KASHI MATH SAMSTHAN & ANR. versus SHIMAO SUDHINDRA THIRTHA SWAMY & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 1309 · Decided: 02-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

,·. 
[2009] · 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1309 
. · KASHI MATH SAMSTHAN & ANR. 
v 
SHIMAO SUDHINDRA THIRTHA SWAMY & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos 7966-7967 of 2009) 
DECEMBER 02. 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
. ·. . 
. 
A 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure. 1908: 0.39 rr. 1and2 rlw s.151 
and 0;41 'f;5 rlw s. 151 - Temporary injunction and stay of 
decree ::;;_ ·suiUor-declaration of plaintiff as Mathadhipathi' and C 
· injtm~Jipil .. ~straining the defendant-former 'Mathadhipathi' 
from exercisihg powers etc. as 'Mathadhtpathi' - Trial court 
granting interim injunction directing parties to maintain status 
. quo - S11it dismissed by final order - Appeal to High Court -
'nterirn injunction s.ought during pendency of appeal - Denied o 
by High· Court - bn ·appeal. Held. Findings of courts below 
show.that the plaintiffs failed to make out prima facie case in 
his favour and balance of convenience was also against him 
- Interlocutory Order. 
Appellant No.2 filed a suit to declare him as the E 
'Mathadhipathi' and 21st Pontiff of the appellant-Math. He 
also prayed for injunction, restraining respondent No.1 
from ·exercising powers, privileges and duties as the 
'Mathadhipathi' of the Math. Respondent No.1 in his written 
statement and counter claim stated that since he F 
continued a 'Mathadhipathi' of the Math, appellant No.2 
had no right to disturb the functioning of respondent 
No.1. During pendency of the suit, interim injunction was 
passed by trial court granting status quo in favour of 
appeJlant No.2. By final order, trial court dismissed the G 
suit of appellant No.2 and decreeing the counter-claim of 
respondent No.1. 
Appellants filed two appeals. They also filed 
1309 
H 
1310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A applications under 0.39 rr. 1 and 2 r/w s.151 CPC and 
under 0. 41 r.5 r/w s.151 CPC for grant of interim 
4--
injunction and for stay of decree respectively. High Court 
dismissed the applications. Hence the present appeals. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is no reason to interfere with the 
order of the High Court, in exercise of discretionary 
power under Article 136 of the Constitution that appellant 
No.2 failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour 
.-
c and the balance of convenience was also against him. '"' 
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 the 
appellant No. 2 had failed to make a prima facie case in 
D his favour for the purpose of obtaining injunction in his 
favour. That being the position, appellant No. 2 was not 
entitled to any discretionary remedy of injunction. [Paras 
12 and 18] [1317-F-G; 1324-C-D] 
E 
1.2. 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 
.._ 
F 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 
G 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. [Para 13] [1317-H; 1318-A-C] 
-. 
H 
1.3. It is clear from the finding of the trial court that 
KASHI MATH SAMSTHAN v. SRIMAD SUDHINDRA 1311 
THIRTHA SWAMY 
respondent No. 1 had not abrogated all his powers as A 
'Mathadhipathi' in favour of the appellant No.2 and he 
was only entrusted with certain powers. Appellant No. 2 
had wanted to be relieved from certain activities of the 
Math and he had in fact sought permission from the 
respondent No 1 in this regard. Therefore, it was rightly B 
held by the trial court in the final judgment that appellant 
No. 2 continued to consider respondent No. 1 as the 
'Mathadhipathi' of the Math even after the alleged 
proclamation of 1994. [Para 13] [1319-C-E] 
. 
c 
1.4. The powers of the 'Mathadhipathi' of the Math 
were not abdicated in favour of the appellant No.2. It is 
well settled that such power of the M

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.