SHRIMAD SUDHINDRA THIRTH SWAMY Vs. KASIMATH SAMSTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the different interlocutory orders passed in O.S.No. 34 of 2000 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. Since both the parties have filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Civil Revision Pettions, the parties hereinafter will be referred to in their position as arrayed in O.S.No. 34 of 2000 on the file of the III Aditional District Judge, Tirupathi.

(2.) At the outset, we may observe that the dispute relates to the office of Matadhipathi of Sri Kashimath Samsthan. It is really unfortunate that the spiritual and religious preachers, who are expected to be pious and devotional, are involving in litigations of this nature. Math in fact has been the most important institution relating to Hindu religious system. The word "mata" is defined as hut of an ascetic or student, a monastic school or college and Matadhipathi is defined as the head of such institution. In Sammantha Pandara v. Sellapa Chetty (2 Madras 175), it was observed " a preceptor of religious doctrine gathers around him a number of disciples whom he initiates into the particular mysteries of the order and instructs in its religious tenets. Such of these disciples as intend to become teachers renounce their connection with the family and all claims to follow wealth and as it were, affiliate themselves to the spiritual teacher whose school they have entered. Pious persons endow the schools with property which is vested in the preceptor for the time being and a home for the school is erected and math constituted.' Thus the maths are the centres of theological learning established for the study practice and propagation of cult of each system of philosophy and to train and equip a line of competent teachers whose duty is to go forth into the land bearing the torch of levying and spreading its light.

(3.) These civil miscellaneous appeals and civil revision petitions are filed against two common orders dated 2-3-2001 and 28-3-2001. C.M.A No. 1603 of 2001 is filed by the first respondent against the order made in I.A.No. 1072 of 2000 dt. 29-9-2000. I.A.No. 122 of 2001 is an application filed seeking termination of vakalat of Sri M.V. Kini the Counsel representing the first defendant. C.R.P.No. 1765 of 2001 is filed aggrieved by the order directing the termination of Vakalat of Sri M.V.Kini mainly on the ground that he is likely to figure as a witness in the suit. I.A.No. 123 of 2001 is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Sec. 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and also under Or. 39 Rules 1 and C.P.C. seeking a reference of criminal contempt and also for restraint order preventing the circulation of cassettes containing speeches of Mr.M.V. Kini etc. As against the said order the first defendant filed C.M.A. No. 1089 of 2001. Sri M.V. Kini and Sri R.P. Bandarkar, who are non-parties to the litigation, filed C.M.A.S.R.No. 38851 of 2001 and as against the same order the plaintiffs filed C.R.P.S.R. 43398 of 2001 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I.A.No. 121 of 2001 was filed praying for the relief of restoration of status quo ante as on 5-9-2000 the date of the suit. The first defendant filed C.M.A.NO. 1090 of 2001 and the plaintiffs filed C.M.A.NO. 1449 of 2001 as against the said order. I.A.No. 1510 of 2000 was filed by the first defendant for modification of the order dated 29-9-2000 to permit him to issue general power of attorney etc., and the plaintiffs filed C.M.A.NO. 1440 of 2001 as against the said order I.A.No. 1511 of 2000 was filed seeking the relief that the second plaintiff should not be allowed to move out with Samsthan deities beyond Tirumala without prior permission of the Court and aggrieved by the same C.R.P.No. 1641 of 2000 was filed and the matter was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 17-4-2001. As already referred to above, as against the order in the temporary injunction application I.A.No. 1072 of 2000 dated 29-9-2000 C.M.A.NO. 1603 of 2001 was filed by the first defendant.