SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(SC) 535

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. GROVER, K.K. MATHEW AND A.K. MUKHERJEA, JJ.
His Holiness Digya Darshan Rajendra Ram Doss, Appellant
Versus
Devendra Doss, Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 407 (N) of 1971, D/- 6-11-1972.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Chagla, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. M. X. Cardoza, E. D. Agarwala and A. T. M. Sampath, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; M/s. K. R. Chowdhary and K. Rajendra Chowdhary, Advocates, for Respondent.

Advocates:
A.T.M.SAMPATH, E.C.AGARWAL, K.R.CHAUDHARY, K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, M.C.CHAGLA, M.X.CARDOZA

Headnote:

Custom - Dispute about succession - Succession to office of one is admittedly regulated by custom which provides that upon death of a said one his senior disciple becomes next - This is, however, subject to condition that senior disciple must be a North-Indian Brahmin – Other one was Mohunt of the Mutt. Upon his death in 1947 there was a dispute about succession to office of Mohunt between two contestants - Dispute appears to have been resolved by intervention of what is described as the Supreme Council of Mohunts viz. Panchayat - Whether in making a reversion to customary rule of succession to office of a mohunt such reversion is to operate from the point where said one period ended or from point when this had commenced – Held, in court opinion rule of custom should prevail in all cases and if any aberrations have to be corrected such correction must take court in direction of re-establishing rule of custom - To that extent the principle laid down in the case of (1900) ILR 24 Mad 219 is a correct principle and has to be followed - That, however, does not resolve the difficulty in this case - Assuming that said one was not a validly appointed Mohunt so that his period of office is to be ignored, question still arises whether in making a reversion to customary rule of succession to the office of a mohunt such reversion is to operate from point where Chetan Doss period ended or from point when this had commenced - In these circumstances court hold that other is entitled to succeed said one as his senior-most disciple on the strength of immemorial custom of this Mutt - In the view that court take of this matter the appeal fails and is dismissed - All the stay orders passed in this matter by this Court shall stand vacated - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

MUKHERJEA, J. :- This appeal by certificate from a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh arises out of a dispute regarding the succession to the office of the spiritual head (Mohunt) of Sri Swami Mathiramjee Mutt, Tirumalai, Tirupati. The facts out of which the appeal arises may be stated briefly. Succession to the office of the Mohunt of the Mutt is admittedly regulated by custom which provides that upon the death of a mohunt his senior disciple becomes the next mohunt. This is, however, subject to the condition that the senior disciple must be a North-Indian Brahmin. In 1947 Sri Prayagadasjee Varu was the Mohunt of the Mutt. Upon his death in 1947 there was a dispute about the succession to the office of Mohunt between two contestants viz. Sri Narayanadasjee Varu and Sri Chetandossjee Varu. The dispute appears to have been resolved by the intervention of what is described as the Supreme Council of Mohunts viz. the Akada Panchayat. Under the terms of compromise which are to be found in Ex. B-8, Sri Narayanadasjee Varu became the Mohunt and after him, the office was to devolve on Chetendoss and after Chetandoss on a senior disciple of Narayanadasjee Varu. Narayanadasjee Varu died in 1958 and there was again a dispute as to who would become the next mohunt. Chetandoss claimed to be the mohunt under the terms of Ex. B-8 while Sri Rajendra Ram Doss Jee Varu the present appellant before us claimed the office by virtue of his status as a senior disciple of Narayanadasjee Varu. Rajendra Ram Doss Jee Varu filed a suit to established his right. The dispute and the suit were both settled by another agreement between Chetandoss and Rajendra Ram Doss Jee Varu the terms of which are to be found in Ex. B-1. Under this agreement Chetandoss was to succeed Narayanadasjee Varu and, after Chetandoss, the office was to go to Rajendra Ram Doss. Very soon after this, however, on 18 March, 1962 Chetandoss died. This became the occasion for yet another dispute about the succession to the office of the mohunt. Rajendra Ram Doss claimed to be mohunt in terms of the two agreements we have referred to just now and also by virtue of his being the only surviving disciple of Narayanadasjee Varu. Devendra Doss Jee, the respondent in this appeal, however, put up a claim to the office of mohunt by virtue of his position as a senior disciple of the last reigning mohunt Chetandoss. He was, however, a minor at that time and a suit was filed on his behalf by his next friend Sri Mukundadasjee Varu, Mohunt of Bugga Mutt, Tirupati. In that suit he claimed for declaration of his title to the office of the mohunt with all the properties that are attached to that office as well as an injunction against Rajendra Ram Doss Jee Varu restraining him from interfering with the affairs of the Mutt.

2. At the time of the trial of the suit both parties agreed about two propositions:

(i) By immemorial custom and practice, upon the death of a mohunt his eldest or seniormost disciple succeeds to the Gadhi, and

(ii) Only a North-Indian Brahmin is entitled to be a mohunt.

It was contended by each party before the learned subordinate Judge that the other party was not a North-Indian Brahmin. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the defendant Rajendra Ram Doss was a North-Indian Brahmin and was also entitled to succeed as the senior disciple of Narayanadossjee Varu. According to the learned Subordinate Judge the period of mohuntship of Chetandoss was to be treated as a break in the practice of the customary rule that only the seniormost disciple succeeds upon the death of the reigning mohunt. Devendra Doss appealed against this judgment to the High Court. The High Court found on facts that Narayan Doss was not a North-Indian Brahmin and was, therefore, not entitled to being considered as a possible successor to the office of the mohunt. The High Court further held that since Devendra Doss was the senior disciple of Chetandoss he should by the rule of custom succeed to the





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top