Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : R.F. Nariman, Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advs., Ganesh Shenoy, Rajesh Mahale, Advs., with them for the Appellant.
For the Respondents:K.K. Venugopal, Romy Chacko, Ankur, Advs., for the Respondents.

Summary of the Judgment

The dispute concerns succession to the position of Mathadhipathi (head) of Shri Kashi Math Samsthan, a religious institution. (!) Respondent No. 1, the sitting Mathadhipathi since 1949, initiated Appellant No. 2 into Sanyasa in 1989, named him successor (Patta Shishya), and entrusted him with certain religious, dharmic, social activities, management duties, deities, paraphernalia, and insignia from 1994, excluding Shri Vyasasram at Haridwar. (!) A proclamation on 12 December 1994 delegated some powers to Appellant No. 2, but courts below found it did not indicate full abdication or transfer of the Mathadhipathi position. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Appellant No. 2 filed a suit for declaration as the 21st Mathadhipathi/Pontiff and permanent injunction restraining Respondent No. 1 from interfering. (!) During pendency, trial court ordered status quo on Math functioning and articles, despite finding no prima facie case or balance of convenience for Appellant No. 2, but restrained interference with his Trikala Pooja and limited Respondent No. 1's delegations. (!) (!) Trial court (IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati) dismissed the suit, allowed Respondent No. 1's counterclaim for mandatory injunction directing handover of articles within one month, holding Respondent No. 1 retained full powers, succession occurs only post-death per custom, and Appellant No. 2 failed to prove prima facie entitlement. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Appellants appealed to High Court (A.S. Nos. 90-91/2009), seeking temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1-2 r/w S.151 CPC and stay under Order 41 Rule 5 r/w S.151 CPC. (!) High Court dismissed, holding execution subject to appeal outcome, as no prima facie case or balance of convenience. (!) (!) (!) (!)

Supreme Court granted leave but dismissed appeals under Article 136, refusing interim relief. (!) (!) (!) Key holdings: (i) Appellant No. 2 failed to establish prima facie case, as delegation was partial (e.g., his 1999 letter seeking relief from "certain activities" recognized Respondent No. 1's authority); proclamation inconclusive; no evidence of full abdication. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (ii) Per Math customs, Mathadhipathi position transfers only after incumbent's death, not inter vivos. (!) (!) (!) (!) (iii) Trial court's final findings (post-evidence) prevailed over interim status quo, shifting balance to Respondent No. 1; no interference warranted. (!) (!) (!)

Principle on Temporary Injunction: To obtain injunction, applicant must prove prima facie case for trial, balance of convenience in their favor, and irreparable injury absent grant; failure on prima facie case renders other factors immaterial. (!) (!)

Supreme Court clarified its prima facie views non-prejudicial to High Court merits adjudication, directing expedited disposal within six months. (!) (!) (!) No costs. (!)