{"id":191139,"date":"2006-04-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006"},"modified":"2015-11-30T09:47:12","modified_gmt":"2015-11-30T04:17:12","slug":"pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"Pandit Vasudev Vyas (Dead) Thr. … vs Board Of Mgmt, S.S.J.S. Peeth & Ors on 25 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Pandit Vasudev Vyas (Dead) Thr. … vs Board Of Mgmt, S.S.J.S. Peeth & Ors on 25 April, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7351 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nPandit Vasudev Vyas (Dead) Thr. LRS.\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBoard of MGMT, S.S.J.S. Peeth & Ors.\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/04\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Appellant herein is a Senior Professor and Dean of the Poddar
\nGovernment Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital in Mumbai.  He was
\nalso the Dean of Faculty of Ayurved in the University of Bombay.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe dispute involved in this appeal, which arises out of a judgment
\nand order dated 24th April, 2000 passed by a Division Bench of the High
\nCourt of Judicature at Bombay in L.P.A. Stamp No. 11607 of 2000, centers
\nround the appointment to the post and seat of Jagadguru Shankaracharya\/
\nSole Trustee of the Respondent  Trust.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Appellant contends that he as a disciple of Jagadguru
\nShankaracharya believes that the spiritual head of well-known Math should
\nbe appointed according to traditions, customs and usages recognized by law
\nand he should be a great scholar of Veda, Vedangas and Indian Philosophy.
\nHe should have also been initiated into sannyas by a Guru.\n<\/p>\n
 \tOne Sankeshwar Peeth was established by Jagadguru Shankaracharya.
\nThe said Peeth is situated in the District of Belgaum in the State of
\nKarnataka.  Another trust known as Karveer Peeth was established in the
\nDistrict of Kolhapur in the State of Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWhereas the Karveer Peeth is registered in terms of the Bombay
\nPublic Trust Act, the Sankeshwar Peeth is registered separately.  One Erande
\nSwami is said to have been nominated by his Guru to succeed him as a sole
\ntrustee in respect of the said Sankeshwar Peeth.  It is, however, contended
\nthat he expressed his inability to act as Shankaracharya  The Appellant
\ncontends that both the Sankeshwar Peeth and Karveer Peeth are branches of
\na single entity known as Sankeshwar  Karveer Peeth.  The said contention
\nis denied and disputed by the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt is, however, not in dispute that the matter relating to appointment of
\na trustee in relation to Karveer Peeth came to be considered by the Charity
\nCommissioner in terms of the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act.  A
\nproposal was made for appointing Shri Ramchandra Narhar Kulkarni the
\nSecond Respondent herein as a Sankarcharya of the said Peeth; objections
\nwhereto were filed.  The Appellant herein was also one of the objectors.  By
\nan order dated 11.11.1982, the Charity Commissioner appointed the Second
\nRespondent as sole-trustee of the Karveer Peeth in purported exercise of its
\npower under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trust Act with the condition
\nthat he should take sannyas before he enters upon the charge of the sole-
\ntrustee of the Karveer Peeth stating:\n<\/p>\n
“So far as the point that the sole-trustee must be a
\nsannyasi, there is no dispute about it at all.  It is a
\npre-requisition that whoever presides over this
\nPeeth he must be sannyasi.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Charity Commissioner although opined that there could not be
\nany dispute about the fitness and qualification of Shri Erande Swami for
\nbeing appointed as the sole-trustee, but proceed to observe that mere
\nlearning was not enough under the Scheme to be appointed as a sole trustee
\nof the Peeth and his name could not be considered.  In fact the name of Shri
\nKulkarni was reconsidered although he had withdrawn his claim.\n<\/p>\n
 \tA First Appeal being First Appeal No. 166 of 1983 was preferred
\nthereagainst by the Appellant, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein.  The said
\nappeal was dismissed by an order dated 20th January, 2000.  A Letters Patent
\nappeal was preferred thereagainst by the Appellant which has been
\ndismissed by reason of the impugned judgment dated 24.4.2000.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn this appeal, we are concerned with a short question, viz., as to
\nwhether in terms of the Scheme for the Management and Administration of
\nthe Public Trust Shri Swami Jagadguru Shankarcharya Peeth, Kolhapur, the
\nRespondent No. 2 could have been appointed as a sole trustee.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt is the contention of the Appellant herein that at all material point of
\ntime, a litigation was pending in the State of Karnataka culminating in
\nRegular First Appeal No. 143 of 1982 before the High Court of Karnataka at
\nBangalore.  The said First Appeal arose out of a judgment and order dated
\n27.2.1982 passed in OS No. 8 of 1972.  In the said judgment, inter alia, the
\nfollowing issues were framed:\n<\/p>\n
“1.\tWhether the Plaintiff proves that the
\nsuccession to the office of the Head of
\nSankareshwar Karvir Math is governed by customs
\nand practice as alleged in para (3) of the Plaint?\n<\/p>\n
2.\tWhether the Plaintiff proves that the Second
\ndefendant was validly dismissed by Shri
\nGuruswami?\n<\/p>\n
3.\tIf so whether the second defendant lost all
\nhis rights and privileges as Adhikari Shishya?\n<\/p>\n
4.\tWhether the Plaintiff proves that the 1st
\ndefendant was validly dismissed by Shri
\nGuruswami Shirolkar on or about 8.9.1958?\n<\/p>\n
5.\tIf so, whether the 1st defendant lost all his
\nrights and provisions as Adhikari Shishya?\n<\/p>\n
6.\tWhether the Plaintiff proves that he was
\ninitiated as Adhikari Shishya on or about
\n15.10.1958 as alleged in para (o) of Plaint?\n<\/p>\n
7.\tWhether the Plaintiff proves that he is
\nentitled to the office of the trustees of the Math and
\nthe suit properties and to the Management thereby?\n<\/p>\n
8.\tWhether the plaintiff proves the alleged last
\nwill and testament of 15.10 of Shri Guruswami
\nShirolkar?\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIf so, whether the 1st defendant proves that
\nthe will is void and does not affect his interests?\n<\/p>\n
10.\tWhether the Plaintiff proves that the 1st
\ndefendant is in illegal and unauthorized possession
\nof the suit properties?\n<\/p>\n
11.\tWhether the 1st defendant establishes that
\nfrom 1.7.1957 he became the Shankaracharya
\nJagadguru and the rightful owner and trustee of the
\nMath and the suit properties as contended by him?\n<\/p>\n
12.\tWhether 1st defendant shows that Shri
\nGuruswami Shirolkar had ceased to be the
\nJagadguru on or about 15.10.1958?\n<\/p>\n
13.\tWhether the Plaintiff is entitled for the
\ndeclaration sought?\n<\/p>\n
14.\tWhether Plaintiff is entitled to get
\npossession of the suit properties?\n<\/p>\n
15.\tTo what reliefs are parties entitled?”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe said appeal was allowed inter alia stating:\n<\/p>\n
“In these circumstances we have no hesitation in
\nreversing the finding of the trial court that the
\ndismissal of the first defendant in the year 1958
\nwas illegal and void.  We, therefore, hold that first
\ndefendant was dismissed in September, 1958 by a
\nvalid order and he ceased to be Adhikari Shishya
\nthereafter.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIf the dismissal of first defendant was valid
\nthere can be no doubt that Guruswami was
\ncompetent to initiate first plaintiff as Adhikari
\nShishya which he did on 15th October, 1958.\n<\/p>\n
Plaintiff, therefore, became a valid Adhikari
\nShishya of Shirolkar Swami and consequently on
\nthe death of Shirolkar Swami Plaintiff was entitled
\nto succeed to him as Shankaracharya of
\nSankeshwar Karbir Mutt and is also entitled to take
\npossession of the properties of the Mutt.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tA notice was issued by this Court on 18.9.2000 having regard to the
\nsaid contention of the Appellant wherein it was noticed:
\n“It is pointed out by learned senior counsel
\nappearing on behalf of the petitioner that a specific
\nclause in the Scheme of 1963 mentions that there
\nis a pending litigation and that the person who
\nwould be declared by the civil court in the pending
\nlitigation would be the sole trustee of the Trust and
\nthat there could not be a second trustee like the
\nrespondent.  Once R.F.A. 143\/82 was decided on
\n23.9.92 in favour of the plaintiff in the suit by a
\nDivision Bench of the Karnataka High Court
\nallowing the appeal of the plaintiff, the respondent
\nhad to be removed as a second trustee.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt is, therefore, contended that in view of the
\nsaid judgment there cannot be another
\nSankaracharya for the Trust which is the subject
\nmatter of this SLP and that the Petitioner is
\nespousing the cause of the Sankaracharya of the
\nplaintiff in that suit, inasmuch as being a
\nSankaracharaya he would not pursue the matter in
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt is also contended that the petitioner could
\nnot draw the attention of the Division Bench of the
\nHigh Court to the relevant clause in the Scheme
\nthough a copy of the said judgment of the
\nKarnataka High Court was part of the record
\nbefore the Bombay High Court.  Issue notice.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tWe may notice that the contention that both the Peeths are in effect
\nand substance the branches of the same entity was negatived by the High
\nCourt stating:\n<\/p>\n
“The contention has to be stated merely for the
\npurpose of being rejected since there is a categoric
\nfinding that the Karveer Trust is a separately
\nregistered Trust under the Bombay Public Trust
\nAct, bearing Registration no. A-1391 (Kolhapur).
\nIt is brought to our notice that the affairs of the
\nSankeshwar Trust are the subject matter of some
\npending litigation in the Karnataka High Court, at
\nBangalore.  In the first place, those proceedings are
\nnot produced for our perusal.  Secondly, assuming
\nthat there is any controversy about the appointment
\nof the trustee, at Sankeshwar, the Sankeshwar
\nTrust bears a separate Registration Number viz.,
\nA-3059 (Belgaum).  Thirdly, there is no challenge
\nto the factum of the registration of the Karveer
\nTrust as a separate legal entity in Maharashtra
\nunder Registration No. A-1391 (Kolhapur).
\nFourthly, clause 5 of the Scheme of the Karveer
\nMath specifically contemplates that the presiding
\nSwami at the Karveer Trust shall be the sole
\ntrustee of the Trust.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant,
\nwould submit that the High Court committed an error of record in holding
\nthat the proceedings before the Karnataka High Court had not been produced
\nas the judgment of the Karnataka High Court formed part of the records.  A
\nfurther error of record, according to Mr. Srivastava, has been committed by
\nthe Division Bench of the High Court insofar as clause 5 of the Scheme of
\nthe Karveer Peeth which specifically contemplates that the presiding Swami
\nat the Karveer Peeth shall be the sole trustee of the Trust, has not been
\nconsidered.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Chinmoy Khaladkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nRespondents, on the other hand, submitted that having regard to the fact that
\nboth the Peeths are separately registered, they cannot be considered to be
\nbranches of the same legal entity.\n<\/p>\n
 \tA contention has specifically been raised before us that apart from the
\naforementioned litigation culminating in the Regular First Appeal No. 143 of
\n1982 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, no other litigation
\nwas pending.  The Appellant contended that the litigation involving the
\nquestion as to who would be appointed as a trustee was pending before the
\nKarnataka High Court.  According to the Respondent, however, no litigation
\nwas pending at any point of time before the courts at Karnataka as regards
\nentitlement of a person to be appointed as a sole-trustee in respect of
\nSankeshwar Peeth.\n<\/p>\n
 \tHaving heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion
\nthat it is not necessary for us to go into the aforementioned question in
\ndetail, as the principal question before us is as to who should be appointed as
\na sole trustee of the Karveer Peeth.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt may or may not be that both the Peeths were branches of the single
\nentity but the question arising herein would have to be considered as to who
\ncould be appointed as to the sole trustee of the Karveer Peeth.  For the said
\npurpose, we may notice Clause 5 of the Trust Deed which is as under:\n<\/p>\n
“5. The presiding swami Shri Narasimha Krishna
\nBharati Guru Vidya Shankar Barati Swami
\nJagadguru Shri Shankaracharya Peeth, Karveer is
\nand shall be the sole trustee of the said trust subject
\nto the decision of the court in pending matters in
\nwhich case the person decided by the court as a
\ntrust shall be the trustee.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe question as to whether both the Peeths are branches of a common
\nentity may also have to be determined having regard to Clause 5 of the
\nScheme of Trust framed in the year 1963.  We, however, refrain ourselves
\nfrom going into the said question and in particular the history thereof, as we
\nare of the opinion that the High Court did not address itself as regards the
\nimport of Clause 5 of the Trust Deed.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe question as regards appointment of a sole trustee is a matter of
\ngreat importance having regard to the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust
\nAct.  The Charity Commissioner and consequently the appellate courts
\nshould have made all endeavours to give effect to the desire of the founding
\ntrustees, if the said provision is applicable.  It is in that view of the matter,
\nwe are of the opinion that the heirs and legal representative of original
\napplicant may be permitted to step into his shoes.  We, however, do not
\nintend to put our final seal in this regard and the said question may be raised
\nbefore the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWe would, however, assume that the two Peeths were separately
\nregistered but, in terms of the trust deed, there  cannot be any doubt
\nwhatsoever that Clause 5 of the Scheme was relevant for the purpose of
\ndetermination of the question as regards the appointment of the sole trustee.
\nThe said question was of great relevance, even if it be held that the two
\nPeeths were registered separately and, thus, were two separate entities in the
\neyes of law.  It has not been disputed that the said judgment of the Karnataka
\nHigh Court formed part of the record before the courts below.  Its relevance
\nfor the purpose of interpreting Clause 5 of the Scheme cannot be disputed.
\nWhether the said Clause fits in with the Scheme, as has been contended by
\nthe learned counsel for the Respondent, is also required to be determined on
\nthe basis of the materials on record.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWe, therefore, are of the opinion that the matter should be directed to
\nbe considered afresh by the Division Bench of the High Court.  We direct
\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe learned counsel for the parties, however, state that Erande Swami
\nis now aged about 92 years.  The Second Respondent is also aged person
\nabout 80 years and, thus, the controversy should be put to an end as early as
\npossible.  We agree with the learned counsel.  We would, therefore, request
\nthe High Court to consider the desirability of disposing of the matter, as
\nexpeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months
\nfrom the date of communication of this order.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe judgment of the High Court is set aside.  The appeal is allowed.
\nThe matter is remitted to the High Court with the aforementioned directions.
\nHowever, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order
\nas to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Pandit Vasudev Vyas (Dead) Thr. … vs Board Of Mgmt, S.S.J.S. Peeth & Ors on 25 April, 2006 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7351 of 2001 PETITIONER: Pandit Vasudev Vyas (Dead) Thr. LRS. RESPONDENT: Board of MGMT, S.S.J.S. Peeth & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-191139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPandit Vasudev Vyas (Dead) Thr. ... vs Board Of Mgmt, S.S.J.S. Peeth & Ors on 25 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pandit Vasudev Vyas (Dead) Thr. ... vs Board Of Mgmt, S.S.J.S. Peeth & Ors on 25 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-30T04:17:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pandit Vasudev Vyas (Dead) Thr. … vs Board Of Mgmt, S.S.J.S. Peeth & Ors on 25 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-30T04:17:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2428,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006\",\"name\":\"Pandit Vasudev Vyas (Dead) Thr. ... vs Board Of Mgmt, S.S.J.S. Peeth & Ors on 25 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-30T04:17:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pandit Vasudev Vyas (Dead) Thr. … vs Board Of Mgmt, S.S.J.S. Peeth & Ors on 25 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pandit Vasudev Vyas (Dead) Thr. ... vs Board Of Mgmt, S.S.J.S. Peeth & Ors on 25 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pandit Vasudev Vyas (Dead) Thr. ... vs Board Of Mgmt, S.S.J.S. Peeth & Ors on 25 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-30T04:17:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pandit Vasudev Vyas (Dead) Thr. … vs Board Of Mgmt, S.S.J.S. Peeth & Ors on 25 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-30T04:17:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006"},"wordCount":2428,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006","name":"Pandit Vasudev Vyas (Dead) Thr. ... vs Board Of Mgmt, S.S.J.S. Peeth & Ors on 25 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-30T04:17:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandit-vasudev-vyas-dead-thr-vs-board-of-mgmt-s-s-j-s-peeth-ors-on-25-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pandit Vasudev Vyas (Dead) Thr. … vs Board Of Mgmt, S.S.J.S. Peeth & Ors on 25 April, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191139","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=191139"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191139\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}