SHRI SHARADA PEETH MATH Vs. SHRI RAJRAJESHVARASHRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a suit brought, by the plaintiff for a declaration that he was entitled on behalf of the Sharada Peeth Math at Dwarka to obtain and retain possession of the property which was in custodia legis and held by the administrator appointed under Regn. 8 of 1827, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from recovering possession of the property and from asserting their claim as Acharyaof the Sharada Peeth Math.

(2.) It is common ground that the last holder of the Shrada Peeth Math of Dwarka was Madhav Tirtha, who died at Dakore on 27 September 1916, without designating his successor. On his death the Collector took possession of the property and handed it over to the District Judge under Regn. 8 of 1827. The District Judge Under Section 10, Regn. 8 of 1827, issued a proclamation under App. C. Ex. 86, on 17 October 1916. In pursuance of the proclamation three claimants appeared: (1) defendant 1, (2) Shantyanand as the nominee of the Baroda Government, and (3) Purnanand. Defendant 1 advanced his claim on 11th November 1916, alleging that he was the eldest disciple of Madhav Tirth. He is known by three names: (1) Appaji Ayya, (2) Parmanand Swarup, and (3) Rajrajeshvarshram. On 16 December the claim of the Baroda State to appoint the Shankaracharya was notified to the District Judge by Mulji Nathji, Ex. 87, who was appointed local agent of the Devasthan Assistant of Baroda. On 18 May 1917 the Baroda State appointed Shantyanand Saraswati as the successor of the last Shankaracharya Madhav Tirtha and he was installed on the gadi at Dwarka on 5 June 1917. On 14 July 1917, Swami Shantyanand applied to the District Court by Ex. 101. Claimant 3, Purnanand, gave up the contest, and on 9 August 1917, Mr. Kennedy, the District Judge, passed an order delivering the property to Shantyanand by Ex. 68, on the ground that he was the de facto occupant of the gadi, and had been installed at Dwarka and was in possession of the property situate there and subject to the control of the Shankaracharya.

(3.) Against this order Appeal No. 245 of 1917 was filed by defendant 1 to the High Court. Defendant I also filed suit No. 667 of 1917 on 13 August 1917, against Shantyanand and applied for an injunction against him restraining him not to style himself as Shankaracharya. The trial Court having refused the injunction, defendant 1 applied in revision by Civil Extraordinary Application No. 234 of 1917. The first appeal, No. 245 of 1917, and this application were heard together. Scott, C.J., and Shah, J., held that as soon as two or more claimants came forward in answer to a proclamation Under Section 10, Ch. 2 of the Regulation, the provisions of Section 9 applied to the case, and, following the decision in Shri Vishvambhar v. Shri Vasudev (1892) 16 Bom 708, held that the Judge could not make an order delivering the property to one of the claimants under the Regulation so long as the party against whom the decision was given had aright of appeal, and that the word"determined" in Section 9 of Regulation 8 of 1827 must be understood as "finally determined," and therefore set aside the order handing over the property to Shantyanand, the occupant of the Dwarka gadi, until the final determination of title had been come to, and did not think it necessary to deal, Under Section 115, Civil P.C., with the order refusing the application for injunction in Suit No. 667. The Suit, No. 667 of 1917, referred to above, which was brought by defendant 1 for setting aside the order passed four days before the institution of the suit in favour of Shantyanand, dragged on for nearly nine years. Though issues were raised on 7 October 1919, nothing effective was done till 16 February 1926, when Shantyanand, the nominee of the Baroda Government, died. On 19 June 1926, the Court passed an order, Ex. 56, Under Order 22, Rule 4, Sub-rule (3), that the suit abated. The result of the abatement order is that no fresh suit can be brought by defendant 1 on the same cause of action Under Order 22, Rule 9, Sub- rule (1), Civil P.C.