SWAROOPANAND SARASWATI Vs. SHRI RAMJI TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(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 Budhism and reestablishing 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 extremities of India namely the Jyotishpeeth near Badrinath, now Chamoli Garhwal, in the North, Shardamath in the West in Gujrat, 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 principle 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 the 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 install the respondent No. 1 as Shankaracharya of the Matha on 8 -6 -53. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 was so instated 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. I 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 Maths. An appeal was preferred against that order by the appellant which was dismissed.

(3.) IN this application for transfer the respondent No. I claimed that be is the duly installed Shankaracharya of Jyotisheeth by virtue of the will dated 18 -12 -52 executed by late Swami Brahmanand Saraswati The appellant was the President of the committee which so installed him and he had signed the minute book of the meeting. The main seat of the Matha is located in D strict Chamoli of U. P. and the upa -peeth of Matha is located at Allahabad, most of the properties of the Mathi are located there and only negligible properties of the Matha are in M. P. All the defendants are residents of U. P.. The respondent No. 1 in the earlier proceedings under the Succession Act had given his address at Varanasi. He now resides at Delhi and he had given his address at Delhi in the case before the Supreme Court. In the suit u/s 92 of the Code, all the witnesses from Allahabad and Varanasi alone were examined and none from M. P. The subject matter cause of action and the relief's claimed in the present suit and Civil Suit No. 3/63 are almost the same. The properties mentioned in both the suits are also the same. In both the suits the will dated 18 -12 -52 has been challenged and also the claim of the respondent No. I as successor to Swami Brahmanand Saraswati. Seoni is beyond ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Jyotishpeeth. Seoni is not easily approachable and there are no proper facilities of legal aid the counsel for the appellant and the respondent No. 1 are from Allahabad. The respondent No 1 will have to incur huge expenses in defending the suit at Seoni as all the witnesses and records will have to be brought from U. P.. It will not be possible to realize the huge costs because in the earlier proceeding also the decree for costs could not be executed. The conduct of the plaintiff in other litigations shows that the present suit is frivolous and vexatious and has been filed only to harass the respondent No. 1 so that there may not be a fair trial. Therefore, the balance of convenience lies in transferring the suit from the Court of District Judge, Seoni to a competent Court at Allahabad,