VIDYA SHANKAR Vs. VIDYA NARSINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Bombay setting aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Belgaum in terms of a compromise entered into between the plaintiff and the second defendant in the suit, and remanding the case for disposal, on the ground that the decree was passed in the absence of the first defendant and without notice to him.

(2.) The suit, O.S. 219 of 1910, instituted in the Subordinate Court of Belgaum, was between rival claimants to the office of Jagadguru or head of the Sankeshwar and Karvir Mutt, an ancient foundation having two brunches, one at Sankeshwar in the Belgaum District of the Bombay Presidency and the other in the native State of Kolhapur (which of the two is the principal branch is in dispute) and owning properties both in British territory and in Kolhapur. The dispute as to the succession arose from the fact that Balavadakar, a former head of the Mutt, who had appointed and installed one Brahinanalkar as his successor in 1903, afterwards, in 1906, purported to revoke the appointment, and to appoint one Athanikar, who, in turn appointed and installed the plaintiff in 1909. Brahmanalkar, on the other hand, denied that he had been lawfully deposed, and before his death in 1909 appointed and installed one Atmaram Shastri, who was the original defendant in this suit. The plaint alleged that lands owned by the Mutt in British India, which included the Mutt at Sankeshwar, were in the possession of the plaintiff, but that by order of the Commissioner of the Southern Division the Inam villages and cash allowances (in British India) were being held in Amanat (under attachment) and were to be given to the claimant who should obtain a decree declaring his right. The plaint accordingly prayed for a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the property movable and immoveable of the Sankeshwar and Karvir Mutt and of the powers and rights of that Mutt as the duly appointed Jagadguru.

(3.) The written statement alleged that the Court had no jurisdiction as the Sankeshwar Mutt was only a branch of the principal Mutt in Kolhapur and the Kolhapur Durbar alone had power to decide who was head of the Mutt; that that Durbar had decided that the defendant was the head of the Mutt, and that, in any case, Balavadakar had no power to depose Brahmanalkar (through whom the defendant claimed), or to appoint the plaintiff.