Kashi Math Samsthan & Anr vs Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy & Anr

4. On 26th of April, 1989, Respondent No. 1, who was the guru of one Shrimad Raghavendra Thirtha Swami (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant no.2"), had chosen him as his Patta Shishya and successor to the Math. On 7th of July, 1989, the Respondent No. 1, conferred Diksha, thereby initiating the Appellant No 2 to Sanyasa. On 4th of November, 1994, the respondent no 1 entrusted some religious, Dharmic and social activities as well as management of the Math and handed over all the deities, along with paraphernalia, insignia etc to the Appellant no 2. As per the prevalent tradition of the Math, the Mathadhipathi is supposed to perform Pooja to the presiding 2 deities three times a day, which is referred to as the Trikala Pooja. The Mathadhipathi as the head of the Math is the custodian of the "Mudra" (Insignia), or the seal of the Math. The respondent No. 1 entrusted his authorities, powers and privileges as the 20th Pontiff and head of the Math in respect of some of the religious, dharmic and social activites of the Math, except those of Shri Vyashasram at Haridwar to and in favour of the appellant no 2 on and with effect from 12th of December, 1994.

5. Due to some disturbances in the matter of continuing as a Mathadhipathi of the said Math between the GSB and the respondent No. 1, he sought to prevent the appellant No. 2 from discharging his functions as the Mathadhipathi of the Math and on the other hand, the appellant No.2 had alleged that the respondent No.1 started interfering with the affairs of the Mathadhipathi of the Math. Finding this difficulty, the appellant No. 2 had instituted a suit to declare him as the Mathadhipathi and 21st Pontiff of the Math and also prayed for an injunction, restraining the respondent No. 1 from exercising 3 powers, duties and privileges as the Mathadhipathi of the Math. The said suit was filed in the III Court of the Addl. District Judge at Tirupathi. The Respondent No. 1 entered appearance and filed his written statement inter alia alleging that since he had continued to be the Mathadhipathi of the Math, appellant No.2 had no right to disturb the functioning of respondent No. 1 and by a counter claim, he had prayed for return of the deities, paraphernalia, insignia and other articles, which were in possession of the appellant no 2.

7. After issues were framed and evidence was adduced, the suit itself was disposed of on transfer to the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, who dismissed the suit of the appellants and allowed the counter claim of the respondent No. 1 by granting a decree for permanent/mandatory injunction thereby directing the appellant No.2 to hand over the articles in his possession to the respondent No. 1 within a period of one month from the date of delivery of the judgment in the suit.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellants have filed two appeals before the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, which came to be registered as A.S. No. 90 and 91 of 2009. In the said pending appeals, applications for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking temporary injunction, restraining the respondents from interfering in any manner with the functioning of the appellant No. 2 as Mathadhipathi of the Math, was prayed for. The appellants also filed a separate application under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the CPC being ASMP no 286 of 2009 5 on the same day, seeking stay of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court during the pendency of the aforesaid two appeals. By a common impugned Order dated 25th of March, 2009, the High Court dismissed the applications of the appellants and directed that the execution of the decree granted by the trial court would be subject to the final outcome of the appeals filed before it.

16. In view of the aforesaid finding, it is not necessary for us to go into the question on title of the Mathadhipathiship of the appellant No. 2 at this stage, which shall be decided in detail by the High Court while deciding the appeals on merits. But we make it clear that the findings made by the trial Court in the final Judgment and the High Court on the application for injunction in the pending appeals are to be treated as prima facie findings which shall not be taken to be final by the High Court at the time of disposal of the appeals.

18. That being the position, we are in full agreement with the views expressed by the High Court as well as by the trial Court that the succession to the position of the Mathadhipathi can only be done after the death of the existing Mathadhipathi and not before it. That apart, as noted herein earlier, a perusal of the proclamation dated 12th of December, 1994 would not conclusively suggest that the respondent No. 1 had abdicated all his powers as Mathadhipathi of the Math in favour of the appellant No. 1. In view of our discussions made hereinabove and in view of the admitted fact that all the Courts below, starting from the trial Court, while granting status quo during the pendency of the suit i.e. dated 29th of September, 2000 and 19 also the Judgment passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, in the suit, which is now under challenge in appeals and also the impugned Judgment of the High Court, had noted that the appellant No.2 failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour and the balance of convenience was also against him. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the High Court in the exercise of our discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution.

20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court is requested to dispose of the pending appeals at the earliest preferably within six months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it. There will be no order as to costs.