SWAMI SHANKARANAND versus MAHANT SRI SADGURU SARNANAND ETC. & ORS

Citation: [2008] 9 S.C.R. 1050 · Decided: 27-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 
D aggrieved - However. if the objector establishes his interest 
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 
E 
called for - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. 
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 
G raised. 
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 
... 
party thereto. He is not claiming Mahantship in his indi-
I 
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] 
c 
Machindranath Kernath Kesar vs. D.

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