Back
2008(4) Supreme 153
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Swami Shankaranand (D) by LRs. — Petitioners
versus
Mahant Sri Sadguru Sarnanand etc. & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 4175 of 2008
Decided on : 27-05-2008
Facts of the Case :
Issue in consideration in present case was whether a disciple attached to a Mahant in one of the establishments run by a Religious Trust will have locus standi to maintain an appeal from an order of the District Judge allowing an application filed by the Trust under Section 92(1)(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ?
Findings of the Court :
Affidavit filed by respondent3, showed that it was running a Trust which serves a larger public interest. A large number of constructions had already been made. Constructions started in the year 1994 and had been completed in 1995. Various activities have been going on at that place. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also purchased an alternative land and raised constructions thereon at a cost of Rs.10 lakhs. In this view of the matter, held that no useful purpose would be served in entertaining the appeal.Again appellant could not be permitted to prefer an appeal only because he was interested in result of Civil Appeal No. 5550 of 2003 which was pending before Court. He was not a party thereto. He was not claiming Mahantship in his individual capacity in respect of establishment at Hardwar. It was accepted at Bar that said Civil Appeal had got nothing to do with property in question .Held to be not a fit case for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution of India.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. Whether a disciple attached to a Mahant in one of the establishments run by a Religious Trust will have locus standi to maintain an appeal from an order of the District Judge allowing an application filed by the Trust under Section 92(1)(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) is the short question which arises for consideration in this appeal.
3. One Swami Sarupanand was the founder of the Math. He was disciple of Swami Advaitanand. The latter was a religious preceptor of great learning and had a large following. Swami Sarupanand took his Samadhi at Meerut in March 1936 and according to his wishes Swami Atmavivekanand became the Mahant. He was succeeded by Swami Harsewanand who in turn was succeeded by Swami Harshankaranand. Swami Harshankaranand died on 22.02.1993. He had three disciples; Sarnanand, Premanand and Smt. Tapesara. Premanand died on 10.06.2005. He was succeeded by Swami Shankaranand. Appellant is said to have succeeded Swami Shankaranand. Appellant contends that succession to the office of Mahant is by nomination. Any person so nominated adopts the life of a sanyasi. He leads the life of celibacy and religious mendicancy.
4. A dispute in regard to the office of the Mahant after the death of Swami Atmavivekanand arose in between one Swami Harsewanand on the one side and Sri Krishna Singh on the other. This Court held Swami Harsewanand to be the successor of Swami Atmavivekanand. After his death, Swami Harshankaranand was substituted in place of Swami Harsewanand in the aforementioned litigation before this Court. Whether he would acquire the status as a successor Mahant or not was left open. One Sri Krishna Singh filed Suit No. 153/80 questioning the status of Swami Harshankaranand as a Mahant of the Math in question commonly known as Garhwaghat Math. The question in regard to the holder of the office is still pending before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5550 of 2003.
5. Mahant Satguru Sarananand who also was a disciple of Swami Harshankaranand was in-charge of the Garhwaghat Math. He entered into an agreement for sale with the respondent No.3 which is also a Public Trust. A sum of Rs. 35,50,000/- was the agreed amount of consideration for the said land. Out of the said amount Rs.33,00,000/- was paid in advance. An application for grant of permission to sell the said property was filed on 02.07.1990. It was advertised in two local newspapers. No objection having been received, permission as sought for was granted by the learned District Judge by an order dated 13.10.1992. Name of the respondent No. 3 was mutated in the revenue records on 31.1.1994. An application was filed by the respondent No. 3 before the Hardwar Development Authority for grant of sanction of building plans on 15.10.1993. It was allowed by an order dated 2.6.1994. Huge constructions have since been raised by the respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 popularly known as Gayatri Pariwar Shanti Kunj on the said land has developed: (1) A Research Laboratory known as Brahma Varchas Shodh Sansthan, and (2) Dev Sanskriti Vishwavidyalaya.
It has also a network of 4000 Shakti Peeths, 25,000 Pragya Sansthans and 30,000 Swadhyaya Mandals etc., which regularly organize Satsang, Discourses, Inspiring songs, and discussions on various problems in their areas to advance the noble cause of the mission. In fact, these serve as local centres of which Shantikunj is the Headquarter.
6. Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court of Allahabad on 15.11.1994 only, which was transferred to the Uttranchal High Court. By a reason of a judgment and order dated 19.5.2006, the said appeal has been dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant was not a person aggrieved to maintain the same.
7. Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the High Court committed a serious error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
