The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of rights in the office of Jagadguru to a second defendant rendered the compromise decree not binding upon the first defendant, and the first defendant had no right of appeal in the suit.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 33 of 1925) by special leave from a decree of the High Court (August 17, 1921) reversing a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum (October 25, 1918).

The suit was between rival claimants to the office of Jagadguru, or head, of a math of Shri Shankaracharya, a foundation of wealth and importance. The plaintiff by his plaint claimed a declaration that he was entitled to all the properties of the math and to the powers of its duly installed head.

The decree of the Subordinate Judge was made upon a compromise entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, to whom the original defendants interest was assigned pendente lite; he had been added as a party, the original defendant remaining on the record.

On an appeal by defendant No. 1 the High Court set aside the decree.

Macleod C.J. (with whose judgment Shah J. agreed) was of opinion that as defendant No. 1 remained on the record he had such an interest in the matters at issue as entitled him to ask that the compromise arrived at behind his back be set aside.

The material facts of the case appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

1926. Nov. 18. Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Parikh for the appellants.

De Gruyther K.C. and E. B. Raikes for the first respondent (defendant No. 1).

[Reference was made to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order xxiii., r. 3, Order XXII., r. 10 (it being pointed out that that rule does not provide for striking out the name of a party who has assigned his interest) ; also to Order I., r. 10 (2.), and (as to general powers of the Court) to ss. 99, 151, 153.]

1927. Jan. 18. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

SIR JOHN WALLIS. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Bombay setting aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Belgaum in terms of a compromise entered into between the plaintiff and the second defendant in the suit, and remanding the case for disposal, on the ground that the decree was passed in the absence of the first defendant and without notice to him.

The suit, instituted in the Subordinate Court of Belgaum, was between rival claimants to the office of Jagadguru or head of the Sankeshwar and Karvir Math, an ancient foundation having two branches, one at Sankeshwar in the Belgaum District of the Bombay Presidency and the other in the native State of Kolhapur (which of the two is the principal branch is in dispute), and owning properties both in British territory and in Kolhapur. The dispute as to the succession arose from the fact that Balavadakar. a former head of the math, who had appointed and installed one Brahmanalkar as his successor in 1903, afterwards, in 1906, purported to revoke the appointment, and to appoint one Athanikar, who in turn appointed and installed the plaintiff in 1909. Brahmanalkar, on the other hand, denied that he had been lawfully deposed, and before his death in 1909 appointed and installed one Atmaram Shastri, who was the original defendant in this suit. The plaint alleged that lands owned by the math in British India, which included the math at Sankeshwar, were in the possession of the plaintiff, but that by order of the Commissioner of the Southern Division the inam villages and cash allowances (in British India) were being held in "amanat" (under attachment) and were to be given to the claimant who should obtain a decree declaring his right. The plaint accordingly prayed for a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the property movable and immovable of the Sankeshwar and Karvir Math and of the powers and rights of that math as the duly appointed Jagadguru.

The written statement alleged that the Court had no jurisdiction, as the Sankeshwar Math was only a branch of the principal math in Kolhapur and the Kolhapur durbar alone had power to decide who was head of the math; that that durbar had decided that the defendant was the head of the math, and that, in any case, Balavadakar had no power to depose Brahmanalkar (through wh