The trial companyrt also after companysidering the entire evidence and materials on record in the final judgment held that the balance of companyvenience was in favour of the respondent number 1 and that the appellant number2 had failed to prove that he succeeded as the Mathadhipathi w.e.f.1994 after the proclamation by the then Mathadhipathi that is the respondent No.1 herein.
1 herein, was established somewhere between the 14th and 15th Century A.D. It is one of the three Dharma Peethas or spiritual thrones of the Gowda Saraswatha Brahmin Community in short GSB .
On 7th of July, 1989, the Respondent No.
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 number challenged by the respondent No.1.
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 presence of the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
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, IV Court at Tirupathi in a suit for declaration and injunction.
90 and 91 of 2009.
1 by granting a decree for permanent mandatory injunction thereby directing the appellant No.2 to hand over the articles in his possession to the respondent No.
2 from discharging his functions as the Mathadhipathi of the Math and on the other hand, the appellant No.2 had alleged that the respondent No.1 started interfering with the affairs of the Mathadhipathi of the Math.
1 within a period of one month from the date of delivery of the judgment in the suit.
1 namely, Shrimad Sudhindra Tirtha Swamy hereinafter referred to as the Respondent No 1 became the Mathadhipathi of the Math in or around 1949 after the death of the then Mathadhipathi.
2 as Mathadhipathi of the Math, was prayed for.
1 from exercising powers, duties and privileges as the Mathadhipathi of the Math.
District Judge at Tirupathi.
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 A.S. No.
After issues were framed and evidence was adduced, the suit itself was disposed of on transfer to the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, who dismissed the suit of the appellants and allowed the companynter claim of the respondent No.
By a companymon impugned Order dated 25th of March, 2009, the High Court dismissed the applications of the appellants and directed that the execution of the decree granted by the trial companyrt would be subject to the final outcome of the appeals filed before it.
The Mathadhipathi as the head of the Math is the custodian of the Mudra Insignia , or the seal of the Math.
The respondent No.
1 entrusted his authorities, powers and privileges as the 20th Pontiff and head of the Math in respect of some of the religious, dharmic and social activites of the Math, except those of Shri Vyashasram at Haridwar to and in favour of the appellant number2 on and with effect from 12th of December, 1994.
On 4th of November, 1994, the respondent number1 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 the Appellant number2.
The Respondent No.
1 entered appearance and filed his written statement inter alia alleging that since he had companytinued to be the Mathadhipathi of the Math, appellant No.2 had numberright to disturb the functioning of respondent No.
On 26th of April, 1989, Respondent No.
As per the prevalent tradition of the Math, the Mathadhipathi is supposed to perform Pooja to the presiding deities three times a day, which is referred to as the Trikala Pooja.
As numbered herein earlier, while deciding the suit, the trial companyrt held relating to the declaration of title of the Mathadhipathi that the Respondent number 1 had never abrogated his powers as the Mathadhipathi of the Math in favour of the Appellant number2 and, therefore, after assessing the evidence and the submissions of the learned companynsel for the parties, have granted a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction and directed the appellant No.
In the said pending appeals, applications for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking temporary injunction, restraining the respondents from interfering in any manner with the functioning of the appellant No.
1, companyferred Diksha, thereby initiating the Appellant No 2 to Sanyasa.
Due to some disturbances in the matter of companytinuing as a Mathadhipathi of the said Math between the GSB and the respondent No.
1, who was the guru of one Shrimad Raghavendra Thirtha Swami hereinafter referred to as the appellant number2 , had chosen him as his Patta Shishya and successor to the Math.
During the pendency of the suit, an application for injunction was filed by the appellant No.2 and the trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the functioning of the Mathadhipathi relating to the affairs of the Math as well as the articles till the disposal of the suit.
The Respondent No.
1 and by a companynter claim, he had prayed for return of the deities, paraphernalia, insignia and other articles, which were in possession of the appellant number2.
2 had instituted a suit to declare him as the Mathadhipathi and 21st Pontiff of the Math and also prayed for an injunction, restraining the respondent No.
1, he sought to prevent the appellant No.
Finding this difficulty, the appellant No.
The said suit was filed in the III Court of the Addl.
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. Leave granted.
These two appeals, by way of Special Leave Petitions, have been preferred against a companymon order dated 25th of March, 2009, passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in A.S. No.
The appellants also filed a separate application under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the CPC being ASMP number286 of 2009 on the same day, seeking stay of the judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt during the pendency of the aforesaid two appeals.
Shri Kashi Math Samsthan in short the Math , which is the appellant No.
