Supreme Court of India
SWAMI SHANKARANANDversusMAHANT SRI SADGURU SARNANAND ETC. & ORS
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 735
- Decided
- 27 May 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
A third‑party who can demonstrate a genuine interest in the welfare of a public trust may have locus standi, but the appellant failed to do so and the appeal was dismissed.
Summary
The case concerned an application under Section 92(1)(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure for sanction to sell a piece of land belonging to a religious public trust (Garhwaghat Math). The District Judge granted the sanction, after which Swami Shankaranand, a disciple and in‑charge of another Math, appealed, claiming an interest in the welfare of the trust and a possible succession to the Mahantship. The High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant had no locus standi. The Supreme Court examined whether a third‑party disciple can have locus standi to challenge a sanction order and whether the matter warranted exercise of the Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136. It held that a third‑party may be given locus standi if he can demonstrate a genuine interest in the trust’s welfare, but in the present facts the appellant failed to establish such interest and the appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.
Issues considered
- Whether a disciple attached to a Mahant in one establishment of a religious public trust has locus standi to maintain an appeal against a sanction for sale of trust property under Section 92(1)(f) CPC.
- Whether the Supreme Court can entertain the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution in the circumstances.
- Whether the nature of the property (jungle land) and its mutation affect the validity of the sanction.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 92(1)(f)
- Constitution of Indias. 136
Subjects
locus standipublic trustSection 92 CPCsale of trust propertyreligious trustArticle 136parens patriaesuccessionMahantshipappeal
Judgment
[2008] 9 s c R. 1050
A SWAMI SHANKARANAND (0) BY L.R
...,
~
V.
MAHANT SRI SADGURU SARNANAND ETC. & ORS
(Civil Appeal No. 4175 of 2008)
MAY 27, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
.,.. .
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 92 ( 1) (f) - Sanction
for sale of trust property - Grant of - Property belonged to
c one establishment of the Trust- Disciple of a Mahant incharge
of another establishment of the Trust objecting to the sane-
tlon - High Court dismissed the appeal denying his locus
standi to challenge the sanction - On appeal, held: In the facts
of the case, the objector failed to establish that he was person
aggrieved - However. if the objector establishes his interest
D
in the welfare of the Trust, even if a third party, his locus standi ....
cannot be denied - Even in view of the fact that large number ~
of constructions have been raised and various activities are
taking place interference under article 136 of Constitution not
called for - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136.
E
During pendency of a dispute regarding succession
to 'Mahantship' of the 'Math' in question (situated in
Haridwar) before this Court, respondent No. 1 as an
incharge of the 'Math' entered into an agreement of sale
F in respect of land, with respondent No. 3. In the applica- T
~
tion seeking sanction for sale of the trust property (Prop-
erty in question) permission to sell was granted by Dis-
trict Judge. Thereafter name of respondent No. 3 was
mutated, and after due approval constructions have been
raised.
G
Appellant-incharge of a 'Math' situated in Varanasi
filed appeal against the order of District Judge. Appeal
was dismissed by High Court on the ground that the ap- ,.,, ..
pellant did not have locus standi to maintain the appeal.
H 1050
SWAMI SHANKARANAND (D) BY L.R. v. MAHANT 1051
SRI SADGURU SARNANAND ETC.
't"
Hence the present appeal. A
>
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 92 CPC provides for special
power of the District Judge in regard to Public Trusts both
charitable and religious. An application for sale of the Trust 8
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) CPC, the same should c
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 appel-
lant is said to be in-charge of a 'Math' situated at Varanasi.
According to the respondents, he has nothing to do with
D
the Math in question. But, that is to say, no person being a
• third party to the application, would not be a 'person ag-
grieved', in a case of this nature cannot be sustained, if the
.appellant establishes that he i.s otherwise interested in the
welfare of the Trust. [Para 9] [1055-8,C,D & E]
E
1.2 The appellant cannot be permitted to prefer an ap-
peal only because he is interested in the result of Civil Ap-·
peal in respect of succession to Mahantship of the 'Math'
in question which is pending before this Court. He is not a
...
I party thereto. He is not claiming Mahantship in his indi- F
t'
vidual capacity in respect of the establishment at Hardwar.
Furthermore, the nature of the property when sold was not
'Abadi' but was a 'jungle' land. It is also not in dispute that
the name of respondent no.1 was also mutated in the rev-
enue records pursuant to the order dated 26.9.1983 in rev-
G
enue proceedings. [Para 11] [1057-D,E & F]
f 1.3 It is not a fit case for exercise of extraordinary
""" jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of !ndia.
From the affidavit filed by the third respondent, it appears
that it is running a Trust which serves a larger public in- H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.
A terest. 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
B thereon at a cost of Rs.10 lakhs. In this view of the matter,
no useful purpose would be served in entertaining the
appeal. [Paras 11 and 12] [1057-B,C,D & G]
Machindranath Kernath Kesar vs. D.S. Mylarappa and
Ors. (2008) 7 SCR 83 - referred to.
c
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4175
of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.05.2006 of
the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in First Appeal No. 380
D of 2001
A.K. Ganguli, Atishi Dipankar and Santosh Kumar for the
Appellants.
S.R. Singh, Abhisth Kumar, D.N. Dubey, Archana Singh,
E Makarand D. Adkar, S.D. Singh, Vijay Kumar, Vishwajit Singh
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
~
F 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, "the Code") is the
G short question which arises for consideration in this appeal.
3. One Swami Sarupanand wq.s the founder of the Math.
~
He was disciple of Swami Advaitanand. The latter was a reli- ,...
gious preceptor of great learning and had a large following.
H Swami Sarupanand took his Samadhi at Meerut in March 1936
SWAMI SHANKARANAND (0) BY L.R. v. MAHANT 1053
SRI SADGURU SARNANAND ETC. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
and according to his wishes Swami Atmavivekanand became A
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. B
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 C
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
0
Swami Atmavivekanand. After his death, Swami Harshankaranand
was substituted in place of Swami Harsewanand in the afore-
mentioned litigation before this Court Whether he would ac-
quire the status as a successor Mahant or not was left open.
One Sri Krishna Singh filed Suit No.153/80 questioning the sta-
tus of Swami Harshankaranand as a Mahant of the Math in ques- E
tion commonly known as Garhwaghat Math. The question in re-
gard 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 F
of Swami Harshankaranand was in-charge of the Garhwaghat
Math. He entered into an agreement for sale with the respon-
dent No.3 which is also a Public Trust. A sum of Rs. 35,50,000/
- was the agreed amount of consideration for the said land.
Out of the said amount Rs.33,00,000/- was paid in advance. G
An application for grant of permission to sell the said property
was filed on 02.07.1990. It was advertised in two local news-
papers. No objection having been received, permission as
sought for was granted by the learned District Judge by an or-
der dated 13.10.1992. Name of the respondent No. 3 was mu-
H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 9 S.C.R.
A tated 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
B No. 3 popularly known as Gayatri Pariwar Shanti Kunj on the
said land has developed: (1) A Research Laboratory known as
'Brahma Varchas Shodh Sansthan'. and (2) Dev Sanskriti ,,.~
Vishwavidyalaya.
It has also a network of 4000 Shakti Peeths, 25,000 Pragya
C Sansthans and 30,000 Swadhyaya Mandals etc., which regu-
larly organize 'Satsang'. 'Discourses', 'Inspiring songs', and
discussions on various problems in their areas to advance the
noble cause of the mission. In fact, these serve as local cen-
tres of which Shantikunj is the Headquarter.
D
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
E to maintain the same.
7. Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant would submit that the High Court com-
mitted a serious error insofar as it failed to take into consider- ....
F ation that the appellant had no knowledge about coming of ex- •
istence of the said agreement for sale as also the order grant-
ing 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
G 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 -r
committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment.
H
SWAMI SHANKARANAND (D) BY L.R. v. MAHANT 1055
.., SRI SADGLJRU SARNANAND ETC. [S.8. SINHA, J.]
; 8. Mr. S.R. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on A
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 8
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 c
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 D
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 applica-
tion, would not be a 'person aggrieved', in a case of this nature
cannot be sustained, if the appellant establishes that he is oth- E
erwise interested in the welfare of the Trust.
10. The High Court in its judgment noticed:
"10. Even according to the case of the appellant Swami
Har Shankaranand was the Mahan! of the Math. The F
appellant in the injunction application filed before the
Appellate Court has claimed himself to be succeeding
Mahan! of the Math "Garhwa Ghat" on the death of Swami
Har Shankaranand. The Counter affidavit has been filed
by the respondents before the High Court as Annexure - G
C.A. 10 to the counter affidavit, which is judgment dated
3.5.1991 passed by X Addi. District Judge, shows that
Swami Sarananad, respondent No.1 has become Mahan!
after death of Sw-=imi Har Shankaranand. The aforesaid
order dated 3.5.1991 also shows that appellant H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.
A Premanand was not declared to be the Mahan!. Again in
view of Annexure C.A. - 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 "Chadar
Mahanthi" was given to Swami Satguru Sarananad and
B 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
c Mahant of Math "Garhwa Ghat" 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
D
Math "Garhwa Ghat" 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
E 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 •
F aggrieved by the impugned order."
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
G 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's right to obtain compensation may be defeated by a
H
SWAMI SHANKARANAND (D) BY L.R. v. MAHANT 1057
SRI SADGURU SARNANAND ETC. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
,. 'i'-'
judgment passed in a connected matter, he would have a right A
of appeal.
Unfortunately, the High Court has not considered this as-
pect 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. B
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 c
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 alter-
-lo'
native land and raised constructions thereon at a cost of Rs.10 D
.. lakhs. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, no useful pur-
pose would be served in entertaining the appeal. Furthermore,
the appellant cannot be permitted to prefer an appeal only be-
cause he is interested in the result of Civil Appeal No. 5550 of
2003 which is pending before this Court. He is not a party E
thereto. He is not claiming Mahantship in his individual capac-
ity 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 ofthe property
when sold was not 'Abadi' but was a 'jungle' land. It is also not F
in dispute that the name of Sadguru Sarnanand was also mu-
lated 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 G
the Constitution of India. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
.....
There shall be no order as to costs.
K.K.T. . Appeal dismisse.J
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "locus standi"Sign in to search