JAGADGURU SHRI SANKESHWAR KARWEER MATH Vs. LINGANGOUDA KURTKOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit by the joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Belgaum. The plaintiff is the present Swami of Sankeshwar Karveer Math. The plaintiff's Guru and predecessor-in-title had filed Special Suit No. 219 of 1910 on 20-7-1910 against three defendants. The first defendant in that suit was Pitre Swami. The second defendant in that suit was the defendant in this suit and the present plaintiff was defendant 3 in that suit. That suit was for a declaration that the plaintiff in that suit, the Waikar Swami, was the duly installed Guru of the Sankeshwar Math and, therefore owner of the properties of the Math. Defendant 1 in that suit, Pitre Swanii, contended that he was the duly installed Swami and defendant 2 in that suit was the duly initiated disciple of the said Pitre Swami. Defendant 3 in that suit, who is the present plaintiff, was said to be the duly initiated disciple of the plaintiff, namely Waikar Swami. That suit ended in a consent decree dated 25-10-1918. The first clause in the consent decree was that plaintiff Waikar Swami's name was to be entered against all the property in suit and after his death the property was to continue in the name of defendant 3 in that suit i. e. , the present plaintiff, or in the name of the disciple made by him. The second clause of the consent decree provided that defendant 2 in that suit i. e. the present defendant, should receive until his death Rs. 8,001/- out of the income of the property in suit every year and the said amount was to be continued to be paid in future every year after the property came into the possession of the plaintiff in that suit. The plaintiff in the present suit has now filed this suit for the reduction of that amount on the principal ground that owing to change of circumstances and conditions the income of the property of the Math has gone down and it has become difficult and almost impossible for the plaintiff to pay the amount of Rs. 3,001/- to the defendant, as provided for under Clause 2 of the consent decree. The plaintiff states that the main source of the income of the Math is agricultural lands, but owing to the enactment of the Bombay Tenancy Act the income from the said lands has gone down and that there has also been a loss of income from villages in the Hyderabad State as they have been made 'khalsa'. It was also stated that one of the chief sources of income of the Math was from Kolhapur State, but the Ruler there refused to give possession of the property and that also led to a re-duction of the income of the Math. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed that the amount of Rs. 3,001/- which was payable to the defendant under the consent decree and which was in the nature of either an annuity or maintenance, should be reduced, applying the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience, in view of the change in the circumstan ces which had led to the reduction of the income of the Math.

(2.) THE defendant resisted the suit, denying that there was any decrease in the income of the Math, but his chief contention was that the plaintiff was not entitled to ask the Court to reduce the amount which was provided for under the consent decree. Even assuming that there was any decrease in the income of the Math, according to the defendant, that had nothing to do with the amount that was made payable to him under the prior decree.

(3.) IN the trial Court, several issues were framed, but three of them were treated as preliminary issues. The trial Court came to the conclusion that it was not open to the plaintiff to get the terms of the compromise decree varied and that the suit was not maintainable in the form in which it was brought. On the third issue the trial Court held that the Court-fee payable by the plaintiff was proper. On these findings plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs.