--- In [email protected], coldbluiceman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Lawson English wrote: > > As I said, you appear unable to understand > > what you furnish theURL for. > > Namaste Sir Lawson Ji, > i took the libery to snip this..easy to read. > i must politely take exception with your assessment of my > understanding of "the URL" i provide. > > > The higher court > > said that the lower court said that > > the will was valid and that SBS > > was of sound mind when > > he wrote it. > > Sir Lawson Ji..where did you read in the URL that "SBS wrote a will"? > You *assume facts not in evidence*!! please see page 792 > > .."Before his death, he executed a will which was published on June > 8, 1953.." > http://www.austlii.edu.au/~andrew/CommonLII/INSC/1974/153.html > > He was "in disposing mind when He signed the will". However that was > disputed by the "committee", and it was within ashram custom to > nominate anyone they choose"... please see page 792 > > .."and that in accordance with the custom and the rules of the > Math, they were entitled to instal a person nominated by them as the > Head of the Math..." > http://www.austlii.edu.au/~andrew/CommonLII/INSC/1974/153.html > > Which was acceptable with both the Lower District Court, and the > Supreme Court as Swami Krishnabodha Ji was a legally recognized > Shankaracharya and accepted by other Mathas as well. > > > No mention was made > > to the order of the will in the URL you provided. > > Sir Lawson Ji, i must politely inquire-*CAN YOU READ?*.. > reference page 792 > .."By the will, he nominated a panel of 4 persons in-order of > choice indicated in the will to succeed him as head of the Math. His > first choice was Swami Shantanand Saraswati, respondent No. 1. > Respondent No. 1 accepted the office, He was installed as > Shankaracharya of the Math on June 12, 1953.." > http://www.austlii.edu.au/~andrew/CommonLII/INSC/1974/153.html > > > As to the rest, the question now arises: > > who is vomptent to choose SBS's successor? > > SBS or > > the group of scholars? > > Sir Lawson Ji, i must politely take exception of your *Skewd > Understanding* of the *FACTS* the "group of scholars" were the > persons that set up the ashram in 1940. > Please see page 792 > > .."In 1940, a society known as Bharat Dharma Maha- Mandal or Kashi > made an effort to discover the Math and the effort proved > successful. The relics of the Math were found near Badrikashram. The > land on which the relics were found along with certain other > property on the banks of Varuna in Kashi was acquired by the Society > and thereafter the Society created an endowment of the land by a > deed dated April 11, 1941 in favour of Jyotir Math and Swami > Brahmanand Saraswati (Brahmanand for short), a man renowned for his > piety and vedic learning was installed as the Head of the Math. > Brahmanand died on May 20, 1953...." > http://www.austlii.edu.au/~andrew/CommonLII/INSC/1974/153.html > > > The fact of the matter is that THEY > > ignored SBS's will completely > > and chose someone who wasn't even listed. > > And, that was *COMPLETELY WITHIN ASHRAM CUSTOM* as i pointed out > above! >
The court said that the plaintiffs said that this was within ashram custom. The court didn't rule on this either way... The court found: The District Court found that Brahmanand executed the will while he was in sound disposing state of mind, that respondent Nc. I being one of the nominees under the will having the prior claim would have been entitled to succeed as the Head of the Math but for the fact that lie was not learned in Sanskrit and the Vedas which was a necessary qualification for holding the headship of the Math. It further found that the allegations with respect to the breach of trust by respondent No. 1 had not been proved, that Krishnabodhashram was validly installed as the Shankaracharya of the Math but that the suit as it was brought for the vindication of the right of Krishnabodhashram to the headship of the Math, was not maintainable under s. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that the suit was incompetent under s. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. Further, the court noted: If the real purpose in bringing the Suit was to vindicate the general right of the public to have the rightful claimant appointed to the office,, there was no reason why the plaintiffs omitted to implead or at least refer in the plaint to the three persons nominated by Brahmanand in his will to succeed him in the order indicated therein especially when it is seen that the plaintiffs accepted the custom of the Math to have the successor nominated by the incumbent for the time, being of the office of Shankaracharya. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
