SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Pankaj Mithal, J.
Swami Sadguru Sharnanand
Ji Maharaj —Revisionist
versus
Hari Kumar & Ors. —Opp. Parties
Civil Revision No.553 of 2012
Decided on 28.5.2013

Counsels for the Parties:
For the Revisionist:M.K.Gupta, Deo Dayal, Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties:Rajendra Prasad Singh, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Plaint of a suit is liable to be rejected where suit appears to be barred by any law.

Headnote:(i) Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 34—Declaratory suit—Any person who is in doubt about his legal character or to any right to any property can seek to clear that doubt by bringing a suit under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act—It gives a remedy to a person against all those who claim adverse interest to his own—Right claimed by adversary which may hinder legal status or exercise of right of a person is good enough to bring a suit for declaration under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. (Paras 25 and 26)

       (ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 7 Rule 11—Limitation Act, 1963—Section 3—Rejection of plaint—Bar of limitation—Plaint of a suit is liable to be rejected where suit appears to be barred by any law—Plaint cannot escape rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC but for exemption from limitation if established from plaint in accordance with Order VII, Rule 6 CPC—Observation of Supreme Court permitting filing of afresh suit does not extend period of limitation or give plaintiff/respondents either a fresh cause of action or any latitude to calculate limitation of suit from date of decision of Supreme Court as against statutory provision providing for reckoning limitation from date on which right to sue first accrued—It does not even mandates that court should ignore limitation or any bar in institution of suit— Court is obliged to dismiss a suit on ground of limitation even if no plea has been raised that it is barred by limitation—Court below failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it under law by refusing to reject plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC read with Section 3 of Limitation Act—Impugned order set aside and plaint rejected. (Paras 35, 37, 42, 50, 56 and 57)

       Result: Civil Revision Application allowed.

JUDGMENT

Pankaj Mithal, J.— The present revision is an outcome of the third suit in connection with the Mahantship of the Math Garhwa Ghat of “Sant Mat” Sampradaya, Varanasi.

2. The litigation in connection with the properties and Mahantship of the Math started in the year 1951 and is still continuing despite an elaborate and comprehensive decision of the Supreme Court in the first round of litigation arising with the institution of Original Suit No.469 of 1951.

3. The plaintiff/respondents in continuation of the earlier litigation instituted Original Suit No.1098 of 2010 Hari Kumar and others v. Devnath Yadav alias Mahant Swami Sharnanand Ji Maharaj primarily for a decree of declaration that the aforesaid Devnath Yadav and all persons claiming through him are not entitle to hold the office of Mahant of the aforesaid Math as he was not a Sanyasi/Chela who was ever installed as Mahant.

4. The defendant/revisionist in the said suit filed application (paper No.64 Ga) under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on two grounds: (1) that there is no cause of action to the plaintiff/respondents for the suit; and (2) that the suit is barred by limitation.

5. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the order impugned dated 17.9.2012.

6. Thus, in the present revision impugning the above order, the only question which deserves consideration is whether the court below is justified in rejecting the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC so as to permit the suit to proceed on merit or whether the plaint of the aforesaid suit is liable to be rejected under the aforesaid provision.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy it is important to narrate in brief the history relating to the past litigation of the aforesaid Math which is more elaborately contained in the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir., AIR 1980 SC 707.

8. The Garhwa Ghat Math was founded in the year 1925 by one Swami Sarupanand Paramhans, a disciple of Swami Advaitanand. He preached the tenets and precepts of “Sant Mat” Sampradaya. He inducted Baikunth Singh, father of Krishna Singh as his Chela and named him Swami Atmavivekanand. Swami Sarupanand took Samadi in 1936 at Meerut and Baikunth Singh alias Swami Atmavivekanand succeeded him as Mahant. He died on. 23rd August, 1948 and was succeeded by the disciple Mathura Ahir alias Swami Harsewanand.

9. Swami Sarupanand was endowed land and building by his followers and in the due course several properties were purchased which all were recognised as the properties of the Math. One of the properties, house No.C77-33 situate in Mohalla Jagatganj, Varanasi was in possession of Avadesh Narain and others. Therefore, Mathura Ahir alias Swami Harsewanand the then Mahant of the Math brought Original Suit No.469 of 1951 for their ejectment. The said suit was later on converted into a title suit and Krishna Singh, was impleaded as one of the defendants as the occupants claimed that they are in permissive possession of it through Krishna Singh, the then Mahant of the Math. Thus, the Krishna Singh was set up as the Mahant of the Math as against Swami Harsewanand. The suit was decreed and the decree was finally upheld by the Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 21.12.1979 reported as above.

10. In the aforesaid suit two of the relevant points which arose were whether the Mathura Ahir alias Swami Harsewanand was the Chela of Baikunth Singh alias Swami Atmavivekanand and was entitle to succeed to the properties left behind by him in preference to his son Krishna Singh and whether the aforesaid house was a Math property. The Apex Court affirmed the findings of the court below that the two houses at Varanasi including the suit house were purchased by Baikunth Singh alias Swami Atmavivekanand out of the offerings made by his disciples and therefore were Math properties. It was further held that Mathura Ahir alias Swami Harsewanand was validly initiated as Chela of Baikunth Singh alias Swami A
































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top