Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2782 (ALL)

RADHA SWAMI SATSANG SABHA v. AMI ADHAR SINGH

2010-09-13

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant No. 1 seeking permission of the Court to permit it to pay obeisance and hold Satsang at the Samadh of Swamiji Maharaj at Swami Bagh, Agra on specified occasions/dates mentioned in Annexure-4 of the affidavit in support of the application on the occasion of 150th year of Satsang. 2. Both the contesting factions to this appeal are subscribers of Radha Swami faith. 3. Radha Swami faith was founded by Swami Shiv Dayal Singh more popularly known Swamiji Maharaj in the year 1861. He was succeeded by Huzur Maharaj followed by Maharaj Sahib. The followers of this faith owe allegiance to the first three Sant Sat Gurus (SSG). However, after departure from this world of Maharaj Sahib in the year 1907 the followers of the faith divided and two rival groups came into existence. The first group was headed by Sarkar Sahib and came to be known as Dayalbagh and the other group was headed by Buaji Sahib and came to be known as Swami Bagh. Some believe that Maharaj Sahib was succeeded by Buaji Maharaj followed by Babuji Mahraj. All these first SSG have recognition of both the parties and the rift started thereafter. 4. During the time of the third SSG Maharaj Sahib in the year 1902 a Central Administrative Council was elected by the followers (Satsangis) for the collection, preservation and administration of the properties of the SSG received by way of offerings (Bhent). Another smaller committee known as Radha Swami Trust was formed out of the members of the Central Administrative Council for assisting Central Administrative Council in managing the properties of the SGG. In an appeal arising out of a suit concerning Radha Swami faith itself Patel Chhotabhai and others v. Jnan Chandra Basak and others, AIR 1935 PC 97, their Lordships of Privy Council in granting prayer (a) and (b) of the first prayer of the suit declared that the so called Radha Swami Trust is not in law, a legal and valid trust and cannot be recognised as a trust created for public, charitable or religious purpose. 5. 5. In 1943, the Radha Swami Sat Sang Sabha, Dayalbagh, Agra and others instituted Original Suit No. 1 of 1943 against the defendants for the following reliefs: 1.a decree of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from causing interference in the enjoyment of the properties in the suit; 2.removal of defendants from the management of the properties in suit and for a direction to handover possession of the same to a new body of persons to be appointed by the Court; 3.direction to the defendants to render accounts of their dealings with the properties in suit particularly in respect of the income derived from the offerings since 1904. 6. The suit involves 23 properties out of which properties No. 1, 2 and 4 are material and relevant. Property No. 2 happens to be Swami Bagh, Agra where the Samadh of the founder SSG Swamiji Maharaj is located; property No. 4 is Prem Bilas, Agra with the Samadh of Huzur Maharaj and property No. 1 is Swami Bagh, Varanasi with the Samadh of Maharaj Sahib. 7. The aforesaid suit was decreed vide judgment and order dated 5.7.1961 by the IInd Additional Civil Judge, Agra. The first two reliefs were granted and with regard to the third relief the suit was dismissed. The defendants were perpetually restrained by a decree of permanent nature from causing interference with the plaintiffs’ exercise of right to worship at the three Samadhs and the enjoyment of the properties in the suit. The defendants and the other trusties were removed from the management of the properties in the suit and the possession of the properties were directed to be handed over the receiver appointed by the Court and a scheme of management was directed to be prepared by the Court in consultation with the followers of the first three SSG. On the finalisation of the scheme, the election of the first body of trusties was directed to be conducted so that the charge of the properties in the suit may be entrusted to the elected body. 8. The plaintiff/appellants were not satisfied with the two reliefs granted and, as such, preferred the present first appeal No. 301 of 1961. 9. Simultaneously, the defendants aggrieved by the decree of the lower Court, preferred first appeal No. 239 of 1961. In the said appeal an interim order was passed on 10.10.1961 staying the execution of the decree. 8. The plaintiff/appellants were not satisfied with the two reliefs granted and, as such, preferred the present first appeal No. 301 of 1961. 9. Simultaneously, the defendants aggrieved by the decree of the lower Court, preferred first appeal No. 239 of 1961. In the said appeal an interim order was passed on 10.10.1961 staying the execution of the decree. Against the said order Special Leave Petition No. 789 of 1961 was preferred but the same was dismissed on 30.10.1961. Ultimately, the interim order was vacated by this Court on 3.5.1962 and the Special Leave Petition preferred against the same was dismissed on 24.5.1962. The said first appeal as on date stands dismissed for default vide order dated 17.8.2006. 10. Accordingly, execution proceeded wherein objections were raised and the executing Court vide order dated 3.6.1965 allowed the objections and held the decree in execution to be a nullity. Against the said order of the execution Court Execution First Appeal No. 195 of 1965 is pending in this Court. 11. In the meantime, applications for impleading members of the Central Administrative Counsel as party in both the appeals were filed which were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 31.3.1965 and 29.7.1965. The above orders were challenged before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitioners which were converted into Civil Appeals No. 385 of 1965 and 666 of 1965. The Apex Court with the consensus of the parties, vide order dated 21.10.1965 permitted plaintiffs to amend the plaint and to add some additional defendants to the suit. The amended plaint and written statements of the impleaded parties were to be taken on record and 49 issues were framed for findings of the trial Court for remittance to the High Court. The High Court was directed to hear both the appeals on receipt of the findings of the Court below. However, the hope expressed by the Supreme Court regarding early termination of the litigation stood completely belied as till date except for one issue the other issues have not been decided. 12. Opposing the application in question a counter affidavit of one S.S. Bhattacharya, Assistant Secretary, Central Administrative Counsel in representative capacity on behalf of all the defendant/respondents has been filed to which even a rejoinder has also been submitted. 13. 12. Opposing the application in question a counter affidavit of one S.S. Bhattacharya, Assistant Secretary, Central Administrative Counsel in representative capacity on behalf of all the defendant/respondents has been filed to which even a rejoinder has also been submitted. 13. Another affidavit of S.S. Bhattacharya, Assistant Secretary, Central Administrative Council, Radhasoami Satsang, Soamibagh, Agra seeks to bring on record the resolution of the Central Administrative Council dated 8.8.2010 whereby it has been resolved not to accept the proposal of the Dayal Bagh Group to pay obeisance and hold Satsang and Bhandaras as requested. I find no reason to discard the said affidavit. I consider it to be relevant. Therefore, the said affidavit is taken on record. Accordingly, application No. 242260 of 2010 stands allowed. 14. I have heard Sri Vipin Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant (applicants) and Sri Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vipin Sinha, counsel for the defendant/respondents. 15. Sri Vipin Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellants in his usual, fair and modest way but with all firmness submitted that both the groups owe allegiance to the Radha Swami faith and in the teachings of at least first three SGG and, as such, consider it necessary for their spiritual advancement to visit and pay homage at the Samadhs and to participate in the Bhandaras and Satsangs according to tenets of the faith. Apart from the above, as this year happens to be 150th year of the commencement of the faith, it is a great event of celebration and, as such, it is all the more necessary for the plaintiff/appellants to participate in the rituals to be held especially at the Samadh of the Swamiji Maharaj at Swami Bagh, Agra on special occasions of Bhandara of Param Guru Maharaj Sahib between 20th and 28th October, 2010 (9 days), Bhandara of Param Guru Huzur Maharaj between 22nd and 30th December, 2010 (9 days), Basant 2011 between 6th and 11th February, 2010 (5 days) and Holi 2011 between 19th and 21st March, 2011 (3 days). Therefore, they may be granted permission for the purpose. 16. Therefore, they may be granted permission for the purpose. 16. Sri Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate, on the other hand, contends that no such permission deserves to be granted to the plaintiff/appellants unless they have a legally enforceable right to either visit or worship at the Samadh of Swamiji Maharaj and in support of his submission he has placed strong reliance upon an unreported Division Bench decision of this Court dated 23rd February, 1977 passed in First Appeal No. 398 of 1960. 17. I have considered the respective submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties and have carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment and order passed in the above referred first appeal which had arisen from Original Suit No. 173 of 1956. In the said suit/appeal which was also between the two rival groups of the Radha Swami faith of the time concerning these very properties, the basic questions involved were with regard to the rights of the parties to visit the Samadhs and other holy places for the purposes of meditation and worship and participation in the Bhandaras as well as the right of the Central Administrative Council to prevent the parties from visiting the Samadhs, holding of Bhandaras and from participating in the rituals at the shrines. 18. The Division Bench in considering the above issues dealt with the question whether the plaintiff/appellants of that suit have a legally enforceable right to visit the Samadhs and to take part in the Bhandaras organised at the aforesaid places considered to be holy by followers of the Radhaswami faith. The Court after elaborate discussion concluded that the Samadhs and other properties which formed subject matter of dispute belong exclusively to the SSG of the time and even the followers of the faith cannot visit those properties without the permission of the SSG of the time. The Central Administrative Council was constituted to assist the SSG in the management of their properties. The Central Administrative Council was constituted to assist the SSG in the management of their properties. The Court after considering and examining the variety of religious texts and scriptures of the Radha Swami faith held that from the precepts or teachings of the three SSG it cannot be said that the visit to Samadhs is an integral part of the Radha Swami faith, though it may be a matter of honour or privilege for the followers to do so but that would not be civil a right which could be enforced in the Court of law. Therefore, if a right cannot be enforced against the SSG it cannot also be enforced against the Central Administrative Council who hold the property in private trust on behalf of the SSG and Acts like his shadow. The Court went on to observe as under : “As also indicated by us earlier, unless the appellants have a legal right to visit the Samadhs, they cannot enforce it against the respondents. Since the S.S.G. of the time is the sole master of the properties including the Samadhs and since it depends on the will and pleasure of the S.S.G. of the time to allow or not to allow the appellants to visit the Samadhs, it cannot be held that the appellants possess a legal right to visit the Samadhs. Something depending on the permission of the other can, by no means, be called to be a legal right. The mere fact that it is contained in the teachings that Samadhs are sacred object which could be looked upon with veneration cannot be of any help to the appellants.” The Court concluded as under: “In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be held, on the material on record, that the plaintiffs have got any legal and enforceable right to visit the Samadhs and other holy places mentioned in the plaint.” A similar view was expressed in respect of holding Bhandaras and in respect of right to participate in the rituals and worship at the sites. 19. 19. In short, the Division Bench held that the holy sites including the Samadh of Swamiji Maharaj, Swami Bagh, Agra are private properties of the SSG of time which are being managed by the Central Administrative Council on their behalf and no person, not even the followers of the Radha Swami faith can visit the same without the permission of the Central Administrative Committee and that the plaintiff/appellants of the said suit/appeal have no legally enforceable visiting right or the right to participate in the Bhandaras/rituals organised at these places. 20. Sri Vipin Kumar Saxena conscious of the above decision and realising the uphill task in meeting the same emphasised that the findings of the Division Bench aforesaid are perverse and have been recorded in ignorance of certain recognised and authentic religious texts of the Radha Swami faith and that the aforesaid decision is not binding upon the present plaintiff/appellants. 21. I am not at all impressed by the above submissions. First of all, this Court cannot sit over the findings or ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench concerned. This is a dispute between same two rival groups of the Radha Swami faith. In the earlier suit the parties were appearing in a representative capacity on behalf of two warring groups. Similar is the position in the present suit/appeal appeal also. It is important to mention that representatives binds the group as a whole which is so represented. The plaintiff/appellants are not claiming themselves to be different from the group which was earlier represented. They in fact are the followers of the same group. 22. In this context Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. is relevant and important. It clearly postulates that a decree passed in a suit shall be binding on all persons on whose behalf it is instituted or defended as the case may be. The plaintiff/appellants of the present suit have the common interest as the plaintiffs of the earlier suit though the cause of action may be different and separate. 23. In view of above, I am of the opinion that where the parties are appearing in a representative capacity and not individually, the dictum of law as laid down by the Court earlier, though the findings may not operate res judicata in strict sense, may definitely be in the nature of a binding precedent. 23. In view of above, I am of the opinion that where the parties are appearing in a representative capacity and not individually, the dictum of law as laid down by the Court earlier, though the findings may not operate res judicata in strict sense, may definitely be in the nature of a binding precedent. The Division Bench had earlier, as stated before, has clearly held that no one has any legally enforceable right to visit and to participate in the rituals and Bhandaras at any of the holy sites or places of Radha Swami faith except with the permission of the Central Administrative Council. This being the precise ratio would apply with full vigour and would at least disnade me in holding that any prima facie case has been made out in favour of the plaintiff/appellants or that balance of convenience lies in their favour. 24. Admittedly, the Central Administrative Council has turned down the request of the plaintiff/appellants vide resolution dated 8.8.2010. 25. Notwithstanding the above, Sri Sinha in the very beginning had very candidly submitted that there may not be any problem if individual follower proceeds to visit the Samadh and takes part in the sacred rituals that may be organised on the various auspicious days. 26. It may be worth to note that the plaintiff/appellants are seeking the above permission for and on behalf of five lacs of followers. The visit and worshipping right to such a large number of persons even in groups cannot be granted in the interest of public order also. It is common knowledge that such large or smaller groups in religious and cultural fringey generally turns unruly and beyond the control of local administration. Therefore, in the interest of justice it is always better to avoid such a situation. It may result in sacrificing rights of a particular community or a group of people but an individual right or the right of a particular community or a class of persons has to give way to a larger public interest and the law and order situation as well as to public order which cannot be permitted to be compromised for a much smaller group of persons. 27. 27. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff/appellants is made out to allow visiting and worshipping at the Samadh of Swamiji Maharaj at Swami Bagh, Agra even on the special occasions in view of 150th year of commencement of the faith and the said right can only be exercised with the permission of the Central Administrative Council only. 28. The lower Court in seized of the matter of recording findings on the additional issues framed by the Supreme Court is directed to proceed with the matter on day to day basis and to ensure recording of findings on each issue in accordance with law most expeditiously if there is no legal impediment in doing so. The parties may also be better advised to cooperate with the Court and to get the Execution First Appeal pending in this Court decided first and at the earliest. 29. Accordingly, the application No. 67418 of 2010 has no weight and is rejected with the observations made above. 30. The application No. 217022 of 2010 has been rendered infructuous and needs no order. It also stands disposed of. —————