http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4175 of 2008

PETITIONER: SWAMI SHANKARANAND (D) BY L.R.

RESPONDENT: MAHANT SRI SADGURU SARNANAND ETC. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/05/2008

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) No.19185 of 2006) REPORTABLE

S.B. Sinha, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Whether a disciple attached to a Mahant in one of the  establishments run by a Religious Trust will have locus standi to maintain  an appeal from an order of the District Judge allowing an application filed  by the Trust under Section 92(1)(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  (for short, \023the Code\024) is the short question which arises for consideration  in this appeal.  

3.      One Swami Sarupanand was the founder of the Math.  He was  disciple of Swami Advaitanand.  The latter was a religious preceptor of  great learning and had a large following.  Swami Sarupanand took his  Samadhi at Meerut in March 1936 and according to his wishes Swami  Atmavivekanand became the Mahant.  He was succeeded by Swami  Harsewanand who in turn was succeeded by Swami Harshankaranand.   Swami Harshankaranand died on 22.02.1993.  He had three disciples;  Sarnanand, Premanand and Smt. Tapesara.  Premanand died on  10.06.2005.  He was succeeded by Swami Shankaranand.  Appellant is  said to have succeeded Swami Shankaranand.  Appellant contends that  succession to the office of Mahant is by nomination.  Any person so  nominated adopts the life of a sanyasi.  He leads the life of celibacy and  religious mendicancy.   

4.      A dispute in regard to the office of the Mahant after the death of  Swami Atmavivekanand arose in between one Swami Harsewanand on  the one side and Sri Krishna Singh on the other.       This Court held Swami Harsewanand to be the successor of Swami  Atmavivekanand.  After his death, Swami Harshankaranand was  substituted in place of Swami Harsewanand in the aforementioned  litigation before this Court.  Whether he would acquire the status as a  successor Mahant or not was left open.  One Sri Krishna Singh filed Suit  No. 153/80 questioning the status of Swami Harshankaranand as a  Mahant of the Math in question commonly known as Garhwaghat Math.   The question in regard to the holder of the office is still pending before  this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5550 of 2003.

5.      Mahant Satguru Sarananand who also was a disciple of Swami  Harshankaranand was in-charge of the Garhwaghat Math.  He entered  into an agreement for sale with the respondent No.3 which is also a  Public Trust.  A sum of Rs. 35,50,000/- was the agreed amount of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

consideration for the said land.  Out of the said amount Rs.33,00,000/-  was paid in advance.  An application for grant of permission to sell the  said property was filed on 02.07.1990.  It was advertised in two local  newspapers.  No objection having been received, permission as sought for  was granted by the learned District Judge by an order dated 13.10.1992.   Name of the respondent No. 3 was mutated in the revenue records on  31.1.1994. An application was filed by the respondent No. 3 before the  Hardwar Development Authority for grant of sanction of building plans  on 15.10.1993.  It was allowed by an order dated 2.6.1994.  Huge  constructions have since been raised by the respondent No. 3.   Respondent No. 3 popularly known as Gayatri Pariwar Shanti Kunj on  the said land has developed: (1) A Research Laboratory known as  \021Brahma Varchas Shodh Sansthan\022, and (2) Dev Sanskriti  Vishwavidyalaya.        It has also a network of 4000 Shakti Peeths, 25,000 Pragya  Sansthans and 30,000 Swadhyaya Mandals etc., which regularly organize  \021Satsang\022, \021Discourses\022, \021Inspiring songs\022, and discussions on various  problems in their areas to advance the noble cause of the mission.  In fact,  these serve as local centres of which Shantikunj is the Headquarter.   

6.      Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court of Allahabad  on 15.11.1994 only, which was transferred to the Uttranchal High Court.   By a reason of a judgment and order dated 19.5.2006, the said appeal has  been dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant was not a  person aggrieved to maintain the same.   

7.      Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of  the appellant would submit that the High Court committed a serious error  insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the appellant had no  knowledge about coming of existence of the said agreement for sale as  also the order granting sanction by the District Judge.  The learned  counsel would contend that the minimum valuation of the property as per  the report of the valuer should have been Rs. 72 lakhs and not  Rs.35,50,000/- as has been found by the learned District Judge.  In any  event, it was urged that having regard to the fact that the dispute in regard  to Mahantship between the interested parties being pending consideration  before this Court, the High Court committed a serious error in passing the  impugned judgment.  

8.      Mr. S.R. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the  respondent No. 3 and Mr. Adkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of  the other respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned  judgment.   

9.      Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for special  power of the District Judge in regard to Public Trusts both charitable and  religious.  An application for sale of the Trust property must be filed  before the District Judge and only on his approval the same can be  effected.        In a case of this nature judiciary exercises the jurisdiction of parens  patriae and, thus, when an objection is filed for grant of sanction in terms  of Section 92(1)(f) of the Code, the same should receive serious  consideration.  The High Court thus may not be entirely correct in  opining that the appellant had no locus standi to maintain an appeal.  It is  true that the appellant is said to be in-charge of a Math situated at  Varanasi.  However, it is contended that he really stays at Mirzapur.   According to the respondents, he has nothing to do with the Math in  question.   But, that is to say, no person being a third party to the  application, would not be a \021person aggrieved\022, in a case of this nature  cannot be sustained, if the appellant establishes that he is otherwise  interested in the welfare of the Trust.  

10.     The High Court in its judgment noticed:

\02310. Even according to the case of the appellant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Swami Har Shankaranand was the Mahant of the  Math.  The appellant in the injunction application filed  before the Appellate Court has claimed himself to be  succeeding Mahant of the Math \023Garhwa Ghat\024 on the  death of Swami Har Shankaranand.  The Counter  affidavit has been filed by the respondents before the  High Court as Annexure \026 C.A. 10 to the counter  affidavit, which is judgment dated 3.5.1991 passed by  X Addl. District Judge, shows that Swami Sarananad,  respondent No.1 has become Mahant after death of  Swami Har Shankaranand.  The aforesaid order dated  3.5.1991 also shows that appellant Premanand was not  declared to be the Mahant.  Again in view of  Annexure C.A. \026 8 to the counter affidavit it reveals  that the competent authority in mutation proceeding  vide order dated 15.6.1993 came to the conclusion that  \023Chadar Mahanthi\024 was given to Swami Satguru  Sarananad and not to appellant Premanand on the  death of Swami Har Shankaranand.  Further paragraph  4(g) to (r) and (s) of the aforesaid counter affidavit  reveal that Suit No. 153/1980 which was sought to be  converted was initially filed challenging the status of  Swami Har Shankaranand as Mahant of Math  \023Garhwa Ghat\024 and the High Court vide judgment  dated 15.5.2002 passed in W.P. No. 46291 of 2000  has quashed the entire proceedings of suit No.  153/1980.  Therefore at present Suit No. 153/1980 is  not pending, hence under the aforesaid circumstances  it is quite clear that the appellant Premanand is not  Mahant of Math \023Garhwa Ghat\024 hence he cannot be  said to be an aggrieved party as well as does not have  any locus to maintain the aforesaid appeal.  Swami  Premanand who had filed the appeal is now dead and  there is a dispute regarding the succession of Swami  Premanand, but once it is held that Swami Premanand  has no locus or grievance to maintain the aforesaid  appeal, therefore after the death of Swami Premanand  who is the appellant in this case, there is nothing on  record to indicate as to how the person claiming  succession to late Swami Premanand is aggrieved by  the impugned order.\024

       It is also not in dispute that Swami Premanand was not a party to  the proceedings before the learned District Judge.  It, however, did not  mean that a person who was not a party to the proceedings cannot prefer  an appeal.  The question in regard to the extension of locus standi of a  person to prefer an appeal has recently been considered in Machindranath  Kernath Kesar Vs. D.S. Mylarappa & Ors. (C.A. No. 3041 of 2008)  disposed of on 29.04.2008, wherein it was held that in a case where a  person\022s right to obtain compensation may be defeated by a judgment  passed in a connected matter, he would have a right of appeal.          Unfortunately, the High Court has not considered this aspect of the  matter.  But in view of the order proposed to be passed, it is not necessary  to deal with this aspect of the matter any further.

11.     The learned counsel for the parties, however, have taken us  through the entire records.  From the affidavit filed by the third  respondent, it appears that it is running a Trust which serves a larger  public interest.  A large number of constructions have already been made.   Constructions started in the year 1994 and have been completed in 1995.   Various activities have been going on at that place.              Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also have purchased an alternative land  and raised constructions thereon at a cost of Rs.10 lakhs.  In this view of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

the matter, in our opinion, no useful purpose would be served in  entertaining the appeal.  Furthermore, the appellant cannot be permitted  to prefer an appeal only because he is interested in the result of Civil  Appeal No. 5550 of 2003 which is pending before this Court.  He is not a  party thereto.  He is not claiming Mahantship in his individual capacity in  respect of the establishment at Hardwar.  It is accepted at the Bar that the  said Civil Appeal has got nothing to do with the property in question.   Furthermore, the nature of the property when sold was not \021Abadi\022 but  was a \021jungle\022 land.  It is also not in dispute that the name of Sadguru  Sarnanand was also mutated in the revenue records pursuant to the order  dated 26.9.1983 in revenue proceedings.  

12.             We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is not a fit case for  exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the  Constitution of India.   The appeal is dismissed accordingly.  There shall  be no order as to costs.