Back
2009(8) Supreme 246
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and H.L.Dattu,JJ.
Kashi Math Samsthan & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7966-7967 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP ) Nos. 9165-9166/2009)
Decided on : 02-12-2009
Temporary Injunction – Grant of – It is well settled that in order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of such injunction has to prove that he has made out a prima facie case to go for trial,the balance of convenience is also in his favour and he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted-But it is equally well settled that when a party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to the party concerned would not be material at all, that is to say, if that party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, it is not open to the Court to grant injunction in his favour even if, he has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his favour and would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is granted. (Para 13)
Facts of the Case :
Respondent No. 1 Mathadhipathi of the Math 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 Appellant no 2 herein in the instant case. Suit was instituted by appellant No. 2 to declare him as Mathadhipathi and 21st Pontiff of the Math also praying for an injunction, restraining the respondent No. 1 from exercising powers, duties and privileges as the Mathadhipathi of the Math. During the pendency of the suit, an application for injunction was filed by the appellant No.2 and the trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the functioning of the Mathadhipathi relating to the affairs of Math as well as the articles till the disposal of the suit. Suit was dismissed by IV Additional District Judge, allowing 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.Appellants pending appeals, filed 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. Appellants also filed a separate application under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking stay of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court .High Court dismissed the applications of appellants and directed that the execution of the decree granted by the trial court would be subject to the final outcome of appeals filed before it.
2. Present Special Leave Petitions have been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Views expressed by High Court as well as by 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 were held justified.That apart, a perusal of proclamation not conclusively suggested that the respondent No. 1 had abdicated all his powers as Mathadhipathi of the Math in favour of appellant No. 1. 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 and also the Judgment passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, in the suit 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. No reason was found to interfere with the order of the High Court in the exercise of discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution. Appeals were dismissed.
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. (!)
JUDGMENT
Tarun Chatterjee, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals, by way of Special Leave Petitions, have been preferred against a common order dated 25th of March, 2009, passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in A.S. No. 90 and 91 of 2009, by which the High Court had rejected the interim applications filed by the appellants seeking status quo and stay of execution of the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, IV Court at Tirupathi in a suit for declaration and injunction.
3. Shri Kashi Math Samsthan (in short “the Math”), which is the appellant No. 1 herein, was established somewhere between the 14th and 15th Century A.D. It is one of the three Dharma Peethas or spiritual thrones of the Gowda Saraswatha Brahmin Community (in short “GSB”). The Respondent No. 1 namely, Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamy (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent No 1”) became the Mathadhipathi of the Math in or around 1949 after the death of the then Mathadhipathi.
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 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 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.
6. During the pendency of the suit, an application for injunction was filed by the appellant No.2 and the trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the functioning of the Mathadhipathi relating to the affairs of the Math as well as the articles till the disposal of the suit. It is true that the interim order of status quo granted by the trial Court was operative during the pendency of the suit and was not challenged by the respondent No.1.
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 cl
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
