SWAMY PREMANANDA BHARATHY Vs. SWAMY YOGANANDA BHARATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have arisen in two suits fought vehemently on petty rivalries among persons who profess to have given up all ego and jealousy. As the persons concerned in both the suits are the same it is convenient to refer to them by their positions in one of the suits, viz. , O. S. No. 2 of 1962 which gave rise to A. S. No. 676 of 1963.

(2.) ABOUT 1900 A. D. Sadananda Swami established a Hindu mutt at Sadanandapuram, Kottarakara, with a Sanskrit school, a library, an ayurvedic pharmacy and dispensary, a printing press and a weaving institute as its adjuncts. In his days the Mutt flourished well; the school and the dispensary had large attendance; the medicines and soaps prepared at the pharmacy were sold largely in many parts of India; and texts and magazines in religious literature were published regularly from the press. The Mutt had large estates and many branches. Sadananda Swami died on January 22,1924, and was succeeded by his chief disciple, Mahaprasad alias Atmananda Bharathi. Nithiananda Swami, the 2nd defendant, is another of Sadananda's disciples. During Mahaprasad's management also the Mutt throve well. But during his last days the Mutt had an adverse career. Most of its branches were either closed down or separated'; and many of its properties were alienated. Mahaprasad died on June 7,1954, after nominating the 1st defendant as his successor. At that time there were only five Sanyasis in the Mutt - the 2nd plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4. The 1st plaintiff was also residing in the Mutt and was attached to it. Evidence shows that by 1959/1960 he wanted to become a. Sanyasi. But the 1st defendant refused initiation to him. The 2nd defendant administered Sanyas to him; and a notification under date April 22,1960, announcing that fact was published in the Kerala Gazette, dated May 24, 1960. Dissensions arose in the Mutt; and very soon, it appears, passion began to run amuck among the inmates thereof. Plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 4 left sadanandapuram - leaving the 1st defendant alone there - and took shelter at bharatipuram where the Mutt has an Asramam with 40 odd acres of land around. On may 10, 1960, the plaintiffs 1 & 2 filed an application (Ext. D-210) before the Advocate-General for sanction to institute a suit under S. 92, CPC. , for removal of the 1st defendant from management, for directing accounts and for framing a scheme for the future management of the Mutt. On July 8, 1960, the 1st defendant, in his turn, instituted O. S. No. 13 of 1960 before the subordinate Judge, Kottarakara, to direct accounts of the income of the bharatipuram properties taken by the 2nd defendant, impleading all the other sanyasis as co-defendants thereto. The suit instituted in the District Court, quilon, under S. 92, CPC. , is O. S. No. 2 of 19621 that gave rise to A. S. No. 676 of 1963; and the counter-suit instituted by the 1st defendant, which was subsequently transferred to the file of the District Judge, Quilon, is O. S. No. 3 of 1962 out of which A. S. No. 262 of 1964 has arisen. The Additional District judge has dismissed the latter suit and passed a preliminary decree in the former, declaring the 1st defendant as not been duly constituted Mahant of the mutt, removing him from its management, directing accounts by, him, appointing a receiver to manage the Mutt and its properties till the election of a new mahant and adjourning the case for final decree with scheme framed for its future management. Hence these appeals. It is seen that the 2nd defendant had instituted another suit on July 9, 1960, which was registered as O. S. No. 17 of 1960 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kottarakara, and as O. S. No. 4 of 1962 after it was transferred to the file of the District Judge, Quilon. It was for a declaration that he is the lawful Mahant and for an injunction to restrain the 1st defendant from managing the Mutt. That suit has been dismissed by the additional District Judge along with O. S. No. 3 of 1962 and the 2nd defendant has not pursued the matter further.

(3.) THE names of the plaintiffs and the defendants indicate - it is also conceded by the parties - that they belong to the Order of 'bharatis', who form one sect of the Dasanami Sanyasis. About the 8th century A. D. Shri Sankaracharya, the great hindu scholar and philosopher, who defeated the Budhists in discussions on religious philosophy and re-established Hinduism as the dominant religion of bharat, established four Mutts as centres of learning on Hindu theology -Jyotir Mutt at Badrinath in the north, Sarada Mutt at Dwaraka in the west, Sree mutt at Sringeri in the south and Govardhan Mutt at Puri in the east - and placed one of his chief disciples in charge of each Mutt with full powers -Trotaka at Badrinath, Swarupa (Hastamalaka) at Dwaraka, Prithwidhara (Sureswara) at Sringeri, and Padmapada at Puri. THEse latter Acharyas (Mahants)by their learning and sanctity attracted disciples round themselves and, in proportion to the number of disciples gathered, set up two or three Orders among them with one of their chief disciples at the head of each Order. Wilson in his book on Hindu Religion has observed: "the spiritual descendants of Sankara in the first degree are variously named by different authorities but usually agree in the number He is said to have had four principal disciples, who in the popular traditions are called Padmapada, Hastamalaka, Sureswara and Trotaka. Of these, the first had two pupils, Tirtha and Asrama; second Vana and Aranya; the third had three, Saraswati. Puri and Bharati; and the fourth had also three, Giri parvata and Sagara. THEse, which being all significant terms, were no doubt adopted names, constitute collectively the appellation Dasnami or the ten-named, and when a Brahman enters into either class, he attaches to his own denomination that of the class of which he becomes a member as Tirtha, Puri, giri, etc. " (See also Sanyasa Grahana Padhati where the same account is given by Sankaracharya.) It appears that among the 'bharatis' themselves there are two distinct classes, one being Dandis and the other Atiths. Wilson describes them thus: "there are three classes of Sanyasis and a part of a fourth - these are called Tirtha, Aranya, Saraswathi and Bharathi - who are still regarded as really Sankara's Dandis. THEse are sufficiently numerous, especially in and about Benares. THEy comprehend a variety of characters, but amongst the most respectable among them are to be found very able expounders of the Vedanta works. Other branches of Sanskrit literature owe important obligations to this religious sect. THE remaining six and a half members of the Dasnami class, although considered as having fallen from the purity of practice necessary to the Dandis, are still in general, religious characters and are usually denominated Atiths. THE chief points of difference between them and the preceding are their abandonment of the staff; their use of clothes, money and ornaments; their preparing their own food, and their admission of members from any class of Hindus. THEy are often collected in Mutts, as well as Dandis, but they mix freely in the business of the world; they carry on trade, and often accumulate property, and they frequently officiate as priests at the shrines of the deities; some of them even marry but in that case they are distinguished by the term Samyogi from the other Atiths. " (See also Hindu and Mohamedan Endowments by Ganapathi iyer, second edition, pages 246 and 260-61 ). It is clear from the above account that the Sanyasis of the suit Mutt, who have been running an Ayurvedic pharmacy and dispensary, engaged in sale of medicines and soaps for profit and conducting a bus service too, are of the Atith AXox Sect of Bharatis among the Dasnami Sanyasis descended from Shri Sankaracharya. THE custom of the Sect of the suit Mutt must therefore be the custom of the Sankara Mutts.