Tarun Chatterjee, J.— Leave granted. These two appeals, by way of special leave petitions, have been preferred against a common order dated 25-3-2009, passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in ASs Nos. 90 and 91 of 2009, by which the High Court had rejected the interim applications filed by the appellants seeking status quo and stay of execution of the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, IVth Court at Tirupathi in a suit for declaration and injunction.
2. Shri Kashi Math Samsthan (in short “the Math”), which is Appellant 1 herein, was established somewhere between the 14th and 15th century AD. It is one of the three Dharma Peethas or spiritual thrones of the Gowda Saraswatha Brahmin community (in short “GSB”). Respondent 1, namely, Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent 1”) became the Mathadhipati of the Math in or around 1949 after the death of the then Mathadhipati.
3. On 26-4-1989, Respondent 1, who was the guru of one Shrimad Raghavendra Thirtha Swami (hereinafter referred to as “Appellant 2”), had chosen him as his patta shishya and successor to the Math. On 7-7-1989, Respondent 1, conferred diksha, thereby initiating Appellant 2 to sanyasa. On 4-11-1994, Respondent 1 entrusted some religious, dharmic and social activities as well as management of the Math and handed over all the deities, along with paraphernalia, insignia, etc. to Appellant 2. As per the prevalent tradition of the Math, the Mathadhipati is supposed to perform pooja to the presiding deities three times a day, which is referred to as the Trikala pooja. The Mathadhipati as the head of the Math is the custodian of the “mudra” (insignia), or the seal of the Math. Respondent 1 entrusted his authorities, powers and privileges as 20th Pontiff and head of the Math in respect of some of the religious, dharmic and social activities of the Math, except those of Shri Vyashasram at Haridwar to and in favour of Appellant 2 on and with effect from 12-12-1994.
4. Due to some disturbances in the matter of continuing as a Mathadhipati of the said Math between GSB and Respondent 1, he sought to prevent Appellant 2 from discharging his functions as the Mathadhipati of the Math and on the other hand, Appellant 2 had alleged that Respondent 1 started interfering with the affairs of the Mathadhipati of the Math. Finding this difficulty, Appellant 2 had instituted a suit to declare him as the Mathadhipati and 21st Pontiff of the Math and also prayed for an injunction, restraining Respondent 1 from exercising powers, duties and privileges as the Mathadhipati of the Math.
5. The said suit was filed in the IIIrd Court of the Additional District Judge at Tirupathi. Respondent 1 entered appearance and filed his written statement inter alia alleging that since he had continued to be the Mathadhipati of the Math, Appellant 2 had no right to disturb the functioning of Respondent 1 and by a counterclaim, he had prayed for return of the deities, paraphernalia, insignia and other articles, which were in possession of Appellant 2.
6. During the pendency of the suit, an application for injunction was filed by Appellant 2 and the trial court directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the functioning of the Mathadhipati relating to the affairs of the Math as well as the articles till the disposal of the suit. It is true that the interim order of status quo granted by the trial court was operative during the pendency of the suit and was not challenged by Respondent 1.
7. After issues were framed and evidence was adduced, the suit itself was disposed of on transfer to the IVth Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, who dismissed the suit of the appellants and allowed the counterclaim of Respondent 1 by granting a decree for permanent/mandatory injunction thereby directing Appellant 2 to hand over the articles in his possession to Respondent 1 within a period of one month from the date of delivery of the judgment in the suit.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellants have filed two appeals before the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, which came to be registered as ASs Nos. 90 and 91 of 2009. In the said pending appeals, applications for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction, restraining the respondents from interfering in any manner with the functioning of Appellant 2 as Mathadhipati of the Math, was prayed for. The appellants also filed a separate application under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC being ASMP No. 286 of 2009 on the same day, seeking stay of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court during the pendency of the aforesaid two appeals.
9. By a common impugned order dated 25-3-2009 the High Court dismissed the applications of the appellants and directed that the execution of the decree granted by the trial court would be subject to the final outcome of the appeals filed before it. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the High Court rejecting the application for injunction and the application for stay filed by the appellants, these two special leave petitions were filed, which on grant of leave, were heard by us in the presence of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order of the High Court as well as the judgment of the trial court, which dismissed the suit of the appellants in respect of which appeals are now pending before the High Court for final adjudication.
11. Before us, Mr R.F Nariman, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that since an interim order of status quo regarding the functioning of the Mathadhipati of the Math was operative during the pendency of the suit and triable issues have to be gone into by the High Court in the first appeals, it was fit and proper for the High Court to direct the parties to maintain the interim order which was granted by the trial court during the pendency of the suit. This submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants was hotly contested by Mr K.K Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. According to Mr Venugopal, since the appellants could not make out any prima facie case to get an interim order of injunction during the pendency of the appeals, question of continuance of the interim order, which was granted by the trial court during the pendency of the suit, cannot arise at all.
12. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order and also the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit of the appellants, we do not find any worthy reason to pass an interim order in the manner suggested by Mr R.F Nariman, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, in the exercise of our discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution.
13. A perusal of the judgment of the trial court in respect of which appeals are now pending before the High Court, would clearly show that Appellant 2 was entrusted with some of the religious, dharmic and social activities of Shri Kashi Math Samsthan except those of Vyashasram, Haridwar by Respondent 1. It would also be evident from the aforesaid judgment that Appellant 2 himself had requested Respondent 1 to relieve him from certain duties.
14. It also appears from the said judgment that the whole trouble started when Appellant 2 had opened a bank account in his individual status. It was also the finding in the suit that Appellant 2 except filing Exts. P-1 to P-3, had not filed any other documents at the time of filing of the suit in order to prove that he was appointed as Mathadhipati of the Math.
15. Furthermore, the aforesaid judgment also would not show that Appellant 2 had ever whispered anything about his claim to the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams for temple honours. Apart from that, the trial court, in its judgment, had carefully and in detail, considered the material documents as well as the oral evidence and then had come to the conclusion that Appellant 2 had failed to make a prima facie case in his favour for the purpose of obtaining injunction in his favour. That being the position, Appellant 2 was not entitled to any discretionary remedy of injunction.
16. It is well settled that in order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of such injunction has to prove that he has made out a prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his favour and he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted. But it is equally well settled that when a party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to the party concerned would not be material at all, that is to say, if that party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, it is not open to the court to grant injunction in his favour even if, he has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his favour and would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is granted. Therefore, keeping this principle in mind, let us now see whether the appellant has been able to prove prima facie case to get an order of injunction during the pendency of the two appeals in the High Court.
17. In para 21 of the judgment of the trial court, it is found:
“… the words ‘certain’ and ‘some’ quoted above and ‘when we are still in a position to carry on with the traditional duties’, prima facie show that Respondent 1 has not surrendered all his rights, privileges and duties and that the second petitioner has not been made as full-fledged Mathadhipati. As per the custom prevailing since continuous, vatu initiated into sanyasa and named as successor, will become Mathadhipati after the Mathadhipati passes away.”
From the aforesaid finding of the trial court, it is clear that Respondent 1 had not abrogated all his powers as Mathadhipati in favour of Appellant 2 and he was only entrusted with certain powers.
18. In para 22 of the judgment of the trial court, it was observed as follows:
“The following circumstances also go to support the version of Respondent 1. The second petitioner himself has addressed a letter dated 4-11-1999 which reads as follows:
‘In view of the recent events, we have kindly decided not to involve in the matters concerning the authority of Shri Samsthan (adhikartha vishayas) as well as dharmic activities (dharmic vishayas) of the samaj. Therefore with pranamas, again and again we pray and request to relieve us as early as possible.’
This prima facie shows that the second petitioner has been still recognising the first Mathadhipati, and therefore requested him to relieve himself from ‘certain activities’.”
A careful reading of the aforesaid findings/observations made in para 22 of the judgment of the trial court would show that the letter dated 4-11-1999 clearly enumerates the fact that Appellant 2 had wanted to be relieved from certain activities of the Math and he had in fact sought permission from Respondent 1 in this regard. Therefore, in our view, it was rightly held by the trial court in the final judgment that Appellant 2 continued to consider Respondent 1 as the Mathadhipati of the Math even after the alleged proclamation of 1994.
19. The trial court again in para 24 had observed:
“If all the circumstances are taken into consideration the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn at this stage is that, Respondent 1 has not abdicated all his powers and privileges as Mathadhipati and only some powers and privileges have been conferred on the second petitioner. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the second petitioner is not entitled for the injunction orders as claimed by him.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. In view of the aforesaid findings of the trial court to the extent that Appellant 2 was not entitled to the injunction order as claimed by him, it is difficult to find any illegality or infirmity with the findings of the trial court, as noted hereinabove, at least prima facie in respect of which, the High Court had also agreed. We are, therefore, of the view that the powers of the Mathadhipati of the Math were not abdicated in favour of Appellant 2. It is well settled that such power of the Mathadhipatiship of the Math could devolve to any other person after the death of the existing Mathadhipati or anyone else, who could succeed him as the Mathadhipati of the Math according to the customs and traditions of the Math.
21. Mr Nariman, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, as noted hereinearlier, submitted that since the order of status quo was continuing till the disposal of the suit, that position should be allowed to continue during the pendency of the appeals in the High Court. It is true that since the appeals pending before the High Court are also to be decided on facts, basically this position needs to be maintained by the High Court. But in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the nature of rights given to Appellant 2, as prima facie noted hereinearlier and in view of our discussions made hereinabove that Appellant 2 had failed to make out any prima facie case to go for trial, we do not think that such state of affairs should be allowed to continue till the disposal of the appeals by the High Court.
22. At this stage, we may note that the trial court, while disposing of the application for injunction, held that although Appellant 2 was not entitled to an order of injunction as he had failed to prove that he had a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour but still granted status quo till the disposal of the suit. The findings made in this regard may be reproduced below:
“In the result, the petitioners have failed to prove that they have prima facie case and balance of convenience, therefore, the second petitioner is not entitled for interim order as prayed for i.e restraining the respondents from in any way interfering with the exercise of powers, duties and privileges of 21st Pontiff of the first petitioner Math. However, from the reasons it is clear that the second petitioner has been entrusted with holy deities and other paraphernalia and insignia and it appears that the second petitioner has been performing Trikala pooja to the holy deities. Therefore, the respondents are hereby restrained from interfering in performing Trikala poojas to the holy deities by the second petitioner. It is further directed that Respondent 1 shall not delegate his powers, particularly the authority to deal with bank accounts and all other movable and immovable properties of Shri Kashi Math Samsthan to any other person i.e Respondent 1 shall himself deal with the funds of Shri Kashi Math Samsthan and other movable and immovable properties and he shall not authorise any other person to deal with the same by executing general power of attorney or any other documents pending disposal of the suit….”
(emphasis supplied)
23. In view of our discussions made hereinearlier and having carefully considered the above findings of the courts below, as noted hereinabove, made on the application for injunction, it can be safely held that although the trial court had directed the parties to maintain status quo in the matter of functioning of the Mathadhipati of the Math till the disposal of the suit, but such order was passed on a finding that Appellant 2 had failed to prove prima facie case to obtain such an order of status quo. That apart, it is well settled that when parties went to trial and adduced evidence in support of their respective cases, it would be open to the court to reach to a different conclusion at the time of disposal of the suit and grant relief accordingly.
24. As noted hereinearlier, while deciding the suit, the trial court held, relating to the declaration of title of the Mathadhipati, that Respondent 1 had never abrogated his powers as the Mathadhipati of the Math in favour of Appellant 2 and, therefore, after assessing the evidence and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, have granted a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction and directed Appellant 2 to restore back the holy deities and other materials in his possession relating to the Math in favour of Respondent 1. The trial court also after considering the entire evidence and materials on record in the final judgment held that the balance of convenience was in favour of Respondent 1 and that Appellant 2 had failed to prove that he succeeded as the Mathadhipati w.e.f 1994 after the proclamation by the then Mathadhipati, that is, Respondent 1 herein. The final findings of the trial court, of course, would be taken into consideration by the High Court in the first appeals but we do not find at this stage to hold prima facie that such findings can be said to have been vitiated and the judgment of the trial court needs to be interfered with.
25. That apart, the High Court in the impugned order, as well as the trial court had pointed out that the proclamation, which Appellant 2 had cited in support of his case, is not clear to the effect that Respondent 1 had denounced all his powers as the Mathadhipati of the Math in favour of Appellant 2. In fact, it was the submission of Respondent 1 that he had only abrogated some of his powers and not all and that he still was continuing as the Mathadhipati of the Math.
26. A careful perusal of the aforesaid findings of the trial court as well as the High Court and also after considering the submission of Respondent 1 that Respondent 1 had only abrogated some of his powers and not all and that he was still continuing as the Mathadhipati of the Math, would prima facie show that Appellant 2 had failed to prove that he was made the Mathadhipati of the Math by Respondent 1 or Respondent 1 had relinquished his right of the Mathadhipatiship of the Math.
27. In view of the aforesaid finding, it is not necessary for us to go into the question on title of the Mathadhipatiship of Appellant 2 at this stage, which shall be decided in detail by the High Court while deciding the appeals on merits. But we make it clear that the findings made by the trial court in the final judgment and the High Court on the application for injunction in the pending appeals are to be treated as prima facie findings which shall not be taken to be final by the High Court at the time of disposal of the appeals.
28. There is another aspect of this matter. It cannot be disputed that as per the custom of Shri Samsthan, Mathadhipati seat cannot be relinquished and Respondent 1 shall continue to work as the Mathadhipati of the Math till his demise and after his demise, the shishya or the nominated successor of Respondent 1 would assume the office of the Mathadhipati. Further, it cannot be said from the evidence on record that Appellant 2 on the basis of the proclamation dated 12-12-1994 was actually the Mathadhipati as claimed by him at least prima facie which could permit Appellant 1 to obtain the order of injunction from the court. At the same time, we should be reminded that Appellant 2 had himself written a letter dated 4-11-1999 requesting Respondent 2 to relieve him from the activities of the Math. It would also appear from the letter that Appellant 2 had addressed Respondent 1 as the Mathadhipati of the Math.
29. The finding arrived at by the trial court as well as by the High Court to the effect that the seat of Mathadhipati can be transferred to the successor of the existing Mathadhipati only after his death and not before, which is apparent from the customs and traditions of the Math, it is difficult to accept at least prima facie the case that Respondent 1 had relinquished the seat of Mathadhipati in favour of Appellant 2 and such seat could be assumed by Appellant 2 before the death of the existing Mathadhipati i.e Respondent 1 or by any deed executed by Respondent 1 relinquishing as the Mathadhipati of the Math.
30. That being the position, we are in full agreement with the views expressed by the High Court as well as by the trial court that the succession to the position of the Mathadhipati can only be done after the death of the existing Mathadhipati and not before it. That apart, as noted hereinearlier, a perusal of the proclamation dated 12-12-1994 would not conclusively suggest that Respondent 1 had abdicated all his powers as Mathadhipati of the Math in favour of Appellant 1.
31. In view of our discussions made hereinabove and in view of the admitted fact that all the courts below, starting from the trial court, while granting status quo during the pendency of the suit i.e dated 29-9-2000 and also the judgment passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, in the suit, which is now under challenge in appeals and also the impugned judgment of the High Court, had noted that Appellant 2 failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour and the balance of convenience was also against him. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the High Court in the exercise of our discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution.
32. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are dismissed. We, however, make it clear that whatever observations/findings that have been made by us in this judgment or the observations/findings which were made by the High Court while deciding the interlocutory applications in the pending appeals, would not mean to prejudice the case of the appellants in the pending appeals before the High Court. The High Court should independently decide the appeals on merits without being influenced by any observations/findings made in this judgment or even in the judgment of the High Court in the applications for injunction.
33. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court is requested to dispose of the pending appeals at the earliest preferably within six months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it. There will be no order as to costs.