In fact the name of Shri Kulkarni was reconsidered although he had withdrawn his claim.
Once R.F.A. 143/82 was decided on 23.9.92 in favour of the plaintiff in the suit by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowing the appeal of the plaintiff, the respondent had to be removed as a second trustee.
Whether the Plaintiff proves that the 1st defendant was validly dismissed by Shri Guruswami Shirolkar on or about 8.9.1958?
One Sankeshwar Peeth was established by Jagadguru Shankaracharya.
Whether the Plaintiff proves that he was initiated as Adhikari Shishya on or about 15.10.1958 as alleged in para o of Plaint?
11607 of 2000, centers round the appointment to the post and seat of Jagadguru Shankaracharya Sole Trustee of the Respondent Trust.
The said appeal was dismissed by an order dated 20th January, 2000.
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the declaration sought?
The said First Appeal arose out of a judgment and order dated 27.2.1982 passed in OS No.
A First Appeal being First Appeal No.
It is, however, number in dispute that the matter relating to appointment of a trustee in relation to Karveer Peeth came to be companysidered by the Charity Commissioner in terms of the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act.
By an order dated 11.11.1982, the Charity Commissioner appointed the Second Respondent as sole trustee of the Karveer Peeth in purported exercise of its power under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trust Act with the companydition that he should take sannyas before he enters upon the charge of the sole trustee of the Karveer Peeth stating So far as the point that the sole trustee must be a sannyasi, there is numberdispute about it at all.
143 of 1982 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
Whether 1st defendant shows that Shri Guruswami Shirolkar had ceased to be the Jagadguru on or about 15.10.1958?
Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is entitled to the office of the trustees of the Math and the suit properties and to the Management thereby?
One Erande Swami is said to have been numberinated by his Guru to succeed him as a sole trustee in respect of the said Sankeshwar Peeth.
In the said judgment, inter alia, the following issues were framed Whether the Plaintiff proves that the succession to the office of the Head of Sankareshwar Karvir Math is governed by customs and practice as alleged in para 3 of the Plaint?
He should have also been initiated into sannyas by a Guru.
Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged last will and testament of 15.10 of Shri Guruswami Shirolkar?
8 of 1972.
Whether Plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the suit properties?
The Appellant herein was also one of the objectors.
The said companytention is denied and disputed by the Respondent.
A Letters Patent appeal was preferred thereagainst by the Appellant which has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment dated 24.4.2000.
Whether the Plaintiff proves that the 1st defendant is in illegal and unauthorized possession of the suit properties?
The said appeal was allowed inter alia stating In these circumstances we have numberhesitation in reversing the finding of the trial companyrt that the dismissal of the first defendant in the year 1958 was illegal and void.
166 of 1983 was preferred thereagainst by the Appellant, Respondent Nos.
If so whether the second defendant lost all his rights and privileges as Adhikari Shishya?
4 and 5 herein.
To what reliefs are parties entitled?
A proposal was made for appointing Shri Ramchandra Narhar Kulkarni the Second Respondent herein as a Sankarcharya of the said Peeth objections whereto were filed.
If so, whether the 1st defendant lost all his rights and provisions as Adhikari Shishya?
It is, however, companytended that he expressed his inability to act as Shankaracharya The Appellant companytends that both the Sankeshwar Peeth and Karveer Peeth are branches of a single entity known as Sankeshwar Karveer Peeth.
The dispute involved in this appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 24th April, 2000 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in L.P.A. Stamp No.
The said Peeth is situated in the District of Belgaum in the State of Karnataka.
He was also the Dean of Faculty of Ayurved in the University of Bombay.
The Charity Commissioner although opined that there companyld number be any dispute about the fitness and qualification of Shri Erande Swami for being appointed as the sole trustee, but proceed to observe that mere learning was number enough under the Scheme to be appointed as a sole trustee of the Peeth and his name companyld number be companysidered.
Whether the 1st defendant establishes that from 1.7.1957 he became the Shankaracharya Jagadguru and the rightful owner and trustee of the Math and the suit properties as companytended by him?
A numberice was issued by this Court on 18.9.2000 having regard to the said companytention of the Appellant wherein it was numbericed It is pointed out by learned senior companynsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that a specific clause in the Scheme of 1963 mentions that there is a pending litigation and that the person who would be declared by the civil companyrt in the pending litigation would be the sole trustee of the Trust and that there companyld number be a second trustee like the respondent.
B. SINHA, J The Appellant herein is a Senior Professor and Dean of the Poddar Government Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital in Mumbai.
The Appellant companytends that he as a disciple of Jagadguru Shankaracharya believes that the spiritual head of well known Math should be appointed according to traditions, customs and usages recognized by law and he should be a great scholar of Veda, Vedangas and Indian Philosophy.
