1981 (9) TMI 303 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court confirms property ownership, grants possession, initiates contempt proceedings.

Krishna Singh Versus Mathura Ahir and Ors.

Krishna Singh Versus Mathura Ahir and Ors. - AIR 1982 SC 686 Issues Involved:1. Ownership of the property in question.2. Status of Sri Krishna Singh as a trespasser.3. Right of Harshankaranand to recover possession.4. Validity of the stay order under Order XXI, Rule 29 of CPC.5. Contempt of court proceedings against Sri Krishna Singh.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Ownership of the Property:The property in question, house No. C-27/33 located in Mohalla Jagatganj, Varanasi, was found by all courts, including the Supreme Court, to belong to Garwaghat Math. The property was an endowment to the Math by its owner Guru Atma Vivekanand. The courts established that the property was acquired from offerings made by disciples and was not secular property but an accretion to the Math.2. Status of Sri Krishna Singh as a Trespasser:Sri Krishna Singh was adjudged a rank trespasser by the trial court, and this finding was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Despite knowing that his father, Guru Atma Vivekanand, had taken Sanyas and thus died a civil death, Sri Krishna Singh resisted the suit filed by the plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed that Sri Krishna Singh had no title to the property and was unlawfully occupying it.3. Right of Harshankaranand to Recover Possession:The Supreme Court held that Harshankaranand, who was in de facto management and control of the property, had the right to recover possession from trespassers like Sri Krishna Singh. The Court emphasized that the cause of action did not die with the plaintiff and that Harshankaranand, as the de facto Mahant, had the right to protect the Math properties. The Court rejected the argument that Harshankaranand needed to establish his title before evicting trespassers.4. Validity of the Stay Order under Order XXI, Rule 29 of CPC:The stay order issued by the Civil Judge under Order XXI, Rule 29 of CPC was found to be invalid. The Supreme Court noted that jurisdiction under this provision is vested only in the court that passed the decree, which in this case was the Munsiff, Varanasi, not the Civil Judge. The order by the Civil Judge was deemed a nullity and violative of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Judge's decision to stay the execution of the decree was criticized as casual and perfunctory.5. Contempt of Court Proceedings Against Sri Krishna Singh:Sri Krishna Singh's actions to nullify the decision of the High Court and the Supreme Court, including filing a civil suit with the same pleas, were strongly deprecated. The Supreme Court issued a notice to Sri Krishna Singh to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court. The Court also directed the Civil Judge to explain why he did not comply with the Supreme Court's clear orders and to deliver possession of the property to Harshankaranand.Conclusion:The Supreme Court's judgment reaffirmed the ownership of the property by Garwaghat Math, declared Sri Krishna Singh a rank trespasser, and upheld the right of Harshankaranand to recover possession. The stay order under Order XXI, Rule 29 of CPC was invalidated, and contempt proceedings were initiated against Sri Krishna Singh for his attempts to delay or defeat the delivery of possession. The Civil Judge was directed to comply with the Supreme Court's orders and deliver possession to Harshankaranand.