In,
The Court of the Munsif 11,
Munger, Bihar.

Title Suit No. 57 of 1997.

1. Shree Narayan Singh, s/o Late Raghubar Narayan Singh,

2. Kashyap Sagar Narayan Singh, s/o Shree Narayan Singh and Harbeet Singh, under the guardianship of his father Shree Narayan Singh,
All residents of 'Uddiyana', Dalip Mahal, Mo. Purabsarai, P S. Kotwali, Town,

P. O.& Municipality and Dist. Munger, Bihar. ..... Plaintiffs.

versus

1. Tenzing Gyatso @ the Dalai Lama, correctly spelt as Taalai Lama, s/o not

known, r/o Thekchen Choling, P 0. McLeodganj, P S. Dharamsala-McLeodganj, Dist. Kangra, Himachal Pradesh;
2. Tashi Wangdi, s/o not known, Minister, Bureau of the Dalai Lama, r/o Thekchen Choling, P.0. McLeodganj, P S. McLeodganj-Dharamsala, Dist. Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

3. Tai Situ Rinpoche, s/o Not known, Headquarters at Sherab Ling, P 0. Sansal,
Dist. Kangra, H. P.
4. Goshir Gyaltsap Rinpoche, s/o Not Known, r/o Dharma Chakra Centre, V. & P.0. Rumtek Monastery,P. S. Ranipool, Dist. Gangtok 737 135 Sikkim .

5. Thrangu Rinpoche, s/o not known, Vajra Vidya Mandir, Khajuhi, P. S. & P. 0. Sarnath, Dist. Varanasi , U. P.

6. Bokar Rinpoche, s/o not known, r/o Bokar Ngedon Chokhor Ling, Deosy Dhara, P S. & P.0. Mirik 734 214, Dist. Darjeeling , W. B.

7. Kunsang Sherab, s/o not known, Member, Joint Action Committee, P S. & P 0.

Gangtok, Dist. Gangtok , Sikkim .

The plaintiffs above named beg to state as

follows : -

1. That plaintiff no. I is a patriotic Indian who has spent almost twenty five years in close association with Tibetan refugees living in various parts of this sub-continent and through extensive research has found to his amazement that the defendants are severally and jointly engaged in a wide range of illegal acitivities, some of which are deterimental to the national security of India, including sorcery and black magic.

2. That defendant no. 1, the Dalai Lama, the erstwhile God King of Tibet , had been deposed by the Communist Chinese Government, and compelled to flee his country incognito, crossing over into India in what was then NEFA, March 31, 1959 .

3. That subsequntly, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister of India , had granted the Taalai Lama, Defendant No. 1, political asylum in India , concerning which no document was ever ex-ecuted.

4. That around this period, approx. 1 lakh Tibetans had fled the Chinese takeover of their country and sought asylum in this country.

5. That Pt. Nehru in his magnanimity, permitted them all to enter this country unconditionally and a vast operation was undertaken for the rehabilitation of these Tibetan refugees in India , distributed through various states, and with some international aid.

6. That amongst these refugees were defendant nos. 2-6. Dfdt. # 7 is a Sikkim Subject who is closely related to Tibetan families both in India as also in the Tibetan Autonomous Region of the Peoples' Republic of China.

7. That contrary to the image projected of Tibetans internationally, as 'a simple, peace-loving people who merely want their country back', Tibetans are an extremely violent and wily people who stop at absolutely nothing to further their own interests, even though these may compromise the national security of India, the country which gave them refgue, land, residence, food, clothing, health, education and so on, so that they may continue to lead lives as normal human beings with dignity.

8. That in response to the above, defendant nos. 1-7, have made an issue of international intrigue, based on a forged 'Prediction Letter', the recognition and instatement of His Holiness the XVIIth. Gyalwang Karmapa, Sri Jinendra Karmapad in Sanskrit, and have thus compromised the national security of this country.

9. That to explain this further, all the defendants have recognised one UrgyenThrinlay Dorje, a minor boy under the tutelage of the Chinese Govt., resident at Tshurphu Monastery. Near Lhasa , Tibet , as the XVIIth. Gyalwang Karmapa, and have applied to the Govt. of India for permission for this boy to enter India and be enthroned at his seat in India, the Dharma Chakra Centre, Rumtek Monastery, Sikkim, whilst three candidates of Indian origin have purposely not been considered for the status of the XVIIth. Gyawlang Karmapa, even though they are authentic, simply because they are 'racially inferior'.

10. That with the tacit approval of defendant nos. 1 & 2, the other defendants have defiantly staged the capture of Dharma Chakra Centre, Rumtek, which was reported in the New Delhi edition of The Hindustan Times, in Aug. 1993, as a 'Chinese Coup'.

11. That these defendants have in all probability removed most of the personal possessions of the late XVIth. Gyalwang Karmapa, which he had brought with him from Tibet on over 150 mule and yak loads in 1958, into Sikkim , through Bhutan , and where they had remained since, effectively having become 'National Treasures'. Currently it is not known as to whether the Black Vajra Crown and other precious sacred articles of the Jinendra Karmapad, have been removed physically from Sikkim , India , and spirited off surreptitiously into Tibet .

12. That for this impoverishment of India 's national treasures, these defendants are directly responsible.

13. That strange as it may seem, defendant no. 1, not content with having lost his own country, Tibet, to the Communist Chinese, 1972 onwards attempted to destabilise Bhutan through a meticulously planned coup d'etat which mercifully failed, and now unable to sit still, has focussed on destabilising India, their host country, which gave them refuge and returned to them their human dignity.

14. That religion and politics have been irretrevably intertwined in the feudal and revisionist polity of Tibetans, with religious persecution of fellow-Buddhists, a peculiar characteristic of the Taala'i Lamas and their Govts. since 1642 C. E., when defendant no. I was instated as the king of Tibet in his preceding Fifth incarnation, by a petty Mongol chieftain, Goshir Khan, who shed an inordinate amount of blood and destroyed over 150 Buddhist monasteries in the name of Buddhism to do so.

15. That thus, the Taala'i Lamas enjoy the dubious distinction of being supposed saints whose hands, feet and body are stained with the blood of countless innocent Buddhists, making them unique in the history of human civilisation, and him most certainly an appropriate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1989.

16. That compared to the most nobel person in independent India , Mother Teresa, who was also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, our illustrious Taalai Lama, Defendant No. 1, has done absolutely nothing for the country of his refuge, and its residents.

17. That this single incidence speaks volumes of the chasm between the message of the Buddha which these defendants profess and practice, which is to 'Make holes in the very platter from which they eat', to quote a Hindi adage.

18. That besides, these defendants have been either directly involved in Child Slavery, or condone it by their passive acquiescence, of Bihari Children from Body Gaya.

19. That these defendants also condone and/or indulge in the sexual abuse of young novice monks in their monasteries.

20. That if one were to list all the illegal activities such as drugs and so on of these defendants, either committed directly or condoned through passive acquiescence, it would run into a thick volume.

21. That suffice it to state that murder motivated through political considerations, is an integral part of their modus opearandi. One East Tibetan leader, Gungthang Tshulthrim, was shot dead at 9 p.m. mid 1978 in his backyard at Clement Town, Dehra Doon, U. P It is said that the assasin was apprehended and while in jail in Lucknow, he openly confessed that defendant no. I and his pseudo Govt. of Tibet in Exile, were directly behind this. Moreover, bounties had been placed by these noble people on the lives of other Tibetan Buddhist Religious Leaders, such as H. H. Dudjom Rimpoche, H. H. the XVIth. Gyalwang Karmapa H. H. Dhilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, later Rajaguru of Bhutan, of Rupees one lakh each in 1978. Amazingly, H. H. Penor Rinpoche survived three attempts to poison him.

22. That similarly His Eminence Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche was assasinated through sabotage in what was made to appear as a car accident involving a 1991 white BMW, April 24, 1992 , near Siliguri, West Bengal .

23. That plaintiff no. I has been systematically drawing the attention of various authorities in India to these extra legal excesses being committed by the defendants.

24. That in March 1997, plaintiff no., I had filed a PIL at the hon'ble High Court, Patna, No. 2378 of 1997, in which various of these acts of sedition against the Govt. of India and so on had been highlighted.

25. That the hon'ble High Court, Patna , had in its order dtd. 31-3-97 directed 'that plaintiff no. I should move the appropriate authority of the Central Govt.' which he has done, but to no avail.

26. That during his travels through various parts of this country, plaintiff no. I has been highlighting these very same issues, making Indian Buddhists and the public at large, aware of the threat to the Union of India, created and being nurtured by these defendants.

27. That in so doing, the plaintiff is exposing himself and his family to direct threat to their lives and it is highly probable that the defendants will contrive to harass them in various ways, thus violating the very principles of the Right to Life and so on as enshrined in the Constitution of India, through various illegal means, and may even go so far as to have them liquidated to silence the voice of a truly patriotic Indian and his family.

28. That on Sep. 19, 1997 , Ven. Topga Rinpoche, Gen. Secy. of the Karmapa Charitable Trust, Gangtok , Sikkim , and a national of the Kingdom of Bhutan , died prematurely in New Delhi after a protracted and peculiar illness, induced by the various defendants through black magic.

29. That Ven. Topga Rinpoche had been an outspoken loyalist of the late XVIth. Gyalwang Karmapa of Rumtek Monastery, and had tried his level best to foil the pro-Chinese and anti-Indian conspiracy being hatched by the defendants in order to protect the national security of India and the property both sacred and temporal of the Gyalwang Karmapa from being surreptitiously taken out of India into Tibet.

30. That this petition is being filed under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act 1963, Sec. 38, titled 'Nuisance'.

31. That this court has the territorial jurisdiction to deal with this matter as the pliantiffs reside within its jurisdiction.

32. That the cause of action arose between Ist and 3rd. of August 1997 when the plaintiffs and family had visited Gangtok, Sikkim on a fact finding mission concerning Tibetan and Chinese involvement in Sikkim and the free flow of Chinese money into Sikkim, where he was warned by his friends to be careful otherwise they could be physically assaulted; on Aug. 30, 1997, when the plaintiff raised these issues at a Buddhist Conference in New Delhi and lastly on 19-9-1997 when Ven. Topga Rinpoche, General Secy. of the Karmapa Charitable Trust, Gangtok Sikkim, died prematurely in New Delhi.

33. That the value of this suit is fixed at Rs. 1,300/- over which ad valorem court fees Rs. 248/is filed herewith.

That the plaintiffs pray for the following reliefs

(a) That this learned court after adjudication may be pleased to pass an order permanently restraining the defendants from creating the said nuisance and from disturbing the peaceful life of the plaintiffs as provided in the Constitution of India.

(b) That the suit may be decreed with cost against the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs.

(c) That the court may be please to allow other relief or relief which may deem fit and proper in the eyes of the court and in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants.

Filed through,

Advocate.

Verification.

1, Shree Narayan Singh, plaintiff no. 1, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the plaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Verified and signed on this 4th. day of Oct. 1997, in the court premises, Munger, Bihar .

Filed through,
Advocate.

SUMMONS FOR SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES (0.5, Rules 1, 5)

In

The Court of Munsif II,
Munger, Bihar .

Title Suit # 57 of 1997.

1. Shree Narayan Singh, s/o Late Raghubar Narayan Singh and another, both residents of 'Uddiyana', Dalip Mahal, Mo. Purabsarai, P S. Kotwali, P O., Town, Municipality & Dist. Munger, Bihar.

..... Plaintiffs.

versus

1. Tenzing Gyatso, @ Dalai Lama, correctly spelt Taalai Lama and ors.
..... Defendants.

To :

Whereas the above-named plaintiffs have instituted a suit against you for 'nuisance' as defined in Secn. 38 of The Specific Relief Act 1963, you are hereby summoned to appear in this Court in person, or by a pleader duly instructed, and able to answer all material question relating to the suit, or who shall be accompanied by some person (s) able to answer all such questions, on the 4th day of Feb. 1998, at o'clock in the noon, to answer the claim; and further you are hereby directed to file on that day a written statement of your defence and to produce on the said day all documents in your possession or power upon which you base your defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, and where you rely on any other document whether in your possession or power or not, as evidence in support of your defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, and where you rely on any other document whether in your possession or power or not, as evidence in support of your defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, you shall enter such documents in a list to be annexed to the written statement.

Take notice that in default of your appearance on the day before mentioned, the suit will be heard and determined in your absence.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this day of 1997.

It is worth noting that only Tashi Wangdi has submitted a proper Power to his advocate. The Taala'i Lama, including others, seem to be blissfully aware of the laws of this country.

Written Statement on behalf of the Defendants.

IN THE COURT OF MUNSIF II, MUNGER
Suit No. 57 of 1997
1. Shree Narayan Singh S/o Late Raghubar Narayan Singh,

2. Kashyap Sagar Narayan Singh S/o Shree Narayan Singh and Harbeet Singh under the. guardianship of his father Shree Narayan ,Singh,

All residents of "Uddiyana", Dalip Malial, Mo. Purabsarai, P.S.Kolwali, (Town) P.O. Municipality and District Munger (Bihar).

Plaintiffs
Versus.
1. Tenzing Gyatso @ tlie Dalai Laina, correctly spelt as Taalai Lama, S/o not known, R/o Thekchen Choling, P.S. & P.O. Dharamsala, District Kangra, Himanchal Pradesh.
2. Tashi Wangdi, S/o not known, Minister, Bureau of the Dalai Lama, R/o Thekchen Choling, P.S. and P.O. Dharamsala, Distt. Kangra, Ilimaclial Pradesh.
3. Tai Situ Rinpoche, S/o not known, Headquarters at Sherab Ling, P.O. Sansal, Distt. Kangra, H. P.
4. Goshir Gyaltsap Rinpoche, S/o not known, R/o Dharm Chakra Centre, Vill. and P.O. Rumtek Monastery, P.S. Ranipool, Distt, Gangtok, 737 135, Sikkim.
5. Thrangu Rinpoche, Vajra Vidya Mandir, Khajuhi, P.S. and P.O. Sarnath, Disit. Varanasi, U.P.
6. Bokar Rinpoche, S/o not known, R/o Bokar Ngedon Chokhor Ling, Deosy Dhara, P.S. and P.O. Mirik 734 214, Distt. Darjeeling, W.B.
7. Kunsang Sherab, S/o not known. Member Joint Action Committee, P.S. and P.O. Gangtok, Distt. Gangtok, Sikkim.

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF ALL THE DEFENDANTS

A. OBJECTIONS TO THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE SUIT;

Para 4
1. The Defendants submit that the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine.

2. The Defendants submit that the Suit discloses no civil or any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed in limine.

3. The Defendants submit that the Suit pertains to religious and/or political and/or international matters and/or matters relating to Acts of State in respect of which no Civil Court has Jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The Defendants submit that the Suit does not raise any matter of a civil nature. The Defendants submit that any act of the Government of India in relation to His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Central Tibetan Administration at Dharamsala as well as the granting of asylum and 'facilities to the people of Tibet are Acts of State in exercise of the Sovereignty of India and the same can not be dealt with or interfered with by any Civil Court. The Supreme Court of India has held repeatedly that the municipal courts are not competent to deal with the validity of the Acts of State. See for example. State of Saurashtra v. Nemon Haji Ismail AIR 1959 SC 1383.

The Supreme Court of India has also held repeatedly that Civil Courts can not go into religious or doctrina! matters. See for example Sinha Ramanuja V. Ranga Ramanuja, AIR 1961 SC 1720: Advocate General of Bombay V. Yusuf Ali, AIR 1921 Bombay 338: Devchand v. Ghanshyam, A.IR 1935 Bombay 361.

4. The Defendants submit that no allegations can be made against the- Central Government without joining the Central Government as a party and that the Central Government cannot be joined without compliance with Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. The Defendants submit that neither His Holiness the Dalai Lama nor the Central Tibetan Administration at Dharamsala can be proceeded against in a Civil Court except with the consent of the Central Government certified by the Secretary to the Central Government in terms of Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. His Holiness tlie Dalai Lama and the Central Tibetan Administration at Dharamsala have a special international status under the comity of nations and have been awarded diplomatic immunity by the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India and as such neither His Holiness the Dalai Lama nor any high functionary of the Central Tibetan Administration at Dharamsala are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in India.

7. Neither His Holiness the Dalai Lama nor any of the other Defendants have surrendered to the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. This written statement is being filed without prejudice and to assert that this Hon'ble Court does not possess jurisdiction.

8. This Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction as none of the Defendant is residing or carrying on business or personally working for gain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court in terms of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

9. This Honourable Court has no jurisdiction as no alleged civil or other cause of action ever arose within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court in terms of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

10. The allegations in regard to alleged happenings outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court concern the years much anterior to the bar of the limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 and even on this short ground title Suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

B. PARAGRAPHW1SE REPLY TO THE PLAINT

The Defendants deny each and every averment in the Plaint except in. so far as it is expressly admitted hereunder in this reply paragraphwise:

Para I. The Plaintiff No. 1's description of himself is not admitted. All the averments in relation to any alleged research and each and every allegation against the Defendants contained in the said para, which in any event relates to non-civil matters beyond the Jurisdiction of any civil court, are expressly and specifically denied.

Para 2. It is admitted that His Holiness the Dalai Lama was and is the spiritual and temporal Ruler of Tibet and of the Tibetan people. The allegation that he was deposed is denied. The asylum given to His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Central Tibetan Administration at Dharamshala is an Act of State of the Government of India and is beyond the Jurisdiction of any Civil Court.

Para 3. The averments in relation to the Late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, former Prime Minister of India, or in relation to the. alleged non-execution of a document, which are in any event Acts of State and outside the jurisdiction of any Civil Court, are not admitted.

Para 4 The averments in this paragraph, concerns the external relations of India and exercise of sovereignty by the Government of India are outside the jurisdiction of any Civil Court, besides being vague and without particulars, and are not admitted.

Para 5 The averment in relation to the Late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, former Prime Minister of India; concerns the externals relations of India and the exercise the sovereignty by the Government of India and are, outside the jurisdiction of any Civil Court, besides being vague and without particulars, and are not admitted.

Para 6 The averments made in this paragraph are not admitted.

Para 7 All the allegations made against the people of Tibet in this paragraph are false and scandalous, and scurrilous and defamatory and are specifically denied. They constitute political defamation and denigration, of a race and clearly fall outside the jurisdiction of any Civil Court, besides being opposed to and in violation of the basic tenets of the Constitution of India.

Para 8 The allegations in this paragraph are in the nature of political defamation and denigration and outside the jurisdiction of any Civil Court and false and scandalous and scurrilous and defamatory and are specifically denied.

Para 9 The averments in relation to the Government of China and the Government of India and permission granted by the latter pertain to Acts of State and are outside the jurisdiction of any Civil Court. It is admitted that Rumtek is in Sikkim and outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Each and every allegation against the Defendants is specifically denied. The rest is not admitted.

Para 10. All the allegations in this paragraph against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the other Defendants are specifically denied. It is admitted that Rumtek is outside the local limits of this Hon'ble Court's Jurisdiction.

Para 11 There is no clear averment in this paragraph. No statement in this paragraph is admitted.

Para 12 The allegation against the Defendants in this paragraph is specifically denied.

Para 13 The averments and allegation in this paragraph relate to foreign countries and pertain the matters clearly outside the jurisdiction of any Civil Court.

Para 14 The averments and allegation relating to "religion and politics" and " 1642 AD" and "Mongol Chieftain Goshir Khan" are not justiciable by any Civil Court. No averment or allegation in this paragraph is admitted.

Para 15. It is admitted that Defendant No. 1 has received the Nobel Peace Prize. The allegations against Defendant No. 1 are false, scandalous, scurrilous and defamatory and are specifically denied.

Paras 16 & 17. The allegations against Defendant No 1 in these paragraphs are specifically denied.

Para 18 The allegations against the Defendants in this paragraph are specifically denied.

Para 19 The allegations against the Defendants in this paragraph are specifically denied.

Para 20 The allegations against the Defendants in this paragraph are specifically denied.

Paras 21 & 22. All the allegations against the Defendants in these paragraphs are specifically denied.

Para 23 The allegation in this paragraph is not admitted.

Paras 24, 25 It is admitted that the Hon'ble High Court at Patna dismissed the proceeding brought, by Plaintiff No. 1 against, the Defendants and held that the matter was non-justiciable and that if at all Plaintiff No. 1 desired he should move the appropriate authority of the Central Government. All the allegations against the Defendant are denied. The averment that Plaintiff No. 1 moved the appropriate authority of the Central Government but to no avail is not admitted for want of knowledge.

Para 26. The allegations against the Defendants in this paragraph are specifically denied The rest is not admitted for want of knowledge.

Para 27 The allegations against the Defendant in this paragraph are specifically denied.

Para 28 The allegations against the Defendants are specifically denied. The rest is not admitted for want of knowledge.

Para 29 The allegations against the Defendants are specifically denied. The rest is not admitted for want of knowledge.

C. SUBMISSIONS:-

1. It is submitted that the Suit is not maintainable under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 or under any other provisions of law. The Plaintiff have no civil or other cause of action and the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine.

2. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court has no Jurisdiction to deal with non-civil matters, matters of religious doctrine, political matters and matters concerning Act of Stale. The Plaint discloses no cause of action of civil nature in terms of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine.

3. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court has no territorial jurisdiction in terms of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure as none of the Defendants reside or carry on business or personally work for gain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and no civil or other cause of action has arisen within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and the Suit is liable to be dismissed on this short ground.

4. It is submitted that even according to the Plaintiff the alleged cause of action arose in Gangtok in Sikkim and in New Delhi both of which places are outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

5. It is submitted that the Suit is not properly valued.

6. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief and it is PRAYED that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss Suit and exemplary costs to the Defendants in view of the false, scandalous, scurrilous and defamatory statements made by the Plaintiffs.

VERIFICATION
I ____________________ , aged_____, son of ___________________ ___________________residing at _____________________________
___________________________________________________
And
I_______________________________aged_______son of__________
_________________________residing at________________________
_________________________________________________

holding authority to sign and verify this written statement on behalf of the Defendants herein state that the statements made hereinabove admitting or denying or not admitting statements made in the Plaint are based on my knowledge and on information received and believed to be true and the rest is by way of legal objection and submissions.