Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 238
In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.
Kashi Math Samsthan, Benaras Rep. by its Matadhipathi Srimad Raghavendra Thirtha Swami & Another – Appellants
Versus
Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swami Vyasashrama, Haridwar Rep. by GPA Agent Guru Ganapathi Prabhu & Another – Respondents
Appeal Suit Nos. 90 & 91 of 2009
Decided on : 01-06-2015
For the Appellants:Matta Purushotham Reddy, P. Hemachandra, Advocates.
For the Respondents: R1, B. Adinarayana Rao, Senior Counsel.
Headnote:
Civil Law – Disciple of a Mutt – Hindu Mutt – Mutt was founded with its headquarters at Varanasi having various branches all over the country – As per the authored by portions of which have been marked as Ex.A.186 to A.189 was built by the Kochi around A.D. 1540 contents of this book show that the Mutt was founded in the 16th century. As per this book, defendant No.1 is the 20th head of Before his initiation into he was known as son of a trustee of completed his Pre-University education in Maharaja’s College and selected Natural Science, Physics and Chemistry as the main subjects. He was initiated into on 24.5.1944 when was camping at examination of P.W.10 has exposed the distorted nature of the translation of Ex.A.192. The witness clearly admitted that Ex.A.192 contained the words and he has further admitted that the said words mean only one admitted that while translating the said words he has used the plural by mentioning as of the same Mutt. It is evident from Ex.A.193 as suggested to the witness, the distorted translation was indulged in by P.W.10 at the instance of plaintiff No.2 to make it appear as if defendant No.1 has recognized plaintiff No.2 as the At any rate, there could be only one for a Mutt and if defendant No.1 has recognized plaintiff No.2 as the he would not have described himself as the and referred to the existence of two no doubt that Ex.A.193 is a self-serving document containing false translation – Held, Tour of defendant No.2 and plaintiff No.1 respectively. They disclose that prior to defendant No.1 was undertaking tours and after plaintiff was undertaking tours. It is not in dispute that one of the main functions of a Hindu Mutt is propagation of the Hindu religion. Therefore, it is not unusual for a authorized by him to undertake tours for such propagation – Indeed, if defendant No.1 has ceased to be he would not have undertaken such tours. Ex.B.54 is a tour of defendant No.1 from as per which he visited many places from to Mysore. Similarly, he has undertaken tour from visiting many places such as Bombay, Goa,. In another tour from to defendant No.1 has visited many places. Starting from Kochi he has visited several places in Kerala Karnataka and Delhi. This evidence would establish that defendant No.1 has never ceased to be – Appeals fail and the same are dismissed.
1. A disciple of the Matadhipathi of a Mutt having hoary past dragged his own mentor to a seamless litigation claiming the latter’s gaddi. Being unsuccessful in the suit, he has landed up before this Court to chance his arm. The manner in which the supposedly ascetic and purported renouncer of the world is fighting legal battle against his o w n guru leaves every bystander wondering whether such persons are also not free from the cravings for positions like ordinary mortals. The background leading to this unsavory litigation, reflected from the pleadings of the parties is recounted hereunder.
2. Gowda Saraswatha Brahmana Community, which was believed to have lived near Saraswathi River, came to inhabit predominantly in the west coast of India, extending from Bombay in the north to Kerala in the south, through Goa and Kanara districts (North and South), though a sizeable number of the members reside in other places like Bangalore, Mysore, Coimbatore, Ahmedabad, Chennai, Baroda, New Delhi etc. The community had a glorious past with distinct culture of its own. The members of this community owe allegiance to one or the other of the following Mathas:
(i) Shri Kashi Matha Samsthan
(ii) Shri Gokarna Parthagali Jeevottama Matha Samsthan, and
(iii) Shri Kaivalya Matha Samsthan
3. This case is concerned with Shri Kashi Matha Samsthan (for short, ‘the Mutt’). The Mutt was founded with its headquarters at Varanasi having various branches all over the country. As per the “History of Shri Kashi Matha Samsthan” authored by Professor V.A. Shenai, portions of which have been marked as Ex.A.186 to A.189, Shrimad Yadavendra Thirtha was the first Swamiji of Shri Kashi Matha Samsthan. The Mutt Bhavan was built by the Kochi Gowda Sarasvata Brahmanas around A.D. 1540. The contents of this book show that the Mutt was founded in the 16th century. As per this book, defendant No.1 is the 20th head of Shri Kashi Matha Samsthan. Before his initiation into sanyasa, he was known as Shri Sadashiva Shenoy, son of Shri Ramadasa Shenoy, a trustee of Shri Venkataramana temple in Ernakulam. He was born at Ernakulam on 31st March, 1926. He completed his Pre-University education in Maharaja’s College, Ernakulam and selected Natural Science, Physics and Chemistry as the main subjects. He was initiated into sanyasa by Shri Shukritheendra Swamiji on 24.5.1944 when the Swamiji was camping at Ernakulam. Defendant No.1 was made Master of Sanskrit, Bhagavadgeeta, Upanishads and other Dharma Shastras and he has taken the reigns of Shri Kashi Matha Samsthan after its Matadhipathi Shri Sukriteendra Swamiji passed away in 1949 (History of Shri Kashi Matha Samsthan, by V.A. Shenai, portions of which are marked as Exs.A.186 to 189).
4. With the above background of the Mutt, let me consider the pleadings in O.S.No.34 of 2000 out of which these two appeals arise. Plaintiff No.2 (Shrimad Raghavendra Thirtha Swami), who claimed to have succeeded defendant No.1 (Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swami), filed the above mentioned suit for declaring him as Matadhipathi of plaintiff No.1 – Mutt and for permanent injunction restraining Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamiji and Shri Tirumala Kashi Math, represented by its Manager, presently holding his office at Ring Road, Tirumala, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, and persons claiming through them, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men or anybody on behalf of the defendants from in any way interfering with exercise of powers, duties and privileges as the 21st Pontiff and for costs. H e inter alia pleaded that defendant No.1 fell ill in 1988 and therefore plaintiff No.2 was ordained as a ‘sanyasi’ by the former in 1989 after choosing him to be the successor Matadhipathi of plaintiff No.1 – Mutt. Plaintiff No.2 was assisting defendant No.1 in conducting of the affairs of the Mutt after attaining knowledge and learning in proficiency in the scriptures besides achieving a very high degree of mental equanimity and mental
