Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashok Bhushan, J.
Jagatguru Shankaracharya, Jyotish Peethadheeshwar, Swami Vasudevanand
Versus
Additional District Judge - VII, Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division)-II
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 24085 of 2000
Decided On : 23 January 2004
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 24085 Of 2000
The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, quashed the order of the trial court granting temporary injunction restraining the writ petitioner from proclaiming and functioning as Jagatguru Shankaracharya Jyotish Peeth, Badrika Ashram Himalaya and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the said order. The Court held that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in proceeding to examine the question of qualification of the writ petitioner for the office of Shankaracharya on the basis of affidavit while hearing an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court further held that the trial court committed an error apparent on the face of the record in ignoring the final judgment in Suit No. 36 of 1965 which was relevant with regard to the dispute regarding the office of Shankaracharya between Swami Shanta Nand Sarswati and Swami Krishna Bodha Ashram. The Court also held that the plaintiff had no prima facie case or balance of convenience for grant of temporary injunction and the courts below committed an error in allowing the Application 6-C.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Swami Swaroopanand Sarswati, filed a suit in the year 1989 seeking injunction to restrain the installation of the defendant, Swami Vasudevanand Sarswati, as Jagatguru Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth. The trial court granted temporary injunction restraining the defendant from being installed as Jagatguru Shankaracharya. The defendant filed a writ petition challenging the order of the trial court. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, quashed the order of the trial court granting temporary injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in proceeding to examine the question of qualification of the writ petitioner for the office of Shankaracharya on the basis of affidavit while hearing an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court further held that the trial court committed an error apparent on the face of the record in ignoring the final judgment in Suit No. 36 of 1965 which was relevant with regard to the dispute regarding the office of Shankaracharya between Swami Shanta Nand Sarswati and Swami Krishna Bodha Ashram. The Court also held that the plaintiff had no prima facie case or balance of convenience for grant of temporary injunction and the courts below committed an error in allowing the Application 6-C.
Issues: Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in proceeding to examine the question of qualification of the writ petitioner for the office of Shankaracharya on the basis of affidavit while hearing an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Whether the trial court committed an error apparent on the face of the record in ignoring the final judgment in Suit No. 36 of 1965 which was relevant with regard to the dispute regarding the office of Shankaracharya between Swami Shanta Nand Sarswati and Swami Krishna Bodha Ashram. Whether the plaintiff had a prima facie case or balance of convenience for grant of temporary injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in proceeding to examine the question of qualification of the writ petitioner for the office of Shankaracharya on the basis of affidavit while hearing an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court further held that the trial court committed an error apparent on the face of the record in ignoring the final judgment in Suit No. 36 of 1965 which was relevant with regard to the dispute regarding the office of Shankaracharya between Swami Shanta Nand Sarswati and Swami Krishna Bodha Ashram. The Court also held that the plaintiff had no prima facie case or balance of convenience for grant of temporary injunction and the courts below committed an error in allowing the Application 6-C.
Final Decision: The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, quashed the order of the trial court granting temporary injunction restraining the writ petitioner from proclaiming and functioning as Jagatguru Shankaracharya Jyotish Peeth, Badrika Ashram Himalaya and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the said order.
( 1 ) AN order of temporary injunction passed by civil Court restraining the writ petitioner from proclaiming and functioning as Jagatguru Shankaracharya Jyotish Peeth, Badrika Ashram is under challenge in this writ petition.
( 2 ) JYOTISH Peeth (Jyotir Mutt), Badrika Ashram is one of the four Mutts or monasteries established several centuries ago by Shankaracharya who was one of the worlds greatest philosopher and spiritual leader. Shankaracharya prepounded theory of absolute monism on the authority of the (Sic), he not only summed up the true philosophy of Vedas as embodied in upnishads but provided a firm beacon for the subsequent ages: It was for the purposes of strengthening and maintaining the doctrine of non-dualistic philosophy, he established four mutts or monasteries at the four extremities of India viz Jyotir Mutt at Badrinath in the north, sharda Mutt in Gujurat in the west, Srigeri (Sic) south and Gobardhan Mutt at Puri in east, each one of them was placed in charge of one of its ascetic disciples. In later years the persons who became head of above Mutts also proclaimed themselves to be Shankaracharya, consequently the mahants or Muttadhipatis of all four Mutts were also known as Shankaracharya. In the suit filed by respondent No. 3 out of which present writ petition arises, the dispute was with regard to shankaracharya of Jyotir Mutt, Badrika Ashram.
( 3 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 2nd February, 1999 allowing the Application 6c of the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction and the order dated 27th Aprils 2000 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 41 of 1999 dismissing the miscellaneous Appeal of the petitioner against the temporary injunction order. A further prayer has teen made for quashing the plaint and all proceedings in Original Suit No. 513 of 1989 pending in the of Additional District Judge (Junior Division) II, Allahabad.
( 4 ) I have heard Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate (Sic) by Sri V. D. Ojha, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Shekhar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3
( 5 ) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged (Sic) the parties and with consent of the parties, the writ (Sic) is being finally decided.
( 6 ) FACTS of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the ties, briefly stated, are Swami Brahma nand Sarswati undisputed Shankaracharya of Jyotir Mutt, breath his last on 20th May, 1953, swami Brahma Nand Sarswati had executed a Will dated 18th December, 1952 appointing swami Shanta Nand Sarswati (Ramji Tripathi) as his successor in office. In the Will name of four persons were mentioned in seriatim who were to assume as Shankaracharya. At first place name of Swami Shanta Nand Sarswati (earlier name Ramji Tripathi) was mentioned, at second place Pandit Dwarika Prasad Tripathi, at third place Swami Vasudeva Nand Ji Sarswati and at fourth place name of Pandit Parmatma Nand Ji Sarswati was mentioned. After the death of swami Brahma Nand Sarswati, an interim committee was constituted to install the successor: the interim committee of which respondent No. 3, Swami Swaroopa Nand Ji Saraswati, was chairman, in its meeting dated 8th June, 1953 decided that Swami Shanta Nand Sarswati be installed on 12th June, 1953 at kash. On 12th June, 1953 Swami Shanta Nand Sarswati was installed as Shankaracharya of Jyotir Mutt. The decision of installing Swami Shanta Nand sarswati as Shankaracharya was opposed by certain persons who claimed that Swami Santa nand Sarswati is not entitled to be installed. The will executed by Swami Brahma Nand Sarswati was denied and it was claimed that Swarm Krishna Bodha Ashram was installed as shankaracharya of Jyotir Mutt on 25th June, 1953. Swami Shanta Nand Sarswati filed an application under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act claiming succession on the basis of Will dated 18th December, 1952 executed by Swami Brahma Nand Sarswati on which Case No. 44 of 1953 was registere
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
