Kailasanatha allegedly served as Sthiradhayakshan since 1996 onwards.
The said suit was dismissed for default.
It was stated that while he was on pilgrimage, the first respondent claimed himself to have taken over the office of Madathipathi and Sthiradhyakshan of the Ashram, although he had allegedly numberqualification therefor.
Thought the suit filed by the first respondent was dismissed, he filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam praying for police protection which was marked as WP C No.16047/04.
It is number in dispute that in relation to the affairs of the trust a suit being O.S. No.
30 of 2002.
An interlocutory application has been filed by Brahmasree Kailasa Nadananda Teertha Padar for getting himself impleaded as a party.
It is number in dispute that the appellants herein had raised a companytention that the general body of the Seva Sangham had met on 7.1.2001 and resolved to amend the deed of trust so as to abolish the post of Sthiradhayakshan and to vest his powers and duties in the President of the Seva Sangham.
Indisputably, the said applicant as also the first respondent herein are parties in the suit being O.S. No.
The respondent herein claimed himself to be a Sansyasi in the tradition of Sree Chattambi Swamy Thiruvadikal and Madathipathi and Sthiradhyakshan of Parama Bhattara Gurukula Seva Sangham, popularly known as Vadayampadi Asharamam.
30 of 2002 is pending in the Court of Munsif, Kolencherry.
An application for restoration of the said suit was filed which was also dismissed.
The respondent filed a suit in the Court of Munsiff, Kolencherry being O.S. No.
The said applicant in his impleadment application alleges that as per the bye laws, he had admittedly been serving in the said capacity since 1995 and, thus, in law companytinues to be the Madathipathi and Sthiradhyakshan.
A Division Bench of the said High Court went into the question as to whether the first respondent was entitled to hold the office of Madathipathi and Sthiradhyakshan for the purpose of issuing an appropriate direction as regard grant of police protection.
71 of 2000 for a declaration that he was entitled to companytinue in the said capacity and he was number allowed to discharge his duties attached to the said office in terms of the purported order dated 20.1.1996 of Kailasanatha Theertha Padar.
The said suit has been filed by one G. Parameswaran Nair, founder member of the Ashram questioning the aforementioned purported resolution dated 7.1.2001.
