The balance of convenience is of prime consideration for transfer of suit, and the convenience of both parties have to be weighed and the matter must ultimately turn on the balance of convenience.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent by the plaintiff against the order of the learned single Judge transferring the suit from the court of District Judge, Seoni, to the Court of District Judge, Allahabad, under sections 22 and 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) SEVERAL centuries ago the late Jagatguru. Adishankaracharya propounded the theory of absolute Monism based on the authority of Upanishad, and his philosophy succeeded in combating Buddhism and re-establishing the religion of vedas. For the purpose of strengthening and maintaining the doctrine of Non-dualistic philosophy, which he preached, he established four Mathas as monasteries in the four extremeties of India namely the Jootishpeeth near badrinath, now Chamoli Garhwal, in the North. Shardamath in the West in gujarat, Shringeri Math in the South in Mysore and Gowardhan Matha in the east at Puri and placed each one of them under the charge of one of his principal ascetic-disciples. He also prescribed the territorial jurisdiction of maths. The present proceeding concerns the Matha near Badrinath. Swami brahmanand Saraswati was the Shankaracharya of this Matha and he died on 20-5-53. It appears that thereafter dispute arose regarding his successor. The respondent No. 1 Swami Shantanand Saraswati claimed himself to be his successor under a registered will dated 18-12-52 executed by Swami brahmanand Saraswati. The interim committee of which the appellant was the president decided to instal the respondent No. 1 as Shankaracharya of the matha On 8-6-53. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 was so installed as shankaracharya. But immediately thereafter dispute arose and Swami Krishna bodhashram was installed as Shankaracharya by persons opposed to the respondent No. 1. On 11-7-58 the respondent No. 1 applied for a succession certificate and the same was granted to him by the District Judge, Allahabad, in misc. Case No. 44/53 on 12-12-55. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 was placed in charge of all the properties of the Matha. An appeal was preferred against that order by the appellant which was dismissed. 2-A. After obtaining sanction of the Advocate General of U. P. on 29-4-54, Civil suit No. 3/54 was filed against the respondent No. 1 that Swami Krishan bodhashram has been selected by the Pandits and followers of the Jyotishpeeth as the Shankaracharya and it was prayed that he be so declared. The said civil suit was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Varanasi on 20-10-62. An appeal to the High Court was also dismissed on 11-9-73 in F. A. No. 385/62 by allahabad High Court. A further appeal was preferred to the Supreme Court which was also dismissed on 21-8-74 and it is reported in Swami parmatmanand Saraswati v. R. Tripathi, AIR 1974 SC 2141. As by that time swami Krishna Bodhashram had expired, the appellant was permitted to intervene in the Supreme Court. The suit was held not maintainable under section 92 of the Code when the allegations of mal-ad-ministration or breach of trust were neither stated nor proved. After the dismissal of the suit by the Addl. District Judge. Swami Krishan Bodhashram filed Civil Suit No. 3/63 in the Court of Civil Judge, Tehri. U. P. , subsequently transferred to Allahabad for a declaration that he is the successor to the Gaddi of Shankaracharya of jyotishpeeth and he is the trustee of all the properties. It was further prayed that the will dated 18-12-52 in favour of the respondent No. 1 be declared null and void and not validly executed. A further prayer was made for possession over all the properties detailed in the schedule. A statementhas been made at the bar by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that permission was granted to Swami Krishna Bodhashram to sue in forma pauperis. A revision was preferred to the Allahabad High Court against the order of the trial Court holding that the present suit is not barred by res judicata in view of the earlier civil suit Under Section 92 of