4838/2017 the successor in interest on the strength of
Proclamation dated: 18.05.1989 and the 1st defendant is the present Mathadhipathi of Shree Kashi Math Samsthan on and after 17.01.2016. On the death of the former Mathadhipathi, the decree in Counter Claim in O.S.No. 34/2000 died with the said person. Since the 1 st defendant has already succeeded to the Gadhi of Shree Kashi Math Samsthan, the 1st defendant alone are to be recorded as the successor of the deceased H.H.Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji. Going by the judgment dated 28/01/2009 in O.S. No. 34/2000 of the Honorable Additional Fourth District Court, Tirupathi, the common judgment dated 01.06.2015 in A.S. No. 90/2009 and 91/2009 the files of the Honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh as well as the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 7966 & 7967 of 2009, which judgments were rendered in the proceedings there is categorical admission by the H.H.Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji. That the 1 st defendant were initiated into Sanyasa and as successor to the Gadhi with effect from 07.07.1989 and that the succession to Mathadhipathi of Shree Kashi Math Cont'd..
- 56 - O.S. No.4838/2017 Samsthan is regulated by the custom as per which the Shisya becomes on the demise of the reigning Mathadhipathi. Thus, on the demise of the H.H.Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji.the Guru of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant became the Mathadhipathi and the claim made by the 2 nd plaintiff in the above suit is devoid of any merits and liable to be rejected.
22. Further it is averred that, the 10 th defendant also filed a suit as O.S. No. 6555/2017 before this Hon'ble Court against the 2nd plaintiff, his POA and others seeking decree of injunction restraining their illegal activities against the 10th defendant. The plaintiffs have published false and defamatory messages against the defendant No.10 trust in Udaya Vani daily Kannada New papers on 14-7-2017 without any iota OF TRUTH or any basis, and violation of Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code, without following the same which is against the principles of natural justice. The telecast of such defamatory articles against the defendant No.10 trust by the plaintiff and other henchmen, serious damage will be caused to the defendant No.10 trust and aims Cont'd..
- 57 - O.S. No.4838/2017 and objectives of the Defendant No.10 will be curtailed. The act of the defendants is nothing but violating section 92 of Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff and their henchmen are claiming false rights over the Trust properties by forming a unlawful group and creating false documents. The plaintiffs hand in glove with each other in order to get rid of our founder trustee/ 21 st Pontiff, the plaintiff and their henchmen have lodged a false complaint against the founder trustee of defendant No.10 in Andhra Pradesh by colluding with the CID, Chittoor, Parvathagiri Warrangal and Kadapa police and was arrested by the police at the instigation of the GPA Holder of Plaintiff alleged trust, during which time the police have taken the Saligarams, dietes, precious wooden crafts which was under the custody of the 21st Pontiff and handover the same to the plaintiff. The Defendant No.10 trust has filed Criminal petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh have granted permanent exemption to the defendant No.10 founder trustee in Crl.P. Cont'd..
- 58 - O.S. No.4838/2017 No.4470/2017 and Crl.P. No.4460/2017 and favourable orders passed in favour of defendant No.1.
23. Further it is averred that, there was threat to the life of the 21st Pontiff / founder trustee of the defendant No.10 trust, even now the plaintiffs are giving threats to the defendant No.10 trustees from 19.7.2017 and same is continuous in nature. The founder trustee His Holiness Srimad Raghavendra Thirtha Swamiji is the 21 st pontiff/Mathadhipathi of Sree Kashimath Samsthan having branches all over India. The plaintiffs are trying to knock off the valuable properties of the trust properties by creating false records and documents and restraining the 21st pontiff from entering into to the Maths all over India by giving life threat. Moreover, the plaintiff by colluding with the Andhra police have illegally the dietes, jewels, precious stones, saligrams, antique wooden craft, which is worth more than 180 crores in Sri. Venkataramana Temple, and Sri. Mahalasa Narayani Temple, Pandavinangady, Konchady post, Mangalore 575 008, Karnataka and vehicles of defendant trust. By suppressing the above said facts, Cont'd..
- 59 - O.S. No.4838/2017 the plaintiff has approached this Hon'ble Court and come before this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands and obtained interim order and hence the said interim order is liable to be rejected. As a matter of fact, when the defendant No.10 Founder trustee was released from Chittoor jail, there was life threat as such the devotee has made representation to the Karnataka State Human Rights Commissioner seeking police protection. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Chairman of KSHRC has order directing the Kolar police to give protection to the Swamiji. As a matter of fact, the defendant No. 10 is a duly registered trust and hence comes under the purview of 92 Civil Procedure Code. Any person or any institution prior to initiating any suit/ petition against any registered Trust or its trustees, such person or any institution has to obtain permission from the Advocate General or permission of the Hon'ble Court under section 92 of Civil Procedure Code. In this case, the plaintiff alleged trust has violated the same. On this ground, the is liable to be rejected. Prior to seeking any relief against the registered Trust, the plaintiff has to file petition under section 92 of Civil Procedure Code and Cont'd..
- 60 - O.S. No.4838/2017 has to seek permission of the Hon'ble Court first to initiate action against the registered defendant No.10 trust. Same is not in instant case/nor invoked, but the plaintiff acted smartly, used high handedness against the innocent Swamiji of the defendant trust No.10, the plaintiff is claiming under flimsy ground devoid of merit in all counts. The plaintiff has no locus standi to claim such relief before this Hon'ble court. The plaintiff has not given statutory notice to the defendant No.11 being the registering authorities, when the same was intimated to the Hon'ble court; the plaintiff has filed a memo to delete the defendant No.11 in the above case. Hence, the defendant No.10 prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.
24. On the premise of above pleadings, my predecessor in office had framed the following Issues -
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 1st defendant is barred by res-judicata and estoppel from asserting and claiming to Cont'd..
- 61 - O.S. No.4838/2017
be Mathadipathi of 1st plaintiff
Math?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove
that the 1st defendant has been
removed by his Guru and
previous Mathadipathi and
thereby estopped from asserting
and claiming to be associated
with the 1st plaintiff Math?
3. Whether 2nd plaintiff proves
that he has succeeded to the
Mathadipathi of the 1st plaintiff
Math upon the Maha Samadhi
of the previous Mathadipathi?
4. Whether the plaintiffs prove
that Trust Deed
dated:16.5.2017 registered as
Document No.BYP-4-00040-
2017-18 in Book-IV stored in
CD No.BYPD243 in the office of
the Sub Registrar,
Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru
Urban is a fraudulent and sham
document and that the 10th
defendant is consequently a
fraudulent trust?
Cont'd..
- 62 - O.S. No.4838/2017
5. Whether the defendants
ought to be restrained from
claiming to be associated with
the 1st plaintiff Math in any
manner whatsoever, including
using its name, emblem,
insignia, idols, photos and
names of its former
Mathadipathi swamijis, idols
etc.,?
6. Whether the defendants
proves that the 2nd plaintiff is
not the Mathadipathi of the 1st
plaintiff Math?
7. Whether the defendants
proves that the proclamation
dated:18.5.1989 is still valid
and subsisting and therefore
the 1st defendant cam claim to
be the Mathadipathi of the 1st
plaintiff Math by virtue of such
proclamation dated:18.5.1989?
8. Whether the defendants
prove that the Will
dated:6.11.2003 and
Proclamation dated:8.9.2015
Cont'd..
- 63 - O.S. No.4838/2017
could not have been made by
the previous Mathadipathi
Sirmad Sudhindra Tritha
Swamiji in light of the
Proclamation dated:18.5.1989
and therefore the Will
dated:6.11.2003 and
proclamation dated:8.9.2015
are null and void?
9. Whether the defendants
prove that the 10th defendant
trust and 1st plaintiff Math are
the same?
10. Whether the defendants
prove that the judgment and
decree dated:28.1.2009 in O.S
No.34/2000 passed by IV
Additional District Judge,
Tirupathi is not binding on the
1st defendant as the same was a
personal judgment and decree
in favour of Srimad Sudhindra
Tirtha Swamiji and does not
accrue to the benefit of either of
the plaintiffs?
11. Whether the defendants
prove that the properties
Cont'd..
- 64 - O.S. No.4838/2017
mentioned in the Trust Deed are
those of the 10th defendant
Trust?
12. Whether the defendants
prove that there was a threat to
the life of the 1st defendant from
the plaintiffs and other claiming
through the plaintiffs?
13. Whether the defendants
prove that the suit is not
maintainable in view of Section
92 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908 as the procedure
contained therein has not been
followed prior to the institution
of this suit?
14. Whether the plaintiffs are
entitled for all the reliefs prayed for?
15. What judgment and decree?
25. In order to substantiate the claim, the Power of Attorney Holder of both the plaintiffs got examined as PW.1 and one Sudhish Paid examined as PW.2 and produced Cont'd..
- 65 - O.S. No.4838/2017
Ex.P.1 to P.167 documents. On behalf of defendants,
the founder Trustee of the 10th defendant got examined as DW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.D.1 to D.10.
26. I have heard the arguments and perused the entire evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and defendants in support of their rival contention.
27. My findings on the above Issues are as under -
ISSUE No.1 - In the Affirmative;
ISSUE No.2 - In the Affirmative;
ISSUE No.3 - In the Affirmative;
ISSUE No.4 - In the Affirmative;
ISSUE No.5 - In the Affirmative;
ISSUE No.6 - In the Negative;
ISSUE No.7 - In the Negative;
ISSUE No.8 - In the Negative;
ISSUE No.9 - In the Negative;
ISSUE No.10 - In the Negative;
ISSUE No.11 - In the Negative;
ISSUE No.12 - In the Negative;
Cont'd..
- 66 - O.S. No.4838/2017
ISSUE No.13 - In the Negative;
ISSUE No.14 - In the Affirmative;
ISSUE No.15 - As per final order,
for the following -
[[[
REASONS
28. ISSUES No.1, 2, 7 and 10 : To streamline the
discourse and enhance convenience, the above issues are amalgamated for concurrent discussion, thereby mitigating redundancy in presentation.
29. The dispute between defendant No.1 and the plaintiff No.1, the Math originated in the year 2000 when the then Mathadipathi, Sri Srimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji, issued a Proclamation dated 19th June 2000, relieving the defendant No.1 from all duties and powers previously conferred under the Proclamation dated 4th November 1994. Subsequently, the defendant No.1 contested this action by filing suit before the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, in O.S No.34/2000, wherein he asserted his right to be recognized as the Mathadipathi of Kashi Math Cont'd..
- 67 - O.S. No.4838/2017 Samsthan at Haridwar. The said suit was contesested by Srimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji, along with Tirumala Kashi Math through its Manager, and the defendant No.1 has filed the aforementioned suit as a representative of Kashi Math Samsthan. Following a comprehensive trial, the judgment was passed as per Ex.P.4 dismissing the suit filed by the defendant No.1 and decreeing the counterclaim in an injunctive nature. Consequently, the plaintiffs postulates that the present claim asserted by the 1st defendant is barred by the principles of res judicata and estoppel, as he is precluded from reasserting and claiming the position of Mathadipathi of the 1st plaintiff Math.
30. The learned counsel for plaintiff has strenuously argued that, in light of the judgment rendered in the aforementioned suit, Issue No. 1 and 2 must unequivocally favor the plaintiff, and such contentions are not tenable for the defendant No.1 in the present suit. The plaintiffs assert that the 1st defendant is now seeking to establish the 10th defendant Trust under the Cont'd..
- 68 - O.S. No.4838/2017 same title which was considered by the court in the earlier suit in O.S No.34/2000. The issues in that suit, pertaining to the entitlement of the 1st defendant to a declaration as the Mathadipathi and an injunction to restrain the then Guru and former Mathadipathi, from interfering in the affairs and administration of the Math, were framed, adjudicated, and decided against Raghavendra Tirtha/defendant No.1. Similarly, the issue concerning whether the Guru and Mathadipathi were entitled to relief restraining Raghavendra Tirtha from interference in the administration of the Math was framed, adjudicated upon, and decided against Raghavendra Tirtha i.e Defendant No.1 herein, and in favor of the then Mathadipathi, Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji. Accordingly, it is contended that, pursuant to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and considering the available facts and evidence before this court, the defendant's plea is unequivocally barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Further it is contended that, in the Trust Deed Ex.P.3, the defendant has included all the properties existing in the name of Math all over India which is against to the injunctive Cont'd..
- 69 - O.S. No.4838/2017 order passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi in the aforesaid suit.
31. Per contra, the learned counsel for defendant No.10 has vehemently contended that, the plaintiff is laboring under the misconception that all matters between the plaintiffs and defendants were conclusively settled by the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi in O.S No.34/2000, an assertion that lacks merit. It is asserted that the previous suit holds no relevance to the issues to be adjudicated in the present litigation. The matter of successor-ship to the position of Mathadipathi was neither raised nor decided in the earlier suit. There exists no explicit discussion or determination on the matter of successor-ship in the previous legal proceeding. Any remarks made therein were merely incidental, prima facie, and cannot be deemed as constituting 'res judicata or estoppel.' Such observations, at best, qualify as obiter dictum and should be treated as such. Therefore, the learned counsel has asserted that whatever documents were submitted in that suit regarding the 2nd plaintiff's Cont'd..
- 70 - O.S. No.4838/2017 alleged succession were not at all in contention, either directly or indirectly, concerning the status of the 1st defendant as the successor after the Mahasamadhi of the Matadhipathi. Additionally, it is argued that the plaintiffs have deliberately chosen not to present the plaint and written statement of O.S No.34/2000 on the docket of the IV Additional District Court, Tirupathi. This, according to the counsel, serves as evidence contradicting the entire case formulated by the plaintiffs to entirely displace the 1st defendant, who automatically assumed the role of Matadhipathi after the Mahasamadhi of the 20th Matadhipathi, Guru Shri Shri Sudheendra Thirtha Swamiji. The suit in O.S No.34/2000 filed in the District Court, Tirupathi, was initiated by the 1st defendant to secure a declaration that he was the Matadhipathi of the Samsthan, based on the Proclamation made in 1994, as per Ex.P.13. Therefore, it is contended that the aforementioned suit was filed by the 1st defendant in his individual capacity and not as a representative of the Samsthan. The relief sought strictly fell within the purview of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The primary argument Cont'd..
- 71 - O.S. No.4838/2017 raised by the Guru in his written statement was that only certain religious and administrative functions were entrusted to the plaintiff, and he continued to be the Mahadhipathi of the Samsthan, with the Matadhipathiship never being relinquished by him. The crux of the matter in that suit revolved around whether the plaintiff therein could hold the title of Matadhipathi during the lifetime of the Guru. The trial court determined that during the existence of one Matadhipathi, there cannot be another Matadhipathi for the same Math. Therefore, the counsel for defendant No.10 has asserted that the decision in the aforementioned suit does not impede the claim of defendant No.1 to be the Matadhipathi of the Samsthan.
32. On the background of above rival submissions, I am of the view that, before delving into a detailed discussion on the merits of the opposing contentions, it is just and necessary to extract Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for a comprehensive understanding. This will aid in determining whether the defense of the defendants is Cont'd..
- 72 - O.S. No.4838/2017 barred by the principles of res judicata. Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is reproduced as follows;
"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.
33. Therefore, for the purpose of adjudicating on the issue of res judicata it is necessary that the same issue (that is raised in the suit) has been adjudicated in the former suit. It is necessary that we refer to the exercise taken up by this Court while adjudicating on res judicata, before referring to res judicata as a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. Justice R C Lahoti (as the learned Chief Justice then was), speaking for a two Judge bench in V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava reported in (2004) 1 SCC 551. discussed the plea of res judicata and the particulars that would be required to prove the plea. The Hon'ble Apex Court court held that Cont'd..
- 73 - O.S. No.4838/2017 it is necessary to refer to the copies of the pleadings, issues and the judgment of the 'former suit' while adjudicating on the plea of res judicata:
"11. The rule of res judicata does not strike at the root of the jurisdiction of the court trying the subsequent suit. It is a rule of estoppel by judgment based on the public policy that there should be a finality to litigation and no one should be vexed twice for the same cause. 13.
Not only the plea has to be taken, it has to be substantiated by producing the copies of the pleadings, issues and judgment in the previous case. Maybe, in a given case only copy of judgment in previous suit is filed in proof of plea of res judicata and the judgment contains exhaustive or in requisite details the statement of pleadings and the issues which may be taken as enough proof. But as pointed out in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd.
Hanifa [(1976) 4 SCC 780] the basic method to decide the question of res judicata is first to determine the case of the parties as put Cont'd..
- 74 - O.S. No.4838/2017 forward in their respective pleadings of their previous suit and then to find out as to what had been decided by the judgment which operates as res judicata. It is risky to speculate about the pleadings merely by a summary of recitals of the allegations made in the pleadings mentioned in the judgment. The Constitution Bench in Gurbux Singh v.
Bhooralal [AIR 1964 SC 1810 : (1964) 7 SCR 831] placing on a par the plea of res judicata and the plea of estoppel under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that proof of the plaint in the previous suit which is set to create the bar, ought to be brought on record. The plea is basically founded on the identity of the cause of action in the two suits and, therefore, it is necessary for the defence which raises the bar to establish the cause of action in the previous suit. Such pleas cannot be left to be determined by mere speculation or inferring by a process of deduction what were the facts stated in the previous Cont'd..
- 75 - O.S. No.4838/2017 pleadings. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Kali Krishna Tagore v. Secy. of State for India in Council [(1887-88) 15 IA 186 : ILR 16 Cal 173] pointed out that the plea of res judicata cannot be determined without ascertaining what were the matters in issue in the previous suit and what was heard and decided. Needless to say, these can be found out only by looking into the pleadings, the issues and the judgment in the previous suit."
(emphasis supplied)
34. Therefore, the fundamental tenet of res judicata, as enshrined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), encapsulates the doctrine's rules pertaining to the conclusiveness of judgments. For res judicata to be applicable, the subject matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must align precisely with the matter that was similarly at the forefront of the former suit. It is imperative that the prior suit be adjudicated on its merits, and the resultant decision must have achieved a conclusive finality. In essence, the Cont'd..
- 76 - O.S. No.4838/2017 doctrine operates as a bar to re-litigate matters that have already been conclusively determined, emphasizing the importance of consistency and finality in the judicial process. In certain instances, presenting only a copy of the judgment from a prior suit may suffice as evidence to establish the plea of res judicata, provided that the judgment comprehensively and adequately delineates the statement of pleadings and issues. The exhaustive nature of the judgment, encompassing the essential details of the pleadings and issues, can be deemed sufficient to substantiate the plea. In such cases, the court may rely on the content of the judgment to ascertain the congruence of the matters directly and substantially in issue between the two suits, thus reinforcing the principles underlying the doctrine of res judicata.
35. In the present Suit, the 1st defendant asserts a claim to successorship based on the Proclamation issued by the then Guru/Matadhipathi, as evidenced by Ex.P.13 dated 4th November 1994, the subject matter of the previous suit O.S. No. 34/2000. The plaintiff, in Cont'd..
- 77 - O.S. No.4838/2017 contrast, lays claim to the Matadhipathi of the 1st plaintiff on the basis of Proclamation issued by the then Matadhipathi/Guru and a Will. Consequently, it is apparent that both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are asserting rights to succeed the Petam through the common lineage of the then Guru/Matadhipathi, Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji. Significantly, the 1st defendant initiated the aforementioned suit on behalf of the plaintiff herein, i.e., Kashi Math Samsthan, as its representative. Subsequently, the defendant No.10 Trust was formed under the same name. This establishes a clear connection between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, both claiming entitlement over the Math through the common party, namely, Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji, who was a defendant in the prior suit. To discern whether the same issue was directly or indirectly implicated in the earlier suit, it is just and necessary to extract the issues framed in the said suit, which extracted below-
"1. Whether the 1st defendant selected the 2nd plaintiff as his successor and Matadhipathi of the 1st plaintiff Math, except Vyasasharama at Haridwar with Cont'd..
- 78 - O.S. No.4838/2017 effect from 12.12.1994 and abdicated his Matadhipathiship?
2. Whether the entrustment of deities, paraphernalia and insignia of the 1 st plaintiff Math to the 2nd plaintiff was made only for performing Trikala Pujas? Or Whether such entrustment amounts to passing of Matadhipathiship to the 2 nd plaintiff? (Recasted as per Order dated:23.7.2001)
3. Whether the 2nd plaintiff is guilty of misdeeds, misbehavior and defiance towards 1st defendant and if so, whether 1st defendant has authority to issue any proclamation of the nature dated:19.7.2000 to bind the 2 plaintiff?
nd (Recasted as per order dated:23.7.2001)"
36. Issues No. 1 and 2 were decisively resolved against the plaintiff in the prior suit by the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, who, in negating these issues, meticulously considered the pleadings and evidence before him. The learned judge acknowledged the 2nd plaintiff's contention that he assumed the role of Matadhipathi of Shri Samsthan from 12th December 1994. However, the judge astutely concluded that, as per the plaintiff's own case, no Sishya could ascend to the position of Matadhipathi or assume the role during the lifetime of the Guru. Delving into the evidence on Cont'd..
- 79 - O.S. No.4838/2017 record, the judge observed that the succession of Mahantship of Shri Samsthan adheres to established customs, whereby a Sishya can only assume the role of Matadhipathi after the demise of the reigning Matadhipathi. It was further noted that the evidence clearly supported this customary practice. The judge underscored that the 1st defendant, while entrusted with religious, dharmic, and social activities by Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji, did not, by merely entrusting holy deities, paraphernalia, and insignia of Shri Samsthan to the 2nd plaintiff, transfer the authority of the Math to the latter. The court opined that the act of entrusting holy and insignia items did not constitute a formal passing of the Math in favor of the 2nd plaintiff.
37. In paragraph 47 of the judgment, the learned judge, while delving into Issues No. 1 and 2, aptly noted that the onus rested squarely on the plaintiff to substantiate these issues. The learned judge discerned that the plaintiff failed to establish two crucial points: firstly, that the 1st defendant had relinquished the Matadhipathya in favor of the 1st plaintiff on 12th Cont'd..
- 80 - O.S. No.4838/2017 December 1992; and secondly, that Matadhipathi Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji, based on a
proclamation, had entrusted the Math to the plaintiff on 12th December 1994, concurrent with the 1st defendant entrusting paraphernalia and insignia of Shri Samsthan. Crucially, the learned judge underscored that the deities, paraphernalia, and insignia were entrusted to the 1st plaintiff solely for the purpose of conducting religious, dharmic, and social activities, including the performance of Trikala Poorja. This delineation emphasized that the act of entrusting these sacred items did not amount to a formal passing of the Matadhipathya to the 1st plaintiff, as the primary objective was for the performance of specific religious duties rather than a transfer of the Matadhipathi role. In Ex.P.27, there is a notable absence of any explicit indication that the 2nd plaintiff would assume the role of Matadhipathi of Kashi Math at any juncture. It is crucial to note that, while answereing Issue No.3 and Additional Issue No.1 in the aforesaid suit, the learned judge meticulously delved into the Proclamation issued by the then Guru of Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji Cont'd..
- 81 - O.S. No.4838/2017 and a letter dated 4th November 1999 addressed by Shri. Raghavendra Tirtha.
38. The learned judge astutely observed that, according to the 1st defendant's (the then Matadhipathi) account, he nominated another Sishya, therefore the 2nd plaintiff (defendant No.1 herein) is no more his sishya. The perusal of Ex.D.45 (in O.S. No. 34/2000) unequivocally establishes that the 1st defendant relieved the 2nd plaintiff from all duties previously entrusted to him. Furthermore, it is contended that the 1st defendant persists as the Matadhipathi of Shri Samsthan even post the 12th of December 1994. In his capacity as the Matadhipathi, the 1st defendant issued a proclamation, Ex.D.45 dated 19th July 2000, officially releasing the 2nd plaintiff from duties and responsibilities initially entrusted to him on 12th December 1994. Contrary to the 2nd plaintiff's assertion that the 1st defendant lacks the authority to issue such a proclamation dated 19th July 2000, this contention is not tenable. Further, the learned Judge has observed thus-
Cont'd..
- 82 - O.S. No.4838/2017 "If the 1st defendant was not the Matadhipathi of Shri Samsthan by the date of Ex.D.34, there was no meaning in addressing the said letter Ex.D.34 dated:4.11.1999 by the 2nd plaintiff to the 1st defendant requesting to relieve him from all the duties. By writing Ex.D.34 by the 2nd plaintiff, the 2nd plaintiff recognized and accepted the 1st defendant as Matadhipathi of Shri Samsthan. The 2nd plaintiff wrote Ex.D.34 with an intention to give up his duties and responsibilities relating to Shri Samsthan".
39. Having made these observations, the learned judge answerrewd Issue No.3 and Additional Issue No.1, favoring the 1st defendant (the then Guru/Matdhipathi) in that suit. Subsequently, an appeal was lodged by the plaintiffs before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in A.S No.90 and 91 of 2009. On 01.06.2015, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the findings recorded by the Trial Judge on all issues. Consequently, the conclusions reached by the Trial Judge in the aforementioned suit regarding the issues mentioned above have attained finality.
Cont'd..
- 83 - O.S. No.4838/2017
40. Admittedly, the foundation of the defendant's claim in the present suit rests on the Proclamation dated 4th November 1994, marked as Ex.P.13, wherein the defendant No.1 was designated as the successor to Shri Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji in respect of Kashi Math Samsthan. Subsequent to this, as it evident from Ex.P.18, Shri Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji, through a Proclamation dated 19th July 2007, relieved the defendant No.1 from all associated responsibilities. A pertinent excerpt from the translated copy of the Proclamation in Ex.P.18(a) is provided below:
"We have now, in consideration of all relevant matters and in discharge of our duties as Matadhipathi bounded to safeguard and pertuate the well being, traditions and usage of Shree Kashimath Samsthan accepted the request of Shree Raghavendra Thirtha contained in his letter dated 4th November 1999, we hereby relieve him of all duties and powers given to him by our proclamation of 4th November 1994".
41. The validity and legality of the aforementioned Proclamation and the Matadhipathi's authority to relieve the successor, have already been conclusively Cont'd..
- 84 - O.S. No.4838/2017 determined by the IV Additional District Judge,
Tirupathi in O.S No.34/2000. The language employed in the proclamation signifies and mirrors the Matadhipathi's intent. By issuing this proclamation, the defendant was not only relieved of all duties but also had the powers conferred upon him withdrawn. A Sishya carries certain responsibilities towards the Guru, and to ascend to the position of a successor to the Gadhi, one must be entrusted with specific powers. As discussed supra, through the Proclamation as per Ex.P.18(a), the defendant was released from both duties and powers. To assume the role of a Matadhipathi upon the demise of the existing Matadhipathi, such person must either be a Sishya of that Guru or be appointed as a successor according to customs. In the present suit, it is evident that, due to the removal of defendant No.1 by the Proclamation as per Ex.P.18(a), he neither continued as a Sishya nor was appointed as a successor, as he was relieved of all duties and powers previously entrusted to him through an earlier Proclamation.
Cont'd..
- 85 - O.S. No.4838/2017
42. In respect of res-judicata, the law is well settled by catena of decisions. The learned counsel for plaintiff in support of his arguments had relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Marwari Kumar Vs. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri reported in (2000) 6 SCC 73, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, in the absence of any denial of judgment and when the title of the parties decided in the said judgment, by the competent court, in subsequent suit, same issue cannot be adjudicated. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus;
"In the earlier judgment it had clearly been held that the title to the property vested in the appellants. It was held that Ganeshpuri and the respondents were merely pujaries. The judgment attained finality on 7.5.1948 when in the second appeal the decree was confirmed. Thus up to 7.5.1948 the respondents were in possession merely as pujaries. Their claim to title, through Ganeshpuri, had been negatived by the competent court. That finding was binding on the respondents. Both the first appellate court and the second appellant court failed to appreciate that on principles of respondent judicate the respondents were Cont'd..
- 86 - O.S. No.4838/2017 precluded from denying the appellants title to the suit property".
43. In Dada Dayalu Mahasabha Jaipur (Trust) Vs. Ram Niwas and Other reported in AIR 2008 SC 2187 - wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the principles of res-judicata and its applicability. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus;
"19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Section 11 of the Code not only recognizes the general principle of res Cont'd..
- 87 - O.S. No.4838/2017 judicata, it bars the jurisdiction of the court in terms of Section 12 thereof. Explanation V 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.
22. 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."
44. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramachandra Dagdu Sonavane Vs. Vithu Mahar reported in AIR 2010 SC 181, has observed that, when the material issue has been tried and determined between the same parties in a proper suit by a competent court as to the status of one of them in relation to the other, it cannot be again tried in another Cont'd..
- 88 - O.S. No.4838/2017 suit between one of them and another who claimed title or interest through a party to earlier suit. The Hon'ble Apex Court held thus;
"31. Res-judicata and Code of Civil Procedure:- It is well known that the doctrine of res- judicata is codified in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 11 generally comes into play in relation to civil suits. But apart from the codified law, the doctrine of res-judicata or the principle of the res-judicata has been applied since long in various other kinds of proceedings and situations by courts in England, India and other countries. The rule of constructive res- judicata is engrafted in Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in many other situations also Principles not only of direct res-judicata but of constructive res-judicata are also applied, if by any judgment or order any matter in issue has been directly and explicitly decided, the decision operates as res-judicata and bars the trial of an identical issue in a subsequent proceedings between the same parties. The Principle of res- judicata comes into play when by judgment and order a decision of a particular issue is implicit in it, that is, it must be deemed to have been Cont'd..
- 89 - O.S. No.4838/2017 necessarily decided by implications even then the Principle of res- judicata on that issue is directly applicable. When any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in a former proceeding but was not so made, then such a matter in the eye of law, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to bring about finality in it, is deemed to have been constructively in issue and, therefore, is taken as decided [See AIR 1978 SC 1283].
32)In Swamy Atmananda v. Sri. Ramakrishna Tapovanam [(2005) 10 SCC 51], it was held by this court :
"26. The object and purport of the principle of res judicata as contended in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to uphold the rule of conclusiveness of judgment, as to the points decided earlier of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, in every subsequent suit between the same parties. Once the matter which was the subject-matter of lis stood determined by a competent court, no party thereafter can be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. Such a rule was brought into the statute-book with a view to bring Cont'd..
- 90 - O.S. No.4838/2017 the litigation to an end so that the other side may not be put to harassment.
27. The principle of res judicata envisages that a judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction directly upon a point would create a bar as regards a plea, between the same parties in some other matter in another court, where the said plea seeks to raise afresh the very point that was determined in the earlier judgment."
33)When the material issue has been tried and determined between the same parties in a proper suit by a competent court as to the status of one of them in relation to the other, it cannot be again tried in another suit between them as laid down in Krishna Behari Roy vs. Bunwari Lal Roy reported in [1875 ILR (IC-144)], which is followed by this Court in the case of Iswar Dutt v. Land Acquistion Colector & Anr [(2005) 7 SCC 190], wherein the doctrine of `cause of action estoppel' and `issue estoppel' has been discussed. It is laid down by this Court, that if there is an issue between the parties that is decided, the same would operate as a res- judicata between the same parties in the Cont'd..
- 91 - O.S. No.4838/2017 subsequent proceedings. This court in the case of Isher Singh v. Sarwan Singh [AIR 1965 SC 948] has observed :
"11. We thus reach the position that in the former suit the heirship of the respondents to Jati deceased (a) was in terms raised by the pleadings, (b) that an issue was framed in regard to it by the trial Judge, (c) that evidence was led by the parties on that point directed towards this issue, (d) a finding was recorded on it by the appellate court, and (e) that on the proper construction of the pleadings it would have been necessary to decide the issue in order to properly and completely decide all the points arising in the case to grant relief to the plaintiff. We thus find that every one of the conditions necessary to satisfy the test as to the applicability of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is satisfied."
45. The defendants counsel by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jamia Masjid Vs. K.V.Rudrappa (since dead) by Lrs and Other reported in 2021 (5) KCCR 204 has vehemently contended that, in order to attract the principles of res judicata, the matter Cont'd..
- 92 - O.S. No.4838/2017 must have been directly and substantially in issue in the former suit and matter must be heard and finally decided by the Court in the former suit. The learned counsel for defendant No.10 has submitted that, in the earlier suit, previous Mathadipathi in is independent capacity contested the suit which cannot be considered as the issues decided between the parties to the present suit.
46. There is no dispute regarding the established legal principles by the catena of decisions in respect of the applicability of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. As discussed earlier, it is my opinion that since the defendant No.1's claim to justify the formation of the Trust (defendant No.10) is based on the Proclamation Ex.P.13, which was the subject matter of a prior suit where the revocation of that Proclamation was deemed valid, the claim of the 1st defendant is barred by res judicata. Consequently, defendant No.1 is estopped from asserting to be the Mathadhipathi of the 1st plaintiff Math. Regarding Ex.P.19, the Proclamation dated 18.5.1989, wherein Shri Sudhindra Tirtha Cont'd..
- 93 - O.S. No.4838/2017 Swamiji decided to adopt defendant No.1 as their Sishya and successor to the Gadi of Sri Kashi Math Samsthan, I am of the view that, considering Ex.P.18(a) and 19, defendant No.1 cannot be continued as a Sishya of Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji any longer. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for plaintiff, the power to revoke is implicit, which considered as a very fundamental principles of law. The Hon'ble Federal Court in the case of Kutoor Vengayil Rayarappan Nayanar Vs. Kuttor Vengayil Valia Madhavi Amma reported in 1949 F.C.R 669 it held as thus;
"It appears to under Section' that in expressing this opinion the learned Judges of the High Court did not fully appre-hend the true meaning and intent of s. 16 of the General Clauses Act and did not take in to considera-tion the general rules applicable to the construction of statutes expressed in language similar to the one employed in O.XL,r.1.Section16 of the General Clauses Actrunsas follows:-
"Where, by any Act or Regulation, a power to make any appointment is conferred, then, unless a different intention appears, 'the authority having for the time being power to Cont'd..
- 94 - O.S. No.4838/2017 make the appointment shall also have the power to suspend or dismiss any person appointed whether by itself or any other authority in exercise of that power".
The status has condified the well understood rule of general law as stated by Woodroffe on Receivers, forth Edition, that the power to terminate flows naturally and as a necessary sequence from the power to create In other words, it is a necessary adjunct of the power of appointment and is exercised as an incident to, or consequences of, that power; the authority to call such officer into being necessary implies the authority to terminate his functions when their exercise is no longer necessary, or to remove the incumbent for an abuse of those functions or for other causes shown."
47. The learned counsel for defendant No.10 has vehemently contended that, the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2009 in O.S No.34/2000 by the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, is not binding on the 1st defendant. It is asserted that this judgment was obtained in the personal capacity of Shri Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji and the plaintiffs are not entitled to Cont'd..
- 95 - O.S. No.4838/2017 benefit from that judgment. To comprehend the
defendant's stance on this matter, it is essential to grasp the concept of Math. The Mathadipathi, functioning as a Trustee, holds a position where personal rights over Math properties are absent. However, upon assuming the role of Mathadipathi and ascending to the gadi, certain privileges are conferred regarding the Math's properties. In the capacity of the head of the institution, the Mathadipathi is entitled to enjoy the benefits associated with this revered position, which extend to the properties of the Math. These privileges enable the Mathadipathi to fulfill their responsibilities and perform religious rituals essential to the role. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madra Vs. Sri. Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar, Shirur Math reported in AIR 1954 SC 282 - has held thus;
"19. As regards the property rights of a Mathadhipati, it may not be possible to say in view of the pronouncements of the Judicial Committee, which have been accepted as good law in this country ever since 1921, that a Cont'd..
- 96 - O.S. No.4838/2017 Mathadhipati holds the Math property as a lifetenant or that his position is similar to that of a Hindu widow in respect to her husband's estate or of an English Bishop holding a benefice. He is certainly not a trustee in the strict sense. He may be, as the Privy Council(1), says, a manager or custodian, of the institution who has to discharge the duties of a trustee and is answerable as such; but he is not a mere manager and it would not be right to describe Mahantship as a mere office."
A superior of a Math has not only duties to discharge in connection with the endowment but he has a personal interest of a beneficial character which is sanctioned by custom and is much larger than that of a Shebait in the debutter property. It was held by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court(2), that Shebaitship. itself is property, and this decision was approved of by the Judicial Committee in Ganesh v. Lal Behary and again in Bhabatarini v. Ashalata. The effect of the first two decisions, as the Privy Council pointed out in the last case, was to emphasise the propriet ary element in the Shebaiti right and to show that though in some respects an anomaly, it was an anomaly to be accepted as having been admitted into Hindu ,law from an early date. This view was adopted in its Cont'd..
- 97 - O.S. No.4838/2017 entirety by this court in Angurbala v.
Debabrata and what was said in that case in respect to Shebaiti right could, with equal propriety, be applied to the office of a Mahant. Thus in the conception of Mahantship, as in Shebaitship, both the elements of office and property, of duties and personal interest are blended together and neither can be detached from the other. The personal or beneficial interest of the Mahant in the endowments attached to an institution is manifested in his large powers of disposal and administration and his right to create derivative tenures in respect to endowed properties; and these and other rights of a similar character invest the office of the Mahant with .the character of proprietary right which, though anomalous to some extent, is still a genuine legal right. It is true that the Mahantship is not heritable like ordinary property, but that is because of its peculiar nature and the fact that the office is generally held by an ascetic, whose connection with his natural family being completely cut of, the ordinary rules of succession do not apply.
20. There is no reason why the word "property", as used in Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, should not be given a liberal and wide connotation and should not be extended Cont'd..
- 98 - O.S. No.4838/2017 to those well recognised types of interest which have the insignia or characteristics of proprietary right. As said above, the ingredients of both office and property, of duties and personal interest are blended together in the rights of a Mahant and the Mahant has the right to enjoy this property or beneficial interest so long as he is entitled to hold his office. To take away this beneficial interest and leave him merely to the discharge of his duties would be to destroy his character as a Mahant altogether. It is true that the beneficial interest which he enjoys is appurtenant to his duties and as he is in charge of a public institution, reasonable restrictions can always be placed upon his rights in the interest of the public. But the restrictions would cease to be reasonable if they are calculated to make him unfit to discharge the duties which he is called upon to discharge. A Mahant's duty is not simply to manage the temporalities of a Math. He is the head and superior of spiritual fraternity and the purpose of Math is to encourage and foster spiritual training by maintenance of a competent line of teachers who could impart religious instructions to the disciples and followers of the Math and try to strengthen the doctrines of the particular school or order, of Cont'd..
- 99 - O.S. No.4838/2017 which they profess to be adherents. This purpose cannot be served if the restrictions are such as would bring the Mathadhipati down to the level of a servant under a State department. It is from this standpoint that the reasonableness of the restrictions should be judged."
48. Therefore, the Mathadipathi, contrary to a strict interpretation as a trustee, holds a position that goes beyond mere management or custodianship. While discharging the duties of a trustee and being accountable as such, the Mathadipathi is more than a manager; Matadhipathi is not merely an office. The superior of a Math possesses not only responsibilities related to the endowment but also a personal interest of a beneficial nature, sanctioned by custom and surpassing that of a Shebait in the debutter property. Therefore, any action taken by the Mathadipathi should not be viewed as personal but as representing the Math's and larger interests of its devotees/followers. Additionally, any order obtained by the Mathadipathi in their favor should be considered as accrued for the Cont'd..
- 100 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
benefit of the Math. Therefore, I constrained to answer Issue No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and Issue No.7 and 10 in the Negative.
49. ISSUES No.3 and 6 : To enhance coherence and streamline the narrative, these issues are taken up for simultaneous discussion, thereby minimizing redundancy in presentation.
50. The learned counsel for the defendant has vehemently contended that, the suit of the plaintiff is not framed properly and, consequently, should be dismissed. This argument is rooted in the contention that, considering the defendants' strapping denial of the 2nd plaintiff's status, a declaration of his status should have been explicitly sought. The plaintiff's counsel counters this by asserting that issues in a suit are to be settled based on the pleadings of the parties. When a material fact is asserted by one party and denied by the other, the court is mandated to comprehensively adjudicate all points of contention, irrespective of the specific reliefs claimed. Therefore, even though the 2nd plaintiff claims to be the Cont'd..
- 101 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
Mathadipathi, it becomes a fact in issue for the court to decide, especially in the context of adjudicating the claim that the 10th defendant Trust is fraudulent and established to unlawfully acquire the properties of the 1st plaintiff. In support of his argument, the learned Senior counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Makhan Lal Bangal Vs. Mana Bhunia reported in AIR 2001 SC 4900 - wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "The correct decision of civil lis largely depends on correct framing of issues, correctly determining the real points in controversy which need to be decided. The scheme of order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with settlement of issues shows that an issue arises when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by o(her should form the subject of distinct issue. An obligation is cast on the court to read the plaint/petition and the written statement/counter, if any, and then determine with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, the material propositions of fact or of law on which the Cont'd..
- 102 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
parties are at variance. The issues shall be framed and recorded on which the decision of the case shall depend. The parties and their counsel are bound to assist the court in the process of framing of issues. Duty of the counsel does not belittle the primary obligation cast on the court. It is for the Presiding Judge to exert himself so as to frame sufficiently expressive issues. An omission to frame proper issues may be a ground for remanding the case for retrial subject to prejudice having been shown to have resulted by the omission. The petition may be disposed of at the first hearing if it appears that the parties are not at issue on any material question of law or of fact and the court may at once pronounce the judgment. If the parties are at issue on some questions of law or of fact, the suit or petition shall be fixed for trial calling upon the parties to adduce evidence on issues of fact. The evidence shall be confined to issues and the pleadings. No evidence on controversies not covered by issues and the pleadings, shall normally be admitted, for each party leads evidence in support of issues the burden of proving which lies on him. The object of an issue is to tie down the evidence and arguments and decision to a particular Cont'd..
- 103 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
question so that there may be no doubt on what the dispute is. The judgment, then proceeding issue-wise would be able to tell precisely how the dispute was decided."
51. My predecessor has framed Issue No.3, catsing burden upon Plaintiff No.2 for establishing his claim to succeed as the Mathadipathi of the 1st plaintiff Math, based on the contentions put forth by both the plaintiffs and defendants. To substantiate this claim, the plaintiffs adduced their evidence through Power of Attorney Holder, who got examined as PW.1, who filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination reiterating the averments in the plaint. PW.1 affirmed that, based on his knowledge of the facts surrounding the case and his role as the secretary of three properties located in Bengaluru, Tirumala, and Tamil Nadu, he deposed on behalf of the plaintiffs. He explicitly stated that the 1st plaintiff Math, led by its Mathadipathi H.H. Shrimad Samyamaindra Tirtha Swamiji, and the 2nd plaintiff herein are upholding the traditions and customs of the 1st plaintiff Math. The nature of the 1st plaintiff Math is Cont'd..
- 104 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
described as a Mourashi Math, wherein the succession to the peetha is determined by the existing Guru selecting and nominating a shishya as his successor. The ascension to the position of Mathadipathi of the 1st plaintiff Math is said to be governed by specific traditions, usage, and rites. This event is stated to occur only after the lifetime of the existing Mathadipathi, emphasizing that it is not automatic. The extant Mathadipathi holds the exclusive right to choose a qualified individual to succeed in the position after attaining Samadhi. This process involves the Mathadipathi, through the initiation of a shishya into Sanyasa, assessing the competency, acceptability, and worthiness of the shishya to assume the position after his own lifetime.
52. Further he deposed that, the customs and tradition of the 1st plaintiff Math is well settled that, only a Sishya worthy and to be succeeds to the Peeta and become a Mathadipathi only after Samadhi of the Guru. Apart from that, all the criteria, succession depends on nomination and the sishya has to be a virtuous pupil -
Cont'd..
- 105 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
'Satshishya' as assessed by the Guru to enable him and entitled him to become the Mathadipathi. Further it is contended that, the follows that succession to the position of Mathadipathi is dependent solely on the incumbent Mathadipathi-Guru nominating a Shishya who has to be a 'Satshishya'. The assessment of the qualities and the evaluation of the eligibility for being nominated the successor is essentially the exclusive prerogative of the Guru Mathadipathi and none else. This power of the Mathadipathi to nominate his disciple as his successor, if found worthy, also includes the power to revoke such nomination and disown such disciple if such disciple is found to be unworthy by the Guru. Such nomination or revocation is as stated above the sole prerogative of the Mathadipathi.
53. Further it is stated that, on 07.07.1989, the 1 st defendant was inducted into Sanyasashrama by Shirmad Sudhindra Tirtha Swmiji and given the name Raghavendra Tirtha vide Proclamation dated:18.5.1989. The Guru, Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji, with the fond hope of ensuring his then shishya, the 1 st Cont'd..
- 106 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
defendant is acquainted with some of the
responsibilities, entrusted certain duties and functions to him and to facilitate the due performance thereof handed over the idols and paraphernalia of the 1 st plaintiff Math to the 1st defendant vide Proclamation dated:4.11.1994. It is stated that, it was done with the sole intention to provide the 1 st defendant some tactics and knowledge. Further he deposed that, the 1 st defendant however did not acquit himself well and did not behave in a manner expected of a sanyasi. The then Guru, received numerous complaints from various quarters about the deviant and high handed behavior and conduct of the 1st defendant. Hence, the Guru and the then Mathadipathi, Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji asked him to mend his ways vide letter dated:31.10.199. Further it is contended that, instead of mending his ways, on 4.11.1999, the 1st defendant addressed a letter to the then Mathadipathi Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji that he had firmly decided not to involve in the matters of the 1st plaintiff Math and community and wanted to be relieved at the earliest. The 1st defendant refused to meet his Guru and the then Cont'd..
- 107 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
Mathadipathi and when he did meet the Guru in January, 2000 in Bengaluru, he only created a ruckus and insulted his Guru. PW.1 has deposed that, he was personally present in Bengaluru at the time of said incident. Subsequently, the Guru and Mathadipathi by a Proclamation dated:19.07.2000 accepted the 1 st defendant's request dated:4.11.1999 and relieved him. On 20.6.2002, subsequent to the 1st defendant being disowned and disinherited, the current Mathadipathi and 2nd plaintiff, Shrimad Samyamindra Tirtha Swamiji was inducted into Sanyasashrama by the pervious Mathadipathi Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji and appointed as his Shishya vide Proclamation dated:4.8.2002. Further it is deposed that, the Mathadipathi also executed a Will dated:6.11.2003, stating that angst and pain caused to him by the 1 st defendant and how the 1st defendant had gone astray from the path of Sanyasi, showed an avowed disinclination to that and denigrated the image of the 1 st plaintiff Math, the Guru and the trust and faith of the devotees. The aforesaid Will was duly executed and registered before Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Cont'd..
- 108 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
Bengaluru and kept in a sealed cover and deposited in the office of Sub-Registrar. Thereafter, upon the Maha Samadhi of the Testator, upon my application and after being satisfied about the Maha Samadhi, the Sub- Registrar opened the sealed cover, copied the contents of the Will and certified the same and issued the certified copy.
54. It specifically stated that, in the month of November 2013, the Guru and the the Mathadipathi on being satisfied of the equipment and caliber of Shimad Samyamindra Tirtha Swamiji i.e., 2nd plaintiff herein, delegated to him powers and functions and reiterated that he would succeed as the next Mathadipathi which was affirmed by the Proclamation dated:8.9.2015. The said Proclamation was sent to all branches of the 1 st plaintiff Math, temples and institutions affiliated to the 1st plaintiff Math and was read out and given wide publicity. On 17.1.2016, the previous Mathadipathi Shrimad Samyamindra Tirtha Swamiji attained Mahasamadhi, the 2nd plaintiff herein in his capacity as the disciple and nominated successor performed the Cont'd..
- 109 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
last rites and rituals of his Guru at Haridwar and function was held on 28.01.2016 to celebrate the ascension of the 2nd plaintiff to the Mathadipathya of the 1st plaintiff Math. The PW.1 has produced Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiffs, in order to depose on behalf of them which is marked as Ex.P.1 and P.2. The certified copy of the Will dated:6.11.2003 executed by the then Mathadipathi has produced and marked as Ex.P.20, the GPA said to be executed by Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji has selected and initiated the 2nd plaintiff into Sanyash Aasharama after education and training as per their traditions of Samsthan.
55. The plaintiff has produced the letter issued by the Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji dated:5.3.2013 to the Executive Officer, Tirupathi Devastana by informing temple of 2nd plaintiff who is referred as Paramapriya Patta Shishya, which is marked as Ex.P.24. Ex.P.25 is the Proceedings Sheet of Office of the Executive Officer, TTD - Devastana, Tirumala indicating the official sanction granted to the temple authority to receive Cont'd..
- 110 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
Srimad Samyamindra Tirtha Swami, the designated successor to Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji and the Mathadipathi of the Kashi Math. Ex.P.26 is the Proceedings of the Executive Officer, TTD Devastana dated:22.2.2016, which evident that, the plaintiff No.2 as a Mathadipathi of the Kashi Math Samsthan, Varanasi had visited the temple to have darshana of lord Venkateshwara on 26.02.2016. Ex.P.84 is the Proclamation dated:04.08.2002, through which the Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji, the previous Mathadipathi of Kashi Math Samsthan by virtue of the inherent power vested with him initiated and granted Sanyasa Dheeksha to plaintiff No.2 and named him as Sri. Samyamindra Thirtha on 26.6.2002 who has been selected to be our shishya and deserving successor. Accordingly, invited all the participation from all over the country to participate in Shishya Sweekar Ceremony held at Haridwar Math. These documents incontrovertibly establishes the second plaintiff's election and succession to the position of Mathadipathi of the first plaintiff Math.
Cont'd..
- 111 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
56. The learned counsel for the defendant strenuously argued that, during the cross-examination of PW.1, has categorically admitted that no formal ceremony for the selection of the Mathadipathi took place. Instead, following the bestowal of Sanyasa Dheeksha, an informal communication conveyed that plaintiff No.2 would assume the role of Mathadipathi, with the appointment purportedly occurring in the year 2001, a contention seemingly inconsistent with the earlier pleadings. The defendant has made a suggestion asserting that on March 16, 2003, the succession of defendant No.1 was terminated. He deposed that, the defendant No.1 removed on 16.03.2001, since he has given resignation and considerring his behavior, he was removed from the Math. DW.1 has admitted that, there is no tradition or custom of removal of Mathadipathi, but there is tradition of removal of Sishya by the Mathadipathi. Despite the exhaustive cross-examination by the defendant's counsel on customs and rituals within their community regarding the selection of the Mathadipathi, the evidence put forth by the plaintiff remains sufficient to establish that plaintiff No.2 was Cont'd..
- 112 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
chosen by the then Mathadipathi as the successor subsequent to the event wherein defendant No.1 was relieved of his duties, as per the Proclamation dated 04.11.1994.
57. It is worthwhile to reflect on the concept of Guru-
Shishya Parampara, a sacred tradition embedded in our Hindu religion and customs since the Vedic Period. This revered relationship between a spiritual teacher (Guru) and a disciple (Shishya) holds profound significance, symbolizing the transmission of knowledge, wisdom, and spiritual guidance across generations. Dating back to ancient Vedic times, this tradition emphasizes the profound connection between the Guru and Shishya, transcending mere academic learning. The Guru, as a spiritual guide, imparts not only intellectual knowledge but also fosters personal and ethical development in the Shishya. The Shishya, in turn, demonstrates utmost reverence, dedication, and obedience to the Guru, creating a bond that extends beyond the temporal realm. the Mundaka Upanishad imparts profound wisdom through its verse emphasizing the qualities and Cont'd..
- 113 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
approach of a Shishya (disciple) in the sacred Guru- Shishya relationship. Here's a reflection on the translated form of the verse: "Learn that by humble reverence, by inquiry, and by service; the wise, who have seen the truth, will impart knowledge unto you." This slokha emphasizes the importance of humility, questioning, and service as integral components of the Shishya's duty. In Chandogya Upanishad, it says that, "True knowledge is that which imparts humility, and the teacher imparts it to the deserving disciple, who, in turn, approaches the teacher with sincerity." These slokhas underscores the reciprocal nature of the Guru- Shishya relationship and the importance of humility in the learning process. Therefore, the primary duty of the Shishya is to faithfully follow and implement the teachings of the Guru. This involves a sincere commitment to both the academic and spiritual aspects of learning. The Shishya must demonstrate unwavering respect and reverence towards the Guru. This includes physical gestures like bowing and mental attitudes of gratitude and humility. The Shishya is obligated to engage in dedicated study and practice, striving for Cont'd..
- 114 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
excellence in both knowledge and conduct. This
commitment is vital for personal growth and the preservation of the Guru's teachings. Service (seva) is considered a sacred duty for the Shishya. By selflessly assisting the Guru in various tasks, the pupil learns the value of humility, self-discipline, and devotion. In my humble view, the Guru Nindaka (abuser of Guru/Teacher) cannot be a Parama Sishya or Patta Shishya to claim succession to the Gadhi on the death of Guru/Matadhipathi.
58. The learned counsel for the defendant has vehemently contended that, the evidence of PW.1, should be viewed as an assertion by an agent regarding facts presumed to be exclusively within the knowledge of plaintiff No.2. Notably, plaintiff No.2 did not testify in support of his claim, leading to the invocation of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, allowing for the inference of adverse consequences. Additionally, the defense argues that, in accordance with their customs, the Mathadipathi cannot appoint a successor through the execution of a Will. It is further asserted that the Power of Attorney Cont'd..
- 115 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
Holder, assuming the role of the plaintiffs, ventured beyond the limits of personal knowledge in presenting evidence. Therefore, no evidential value can be attached to the stationary of the evidence. In support of argument, the learned counsel for defendant has relied on decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors reported in AIR 1968 SC 1413, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that;
"Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof."
Cont'd..
- 116 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
59. The facts of the above case was distinct in factual circumstances, specifically relating to the deliberate withholding of documentary evidence admitted to be in the possession of the defendant. The Supreme Court, in that context, ruled that adverse inferences could be drawn against a party engaging in such conduct. While it is an established principle that, for facts exclusively within an individual's personal knowledge, the person possessing that knowledge should testify in a court of law to substantiate such facts, but there canot be a straight jacket formula to apply this principle. I am of the view that, particularly in suits involving religious institutions led by the Mathadipathis or Swamijis, where representatives of the Math or Mathadipathi, including devotees or those engaged in the institution's management, can provide testimony based on personal knowledge. In the evidence of PW.1, it is elicited that, subsequent to the removal of defendant No.1, PW.1 has been actively involved with plaintiff No.1, and based on this association, he has testified on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Cont'd..
- 117 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
60. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for plaintiff, for the plaintiff, Order 3 Rule 2 of the CPC countenance the institution and prosecution of a suit through a Power of Attorney Holder as a representative, permitting the presentation of evidence based on facts within both personal and public knowledge. The intrinsic reciprocality of the Mathadipathi and the Math is accentuated, with their existence intertwined. The appointment of PW.1 as the Power of Attorney Holder by the Mathadipathi to represent both entities is well recognised under law. According to Order 3 Rule 2, there is no need to obtain leave of the court to file a suit through a recognized agent; the only condition is the possession of a Power of Attorney authorizing such person to represent the principal. Therefore, the contention raised by the defendant on this point is untenable. In light of the foregoing reasons and discussions, I am of the considered opinion that plaintiff No.2 has duly established his succession as the Mathadipathi of the 1st plaintiff Math following the Mahasamadhi of the previous Mathadipathi, Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji. Therefore, I constrained to Cont'd..
- 118 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
answer Issue No.3 in the Affirmative and Issue No.6 in the Negative.
61. ISSUES No. 4, 5, 9 and 11 : To enhance coherence and streamline the narrative, these issues are consolidated for simultaneous discussion, thereby minimizing redundancy in presentation.
62. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P.3 a certified copy of the Deed of Declaration of Trust dated 16.05.2017, registered in the name of the 1st defendant as the Mathadipathi of the 1st plaintiff Math. As previously expounded, during the lifetime of Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji, the 1st defendant initiated a legal battle by filing a suit against the then Guru, asserting himself as the Mathadipathi of the 1st plaintiff Math. This litigation concluded with the dismissal of the suit, and even the appeal filed by the 1st defendant in the High Court met with a similar fate. According to Ex.P.87, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the Civil Appeal on 02.12.2009, challenging the interim order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A.S No.90 and 90 of Cont'd..
- 119 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
2009. Subsequent to the demise of the Mathadipathi on 17.06.2016, the 1st defendant formed the defendant No.10 Trust, registered at the office of the Sub- Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru, in the name as "Sri Kashi Math Samsthan, Varanasi (Banaras)". It is an admitted fact that plaintiff No.1 has an unregistered Trust under the same name, under the same name, a legacy that traces back several decades. Ex.P.98 to 123 elucidate the details of Trustees of plaintiff No.1 for the period from 04.09.2017 to 12.12.2009. It is apparent that, after continuous unsuccessful efforts, the defendant No.1 established defendant No.10 using the same nomenclature as the plaintiff's Samsthan, asserting himself as the Mathadipathi of the plaintiff's Samsthan. As evident from Ex.P.3, all branches of Sri Kashi Math, i.e., plaintiff No.1, are depicted as branches of defendant No.10. Furthermore, the Trust Deed shows the address of Nagashettihalli, Sanjayanagar, Bengaluru, for communication purposes.
63. In the course of DW.1's cross-examination, he professed ignorance regarding the premises whose address is Cont'd..
- 120 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
depicted in Ex.P.3. Furthermore, none of the properties registered in the name of plaintiff No.1 were legally conveyed to defendant No.10 through registered documents. DW.1 acknowledged that the address indicated in Ex.P.3 corresponds to a rented premise, and he claimed ignorance about the ownership or the existence of any Rent Agreement to that effect. He admitted that th then Mathadipathi bestowed him the main deity and essential ritual articles, such as silver and gold items, Rayas Patra, all of which remain in his possession. During cross-examination, DW.1 revealed that he registered the pre-existing Trust, yet he conceded that, as per Ex.P.3, the Trust was purportedly established on 16.05.2017. Consequently, the assertion by the defendants that the 10th defendant Trust and plaintiff No.1 Math are synonymous cannot be endorsed. Therefore, it is my considered view that the plaintiff has substantiated the fraudulent and deceptive nature of the 10th defendant Trust Deed dated 16.05.2017. Accordingly, I constrained to answer Issue No.4 and 5 in the Affirmative and Issue No.9 and 11 in the Negative.
Cont'd..
- 121 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
64. ISSUE No.8 : The defendants have specifically
contended that, the execution of two documents, namely the 'Will' dated 06.11.2003 and the Proclamation dated 08.09.2015 by Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji, was bereft of authority due to the Proclamation dated 18.05.1989. However, as discussed supra, on issues No.1 and 2, it is my considered opinion that, through the Proclamation dated 19.07.2000, as per Ex.P.18(a), defendant No.1 ceased to be the designated successor of plaintiff No.1 Math. Indeed, the Proclamation dated 18.05.1989 manifested the decision of Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji to adopt defendant No.1 as their sishya, designating him as the successor to the gadi of Sri Kashi Math Samsthan. Acknowledging a well-established custom, the Guru possesses the authority to relieve or discharge a shishya if deemed unworthy, either in character or due to a lack of religious observance. Consequently, the subsequent Proclamation, relieving defendant No.1 of all duties and powers, the then Mathadipathi was empowered, as the head of the institution, to appoint a new successor, as Muth cannot be left without successor even for a day.
Cont'd..
- 122 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
According to their customs, there exists no prohibition against the appointment and expression of intention by the Mathadipathi through the execution of a Will.
65. In the instant case,it is plausible that, foreseeing potential disputes within the Math, the Mathadipathi may have anticipated future complications and, to avoid any further discord, executed a Will expressing his intentions. Consequently, there is a lack of evidence from the defendant's side to demonstrate that, according to their customs, the Mathadipathi is prohibited from executing a Will to appoint his successor. Contrarily, the plaintiff has substantiated the due execution of the 'Will' by presenting attesting witness PW.2, who attested to the execution of the 'Will' by Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamiji. Immediately following its execution, the 'Will' was presented before the Sub-Registrar in a sealed cover, and after the Mathadipathi's demise, it was unsealed, and a certified copy was obtained. It is also worth to note that a larger members of the community has acknowledged and accepted the succession of plaintiff No.2 as the Cont'd..
- 123 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
Mathadipathi, extending their support and allegiance to the Math. Customs often comprise unwritten traditions and practices that evolve over time within a specific community or society. In this case, the community's acceptance of the succession method implies that it aligns with their customs. Therefore, I answer Issue No.8 in the Negative.
66. ISSUE No.12 : The defendant No.1 though has alleged threats to his life from the plaintiffs, the evidence and admissions during his testimony reveal that several criminal cases have been registered against him. He was also arrested in connection with these cases but later released on bail. In the absence of concrete evidence or proof indicating a genuine threat to defendant No.1's life, the Civil Court lacks the authority to direct the police to provide security or protection. If there is a perceived threat, the appropriate course of action would be for the defendants to approach the relevant authorities with a complaint or request for security measures. Apart from that, the defendant No.1 has failed to adduce any evidence substantiating the Cont'd..
- 124 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
circumstances that led him to believe there is a credible threat to his life. Therefore, I answer Issue No.12 in the Negative.
67. ISSUE No.13 : The defendants have contended that, the suit is not maintainable, since the relief sought by the plaintiffs for declaration is in rem. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs should have pursued the suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code as a representative suit. All the numerous devotees with a common interest in the subject matter should have joined the suit. Additionally, the defendants emphasize a lack of compliance with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, asserting that when filing a suit in a representative capacity, the necessary pleadings must be adhered as it outlined in Order 7 Rule 4 of CPC. Moreover, the learned counsel for the defendants vehemently argued that, the suit, as claimed by PW.1 in his evidence, is filed in a representative nature, and thus, it should be dismissed for non compliance of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, it is important to note that Section 92 of Cont'd..
- 125 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
the Civil Procedure Code is applicable to suits involving a breach of trust in a trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature. In such cases, the court is empowered to frame a scheme, appoint new trustees, or provide other necessary reliefs for the administration of the trust. As it provided under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC, where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or defend on behalf of all persons so interested. In the context of seeking a declaration against third parties or filing an injunctive suit, compliance with Section 92 is not mandatory, and court leave is not a prerequisite. A representative suit typically involves individuals with individual grievances seeking common relief against another set of individuals, without pleading a community of interest. In the present case, the first plaintiff, through its Matadhipathi, seeks a declaration and injunction against an entity alleged to be fraudulent, putting the interests of the Math at risk, notably in the absence of pleading about community intererst, I am of the humble Cont'd..
- 126 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
view that, it cannot be categorized as a representative suit. When the plaintiffs seek relief on their own right against wrongs done to them, the suit does not become a representative suit and need not be treated as such. Therefore, I constrained to answer Issue No.13 in the Negative.
68. ISSUE No.14 : For the aforesaid reasons and discussion, I am of the considered view that, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration and consequential reliefs as sought in the suit. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.14 in the Affirmative.
69. ISSUE No.15 : For the aforesaid reasons and discussion, I proceed to pass the following -
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with cost.
The 10th defendant Trust is hereby declared as fraudulent Trust and is null and void ab-initio.
Cont'd..
- 127 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
The Trust deed dated:16.5.2017
registered as Document No.BYP-4-00040-
2017-18 in Book-IV stored in CD No.BYPD243 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru is hereby declared as a fraudulent and sham document and not binding on the plaintiffs or anyone else.
Consequently, the defendants No.1 to 9 are hereby directed to hand over all funds, assets and properties which are stands in the name of 10th defendant Trust to the 1st plaintiff.
The defendant No.1 is hereby permanently restrained from claiming to be associated with the 1st plaintiff Math in any manner.
The defendants No. 1 to 9 are hereby permanently restrained from interfering with the affairs and administration of the 1st plaintiff Math including accounts and trusts, temples and other institutions affiliated to the 1st plaintiff Math in any manner whatsoever either by themselves or through their agents, henchmen and anyone else claiming through/ or under them.
Cont'd..
- 128 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
The defendants No.1 to 9 are hereby
permanently restrained from opening and operating any bank accounts in the name of 10th defendant Trust or its trustees and holding themselves to be connected with the 1st plaintiff Math in any manner.
The defendants No.1 to 9 are hereby
permanently restrained from using the
Samsthan idols of 1st plaintiff Math and any emblem/ insignia of or associated with the 1st plaintiff Math in any manner.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer in open court, transcribed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced on this the 26th day of February, 2024.) (HARESHA. A) XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE plaintiff:
Examined on:
P.W.1 : K.Narayana Shenoy 01-02-2020.
P.W.2 : V. Sudhish Pai
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P1 Power of attorney executed by the Cont'd..
- 129 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
1st plaintiff in favour of K.Narayan
shenoy dated:25.06.2017.
Ex.P2 Power of attorney executed by the 2 nd
plaintiff in favour of K.Narayan shenoy dated:10.07.2017.
Ex.P3 Certified copy of the Trust Deed dated:
16.05.2017.
Ex.P4 Certified copy of the Judgment in OS No. 34/2000 dated: 28.01.2009.
Ex.P5 Certified copy of the Decree in OS No. 34/2000.
Ex.P6 Certified copy of the Decree in OS No. 34/2000 (counter claim).
Ex.P7 Certified copy of the certificate of transfer of decree from Tirupati to Ernakulum. Ex.P8 Certified copy of amended decree in counter claim in OS No. 34/2000.
Ex.P9 Certified copy of the Commissioner report in OS 34/2000.
Ex.P10 Certified copy of the Judgment in appeal no 90 and 91/2009 passed by High court of Hyderabad.
Ex.P11 Certified copy of the decree in Appeal No. 90/2009 passed by High court of Hyderabad.
Ex.P12 Certified copy of the decree in Appeal No. 91/2009 passed by High court of Hyderabad.
Ex.P13 Certified copy of the proclamation dated:
04.11.1994.
Cont'd..
- 130 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
Ex.P14 Certified copy of the letter dated:
31.10.1999.
Ex.P14(a) Translated copy of Ex.P14 (Certified
copy).
Ex.P15 Certified copy of the letter dated:
04.11.1999.
Ex.P15(a) Translated copy of Ex.P15 (Certified
copy).
Ex.P16 Certified copy of the Letter dated:
10.11.1999.
Ex.P16(a) Translated copy of Ex.P16 (Certified copy ) Ex.P17 Certified copy of the letter dated:
11.11.1999.
Ex.P17(a) Translated copy of Ex.P17 (Certified copy).
Ex.P18 Certified copy of the Letter dated:
20.07.2000.
Ex.P18(a) Certified copy of the Proclamation dated:
19.07.2000.
Ex.P19 Certified copy of the Proclamation dated:
16.03.2001.
Ex.P20 Certified copy of the Will dated:
06.11.2003 (subject to proof).
Ex.P21 The registered GPA of the prvious swamiji in favour 2nd plaintiff dated:
23.11.2013.
Ex.P22 Proclamation dated: 08.09.2015. Ex.P23 Death certificate of Previous Swamiji.
Cont'd..
- 131 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
Ex.P24 The Letter dated: 05.03.2013.
Ex.P25 Copy of the proceedings dated:
03.02.2015 issued by TTD in favour of plaintiff (subject to proof).
Ex.P26 Copy of the proceedings dated:
22.02.2016 issued by TTD in favour of plaintiff (subject to proof).
Ex.P27 Copy of the proceedings dated:
27.05.2017 issued by TTD in favour of plaintiff (subject to proof).
Ex.P28 The Letter of Appointment dated:
0702.2014.
Ex.P29 Intimation with regard to the demise of previous swamiji dated:18.01.2016.
Ex.P30 3 CD with regard to the proceedings of the Muth and Samadhi of previous Swamiji.
Ex.P31 News Paper publication dated:
31.01.2016 in Vijawani Kannada Daily. Ex.P32 News Paper publication dated:
31.01.2016 in Hosa Digantha Kannada Daily.
Ex.P33 News Paper publication dated:
31.01.2016 in Udayawani Kannda Daily.
Ex.P34 Special issue with regard to Peeta Rohana of 2nd plaintiff .
Exs.P35 The letter reconstituting the to 66 management committees. (31 nos.). Ex.P67 Intimation with regard to installation of Hanuman Idol in Samadhi dated:
31.10.2016.
Cont'd..
- 132 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
Ex.P68 Invitations (18 nos.).
Ex.P69 Circular dated:24.06.2017 .
Ex.P69(a) The translated copy of Ex.P69. Ex.P70 Certified copy of the order in Tr.P(C) No. 496/2014 passed by the High Court of Kerala.
Ex.P71 Certified copy of the Judgment in OP(C) No. 3189/2016 by High Court of Kerala. Ex.P72 Certified copy of the petition u/s 441 read with Section 437 Cr.PC in Crime no. 55/2014 filed by the 1st defendant.
Ex.P73 Certified copy of the order in Criminal Misc petition no. 2225/2017 and Crl.
Misc petition no. 1584/2017 dated:
17.05.201.
Ex.P74 True copy of reg. U/s 12A of Income Tax Act (after verifying the same with the original).
Ex.P75 True copy of order passed by chief commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai dated: 09.05.2008.
Ex.P75(a) Print out from the website confirming the orders u/s 10, 23(c), 5 of IT Act.
Ex.P76 True copy of Pan card of 1st plaintiff (after verifying the same with the original).
Ex.P77 Income Tax returns.
Ex.P78 The letter issued by the PW1 to income
tax on services unit 11.11.2017.
Ex.P79 Letter issued by the PW1 in favour of
Cont'd..
- 133 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
commissioner of income tax.
Ex.P80 Letter issued by the PW1 in favour of Ministry of Home Affairs.
Ex.P81 Paper publication in Udayawani Kannada Daily dated:14.07.2017.
Ex.P82 Paper publication in Kannada Prada Kannada Daily dated:15.07.2017.
Ex.P83 Paper publication in New Indian Express English Daily dated:15.07.2017.
Ex.P84 Proclamation dated:04.08.2002. Ex.P85 Notarized copy of letter dated:
29.06.2000 (subject to proof).
Ex.P86 Postings of defendant no. 9 in Facebook. Ex.P87 The copy of the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7966-7967/2009 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Ex.P88 Certificate u/s 65B of Indian evidence Act.
Ex.P89 Certified copy of the authorization letter dated:07.07.2017.
Ex.P90 Certified copy of the proclamation dated:
18.05.1989.
Ex.P91 Letter dated: 01.09.2001.
Ex.P92 Income Tax returns along with independent Auditors report.
Ex.P93 Income Tax returns.
Ex.P94 Income Tax returns along with independent Auditors report.
Cont'd..
- 134 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
Ex.P95 Income Tax returns.
Ex.P96 Income Tax returns along with
independent Auditors report.
Ex.P97 Attested copy of the passbook (7 nos.).
Exs.P98 Letters reconstituting the management to 123 committee issued by the 2nd plaintiff to the branch maths (25 in nos.).
Ex.P124 Certified copy of I.A. No. 5747/2001 and order sheet pertaining to the said I.A. in O.S. 34/2000 before III Addl. District Judge, Tirupati.
Ex.P125 Receipt dated: 7.11.2003 issued by the District Registrar of Bengalore.
Ex.P126 Affidavit dated:21.03.2016. Ex.P127 Notarized copy of the charities and donations made by the 1st plaintiff Math with receipts and vouchers for the financial year of 2017-18 (Subject to proof).
Ex.P128 Notarized copy of the charities and donations made by the 1st plaintiff Math with receipts and vouchers for the financial year of 2018-19 (Subject to proof).
Ex.P129 Notarized copy of the charities and donations made by the 1st plaintiff Math with receipts and vouchers for the financial year of 2019-20 (Subject to proof).
Ex.P130 Notarized copy of deed of trust dated:
04.12.1992 (Subject to proof).
Cont'd..
- 135 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
Ex.P131 Income Tax returns acknowledgment of the year 2018-19.
Ex.P132 Income Tax returns acknowledgment of the year 2019-20.
Ex.P133 Income Tax returns acknowledgment of the year 2020-21.
Ex.P134 Notarized copy of the trust deed dated:
16.06.2016 (Subject to proof).
Ex.P135 Notarized copy of Form No. 10(B)(Subject to proof).
Ex.P136 Notarized copy of Form No. 10 B (Subject to proof).
Ex.P137 Notarized copy of Form No. 10 B (Subject to proof).
Ex.P138 Notarized copy of the Deed of declaration of Srimadh Keshavendra Thirtha Swami Charitable trust dated: 26.06.2008 (Subject to proof).
Ex.P139 Notarized copy of Form No. 10 B dated:
30.09.2018 (Subject to proof).
Ex.P140 Notarized copy of Form No. 10 B dated:
25.08.2019 (Subject to proof). Ex.P141 Notarized copy of Form No. 10 B dated:
01.08.2020 (Subject to proof).
Ex.P142 Notarized copy of Deed of indenture dated: 16.002.1993.
Ex.P143 Notarized copy of Form No. 10 B dated:
07.09.2018 (Subject to proof).
Ex.P144 Certified copy of Audit report dated:
08.08.2019 .
Cont'd..
- 136 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
Ex.P145 Certified copy of form no. 10 B dated:
19.12.2020.
Ex.P146 Notarized copy of the deed of declaration dated: 02.02.2009.
Ex.P147 Notarized copy of the income tax returns verification form for the year 2018- 19 (Subject to proof).
Ex.P148 Notarized copy of the income tax returns verification form for the year 2019-20 (Subject to proof).
Ex.P149 Notarized copy of the income tax returns acknowledgment for the year 2020-21. Ex.P150 Certified copy of the deed of trust dated:
19.07.2013.
Ex.P151 Certified copy of Form no. 10 B dated:
07.09.2018.
Ex.P152 Certified copy of Audit report dated:
28.01.2014.
Ex.P153 Certified copy of Audit report dated:
28.01.2014.
Ex.P154 Notarized copy of Consolidated receipts and payment accounts of Kashi Math Samsthan for the year ending 31 st March 2018.
Ex.P155 Notarized copy of Independent auditors report dated: 31.10.2018.
Ex.P156 Notarized copy of Consolidated balance sheet of Kash Math Samstha Varanashi as on 31st March 2019 (Subject to proof). Ex.P157 Notarized copy of independent auditors Cont'd..
- 137 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
report of 30.10.2019.
Ex.P158 Notarized copy of the Consolidated
balance sheet of Sri kashi Math
Samsthan Varanashi as on 31 st March 2020.
Ex.P159 Notarized copy of the independent auditors report dated: 07.01.2014 (Subject to proof).
Ex.P160 Notarized copy of letter dated:
05.01.1991 issued by the Srimadh Sudheendra Thirta Swamiji intimating the reconstitution of the committee at the branch in Bangalore.
Ex.P161 Notarized coy of the Rayasa Pathram
dated: 01.12.1999
Ex.P162 Acknowledgment.
Ex.P163 Will and Testament dated: 01.04.2016.
Ex.P164 Affidavit by way of Evidence filed by the
2nd plaintiff in OS No.34/2000.
Ex.P165 Notice to the plaintiff to produce certain
documents.
Ex.P166 Gift Deed dated: 28.4.2004.
Ex.P167 Thandapper Account from Government
of Kerala.
3. WITNESS/ES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
Examined on:
D.W.1 : H.H.Shrimad Ragavendra 13-03-2023 Thirtha Swamiji Cont'd..
- 138 O.S. No.4838/2017
-
4.DOCUMENT/S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS Ex.D1 Shree Guru Charitamrutha, Konkani Book.
Ex.D2 Rughwedha Ashwalayana and
Saraswath Brahahman Book.
[[
Ex.D3 Panchaganga Book.
Ex.D5 Deeksha Smathimalika Book.
Ex.D6 The sage of Shambhavi Book.
Ex.D7 Copy of The Message Book.
Ex.D8 Vysa Prasad Book.
Ex.D9 Copy of Souvenir Book.
Ex.D10 Shree Hari Guru Smarana Book.
(HAREESHA A.)
XXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Cont'd..