HIS HOLINESS SRI DEVENDRADOSS Vs. SARJUDOSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.172 of 1988, dated 25-9-1991 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, confirming the Judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.167 of 1979 dated 27-10-1988 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi. The plaintiff is the appellant in the second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein have been referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration that he is the Mathadipathi (Mahant) of Sri Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupathi and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the administration of the Mutt by the plaintiff. As per the averments in the plaint, it is stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared the plaintiff as Mahant of Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupati in its Judgment dated 6-11-1972 in C.A. No.407 of 1971. Consequently he took over the charge of the administration of the Mutt as Mathadhipathi.

(3.) While so, the plaintiff wanted to go on pilgrimage to holy places in India and to take some rest and accordingly he issued proceedings dated 5-11-1978 handing over the ad ministration of the Mutt to the first defendant, who was his Erst discipline and the said proceedings stipulate that the management of the Mutt should be administered in the absence of the plaintiff by the first defendant. The second defendant is the Manager of the Mutt and the third defendant is the dose associate of the Defendants No.1 and 2. Third defendant died during the pendency of the proceedings, and, therefore, the legal representatives of the third defendant were brought on record, as per the orders dated 10-4-1990 of the Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. It is further averred by the plaintiff that before leaving Tirupathi on pilgrimage, the defendants Nos.1 to 3 asked the plaintiff to leave certain blank-papers with his signatures, which the plaintiff unhesitatingly left and the said signed papers were handed over to the third defendant. It is also the practice of the plaintiff to leave certain blank-papers containing signatures, whenever he is out of Tirupati, so that they can be used whenever found necessary, as there were number of cases pending in the Courts, filed by and against the Mutt. On 24-8-1979 the plaintiff returned from the pilgrimage and took charge of of the affiars of the Mutt. On assumption of charge, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants Nos.1 to 3 in collusion with each other forged certain documents with an intention of ousting him from Mahantship and installing the first defendant as Mahant and informed the Endowment's Commissioner, Secretary to Government and the Banks to the effect, that the plaintiff has resigned from the office of the Mahantship. The plaintiff states that he never expressed his desire to resign and did not send any resignation letter to the authorities. The first defendant taking advantage of the proceedings dated 5-11-1978 said to have sent the letters stating that the plaintiff had resigned and the firstdefendant was the Mahant. It is stated that the alleged letters are the outcome of rank-forgery and the plaintiff had not intended to resign. If he really intended to resign, he would not have left without making allowance for his maintenance and without giving charge of Silver and Gold articles to his successor. The plaintiff took Rs.8,000/- when he left for pilgrimage outofRs.28,000/- which was his personal money. As thedefendants are trying to interfere with the Mutt affairs, the plaintiff is unable to proceed with the administration of the Mutt peacefully and hence filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.