ANDANISWAMI Vs. TOTADSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff alleges that he is one of the (Jagadgurus of the Lingayats, that he has many branch Maths in the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras, in the territories of the Patwardhan Chiefs and of His Exalted Highness the Nizam, that plaintiff s Gurus before him had and plaintiff has the right of going in procession seated in a cross-palanquin adorned with and accompanied by Panch-Kalash and Birudavali, that they had and have that right as Jagadgurus, that they have a right that their disciples should show them that honour in their own village and also when they go out visiting in public streets, that the plaintiff s Gurus had and plaintiff has exercised this their right since ancient times, that this procession in a cross-palanquin is taken out in plaintiff s village Mundarigi every year on Vaishak Sud 10 and 11, last Monday and Tuesday in every Shrawana, on Ashwin Sud 10 and at the beginning of Margashirsha without fail. It is taken out also when plaintiff is called by his disciples for worshipping his feet at their homes at all times of the year, it is taken out also when the plaintiff enters villages on his tours and visits his disciples houses for the worshipping of his feet, that the plaintiff intended to take out a cross-palanquin procession on last Monday Shrawana of Shake 1881, that the 1st defendant induced defendant No. 2 to make an application to the 2nd Class Magistrate of Mundarigi on the 6th of September 1912 and the other defendants to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that there would be a breach of the peace, that the latter Magistrate stopped the plaintiff s procession on the 9th of September 1912 and that appeals were preferred, but failed and hence the suit. The plaintiff prays for an injunction against the defendants that they should not obstruct the plaintiff in going in a cross-palanquin procession with a Panch-Kalash and Birudavali on Vaishak Sud 10 and 11, on last Monday and Tuesday in Shrawana, on Ashwin Sud 10 and in the beginning of Margashirsha in Mundarigi and elsewhere at other times.

(2.) The defendants Nos. 1 and 3 contend that the civil Courts have no jurisdiction to try this suit, that the plaintiff is not a Jagadguru but defendant No. 1 s disciple, that disciples before him called Andanmaris like the plaintiff denied that they were defendant No. 1 s disciples (Shishyas) and the High Court held that they were defendant No. 1 s Shishyas or disciples, that the Andanmari before the plaintiff had admitted that he was defendant No. l s disciple and had passed a registered deed to that effect, that such Maris have no such right of going in a cross- palanquin as claimed in the plaint, that they have no right to take out the procession mentioned in the Schedule attached to the plaint and that the 1st defendant alone has the right to call himself Jagadguru and go in a cross- palanquin with Panch-Kalash and Birudavali and not the plaintiff.

(3.) It may be said, therefore, on these pleadings that the plaintiff claimed to have the right of being carried in a cross-palanquin in procession as Jagadguru. That was a religious dignity and privilege not for every member of the public, but for himself as Jagadguru. It was the plaintiff who claimed to be carried in procession by his disciples in order that they might worship his feet in their homes, and to be carried in procession on particular days of the year.