Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 436 (ORI)

Satya Mahima Samaj v. Kaupindhari Mahima Samaj

2018-04-20

A.K.RATH

body2018
JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. Defendants are the appellants against a confirming judgment. 2. The plaintiffs-respondents instituted the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from fixing up the iron gates at the opening of the third bedha of the temple and obstructing the plaintiffs for free ingress and egress to the third bedha and depriving them of their right of worship. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for themselves and on behalf of the members of Kaupindhari Mahima Samaj in the representative capacity. The case of the plaintiffs is that His Holiness Guru Alekha known as Mahima Gosain is the founder of the spiritual order known as Mahima Dharma. The followers of religious cult were divided into two orders of sanyasis known as Kaupindharies and Balkaladharis, each enjoying equal rank and status. Plaintiffs 2 to 9 are sanyasis of Kaupindhari sect known as Kaupindhari Mahima Samaj. The defendants belong to Balkaldharies sect.Both the groups constructed a temple at Joronda with three bedhas. Since dissensions cropped up between the two sects, Kaupindharies under the leadership of Baba Kruspasindhu Das constructed their ashram and temple inside the third bedha of the main temple and used to perform sebapuja and nitikranti. The ashram and temple in the third bedha is in existence for more than fifty years. There are three opening in the third bedha through which the plaintiffs enter into third bedha for sebapuja and nitikranti. The litigation between the parties is continuing for last forty years. They instituted the suit in the Court of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Cuttack for declaration of their rights to perform sebapuja at the main Gadi of Mahima Gosain. An interim order of injunction has been passed restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs to offer puja. Being embolden of the order, the defendants are threatening to fix up iron gates at the three opening of the third bedha and lock it up so as to obstruct them for their ingress and egress to the ashram and perform sebapuja and nitikranti. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. The defendants filed a joint written statement. The case of the defendants is that there is no Samaj known as Kaupindhari Mahima Samaj. Plaintiffs 2 to 9 are not the representatives of any such Samaj. Mahima Gosain had created Satya Mahima Dharma. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. The defendants filed a joint written statement. The case of the defendants is that there is no Samaj known as Kaupindhari Mahima Samaj. Plaintiffs 2 to 9 are not the representatives of any such Samaj. Mahima Gosain had created Satya Mahima Dharma. The same was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. They never claimed that they belong to a separate religious denomination, Balkaladharis sect. Kaupindhari and Balkaldhari are the two stages of the religious order under the Mahima Dharma. There are three stages; 1st stage Tyagi or Bairagi, 2nd stage Kaupindhari or Apara sanyasis and 3rd stage Balkaladhari or Para Sanyasi. On performance of certain rituals, a Kaupindhari becomes a Balkaladhari. The rank is not same. Kaupindharies used to assist the Balkaldharies for performance of religious rites and ceremonies at Gadi. Performance of sebapuja in the Gadi is the exclusive rights of Balkaldharies. The plaintiffs have no separate religious order. Krupasindhu Das at his old age was staying in the third bedha. An order of eviction was passed against him. The plaintiffs made constructions for creating disturbance. The construction of third bedha is incomplete. The defendants proposed to complete the construction of third bedha and fix an iron gate to prevent the outsiders to pollute the campus and the tanks situated inside the same. The purpose of construction/completion of third bedha and fixing the gate is to prevent the outsiders, keep the campus clean and maintain the sanctity of the institution. They have no intention to cause obstruction to anybody. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. Placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Mahima Gosain and others v. Kaupindhari Mahima Samaj and others, 1971 ILR-CUT-1283, Ext.1, learned trial court held that the parties, being the members of same religious order, have equal rights to use the disputed lands. The plaintiffs have equal rights with the defendants to enter into the third bedha. The plaintiffs have rights to enter into the third bedha to do sebapuja and nitikranti. Fixing up iron gate at the main entrance of third bedha by the defendants will cause inconvenience to the plaintiffs for their free ingress and egress to the Ashram. Held so, it decreed the suit. The plaintiffs have rights to enter into the third bedha to do sebapuja and nitikranti. Fixing up iron gate at the main entrance of third bedha by the defendants will cause inconvenience to the plaintiffs for their free ingress and egress to the Ashram. Held so, it decreed the suit. Unsuccessful defendants appealed before the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Dhenkanal and renumbered as T.A.No.10 of 1981/4 of 1985. The appeal was eventually dismissed. 5. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law : “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Court ought to have exercised power to grant injunction as provided under U/s. 38 of the Specific Relief Act?” 6. Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.H. Mohanty, learned Sr. Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S.P. Das, Mr. P.K. Singh and Mr. P.P. Pandit, learned Advocate for the respondents. 7. Mr. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the scope of dispute is extremely limited. The plaintiffs have their separate ashram inside the third bedha. The defendants proposed to fix the iron gate in the opening in order to prevent the people of the locality, who used to pass through these openings, go to the fields and tank close to the temple and answer the call of nature. In order to maintain the sanctity of the premises, the defendants proposed to fix the gate only to prevent the outsiders entering into the third bedha. Unless the outsiders are prevented, the premises will lose its sanctity. In the written statement, the defendants have pleaded that they have no intention of causing obstruction to anybody far less to the plaintiffs. The apprehension of the plaintiffs is unfounded and baseless. The courts below fell into patent error in granting permanent injunction. 8. Per contra, learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that in Mahima Gosain and others (supra), this Court held that both parties are the members of the same religious order. They have equal rights to use the disputed land. The courts below concurrently held that the defendants have fixed up the gates on all the entrance of the first and second bedhas and kept the same under lock and key. They have equal rights to use the disputed land. The courts below concurrently held that the defendants have fixed up the gates on all the entrance of the first and second bedhas and kept the same under lock and key. In the event they will repeat the similar practice to the main entrance of the third behda, certainly the plaintiffs will face inconvenience for ingress and egress to Mahamulla Ashram, the main place of worship. 9. In Mahima Gosain and others (supra), the subject matter of dispute was in respect of some plots. The suit was instituted for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and declaration that the defendants have no right, title and interest therein and perpetual injunction. Two suits were filed; one by Balkaladhari and another by Kaupindhari. The suits were tried analogously. The suits having been dismissed, both parties preferred appeals. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was dismissed, whereas the appeal preferred by the defendants was allowed. Thereafter, the matter came to this Court. This Court held that the suit plots belong to plaintiff no.1; that both the rival groups of sanyasis being members of the same religious order have equal rights to use the disputed lands; that neither has any right to exclude the other from such user or use them contrary to the tenants of their Dharma. Held so, this Court allowed the appeal. Thus, rights of the parties over the properties of Mahima Gadi have been set at rest by the decision referred to supra. 10. Learned trial court held that the plaintiffs and the defendants have equal rights to enter into the third bedha. Mahamulla ashram exists inside the third bedha since long. Dhuni Mandir, Akhandabati Mandir and Veka Mandir of the plaintiffs situate inside Mahamulla Ashram. The sanyasis, who render sebapuja and nitikranti, reside inside the Ashram. The plaintiffs have got right to enter into third bedha to render sebapuja and nitikranti. The first and second bedha have four iron gates on four sides of each bedha. It further held that fixing up the iron gate at the main entrance of the third bedha by the defendants will cause inconvenience to the plaintiffs for their free ingress and egress to their ashram. The first and second bedha have four iron gates on four sides of each bedha. It further held that fixing up the iron gate at the main entrance of the third bedha by the defendants will cause inconvenience to the plaintiffs for their free ingress and egress to their ashram. When the parties are rival groups and are in litigating terms, if the defendants are allowed to fix up a gate on the main entrance of the third bedha, they may subsequently fix lock to that, which may lead to further clash between the parties and multiplicity of proceedings. If the defendants are allowed to fix up the iron gate to the main entrance on the western wall of the third bedha and put lock, the plaintiffs will face difficulty for their entrance into their Ashram. The learned appellate court concurred with the findings of the learned trial court and held that the defendants have fixed up the gets on all the entrances of the first and second bedhas and have kept the same under lock and key. If they will repeat the similar practice to the main entrances of the third bedha, certainly the plaintiffs will face very much inconvenience in going to their Mahamulla Ashram, the main place of their worship, as they will be prohibited to perform sebapuja and nitikranti in the main Gadi Mandir situated inside the first bedha. On the contrary, if the defendants will be restrained from putting up such an iron gate in the maintenance, there will be no difficulty for them to go to the main Gadi Mandir. The same will amount to an invasion to their right of performing sebapuja in the Mahamulla Ashram. Both the parties have got equal right to enjoy the properties of Mahima Gosain. Mahamulla ashram situated inside the third bedha is also a property belonging to Mahima Gosain. These are essentially findings of fact. There is no illegality or perversity in the findings of the courts below. 11. A party cannot be prevented from performing sebapuja and nitikranti. Hassle free darshan is the legal right of two sects. Mahamulla ashram situated inside the third bedha is also a property belonging to Mahima Gosain. These are essentially findings of fact. There is no illegality or perversity in the findings of the courts below. 11. A party cannot be prevented from performing sebapuja and nitikranti. Hassle free darshan is the legal right of two sects. The courts below have rightly held that in the event the defendants fix up an iron gate on the main entrance of the third bedha of the temple and put a lock, the plaintiffs will face immense difficulty for their ingress and egress to the Mahamulla Ashram, main place of worship to perform sebapuja and nitikranti in the Gadi Mandir situated inside the first bedha. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 12. Before parting with the case, this Court observes that Mahima Gosain, the propounder of Mahima Dharma, would not have visualized that His followers will be divided into two sects and fight litigation. As it appears, both parties are in litigating terms for more than half century. Number of suits have been filed by different sects in different Courts to wreck personal vengeance. The two sects of Mahima Dharma have been caught in the whirlpool of litigation. It is difficult on their part to extricate. Instead of approaching the portals of the Court, the sanyasis may devote their time for their spiritual journey. This Court hopes and trusts that better sense may prevail upon the two sects to settle the dispute between them amicably, so that the precious time of the Court can be saved. 13. As a sequel to the above discussions, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.