Back
1928 Supreme(SC) 91
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD PHILLIMORE, LORD ATKIN, LORD SALVESEN, AND SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON.
RAM CHARAN RAMANUJ DAS - Appellant
Versus
GOBINDA RAMANUJ DAS - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Calcutta.
Decided On : Dec. 17. 1928.
Solicitors for appellant:Barrow, Rogers & Nevill. Solicitors for respondent No. 1: Watkins & Hunter.
A mahant of a charitable endowment comprising multiple subordinate centers can validly appoint successors to different parts of the endowment via will; such appointments are not void as illegal partitions, distinguishing them from hereditary offices in undivided Hindu families.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Law - Appointment of Mahant - Succession to charitable endowment - Power of a mahant to appoint successors via will - Revocation of prior appointments by subsequent wills.
(B) Revocation of Wills - A subsequent will revokes a prior will to the extent of inconsistency, even in the absence of an express revocation clause.
(C) Partition of Math - The principle that endowments cannot be partitioned, typically applied to hereditary offices within undivided families, does not automatically invalidate a mahant's appointment of successors to different subordinate centers of an endowment. While such separation may be prima facie improper without justification, it is not per se ultra vires or illegal. (Paras 260-261)
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose regarding the title to the office and emoluments of the mahant of a charitable endowment consisting of a principal center and several subordinate centers. The previous mahant had executed a will in 1908 appointing one disciple as the sole successor. Subsequently, in 1918, the same mahant executed two separate wills appointing two different disciples to different portions of the endowment, with one being appointed as the gaddinishin mahant of the principal center and the other as mahant of a subordinate center. The respondent claimed that the 1918 wills were illegal as they purported to partition the endowment, and thus the 1908 will should prevail.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the 1918 wills were not inoperative. The appointment of the gaddinishin mahant in the later will was effectual, and the reservations regarding the subordinate centers did not invalidate the primary appointment.
Issues: Whether the subsequent wills were ultra vires and illegal for purporting to partition the endowment, and whether the earlier will remained operative.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prohibition against partitioning endowments applies to cases where the office is hereditary and members of an undivided family claim a share. It does not apply to a mahant appointing successors. There is no direct authority prohibiting a mahant from dividing separate subordinate centers among successors. Consequently, the later wills revoked the 1908 will by inconsistency.
Result: Appeal allowed and the suit dismissed with costs here and below.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
religious and charitable endowments
-
hindu law
-
mahant and math
- succession and appointment
- partition of endowment
-
mahant and math
-
hindu law
-
practice and procedure
- estoppel and compromise
Judgement
Law Rep. 56 Ind. App. 104 ( 1928- 1929) Ram C haran Ramanuj Das V. Gobinda Ramanuj Das
257
Appeal (No. 134 of 1927) from a decree of the High Court (February 7, 1925) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Midnapur.
The suit was brought by the first respondent for a declaration that he was gaddinishin mahant of a math in the Midnapur district, and for possession of the properties appertaining to the math. The math included a greater asthal and five lesser, or subordinate, asthals. The plaintiff claimed as chief chela of a mahant who had died on August 27, 1918, and under an appointment contained in his will executed in 1908. The appellant, who was in possession as gaddinishin mahant, claimed that under- two wills executed on August 2, 1918, by the mahant above referred to, he was gaddinishin mahant, and that the plaintiff was mahant of one of the lesser asthals only, and entitled only to the property thereto appertaining and certain property appertaining to another lesser asthal. The wills of 1918 did not in terms revoke the will of 1908.
The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit.
The High Court reversed the decision and decreed the suit. The learned judges (Walmsley and Page JJ.) held that the wills of 1918 were inoperative according to Hindu law, since they purported to partition the math. The judgment is reported at I. L. R. 52 C. 748.
1928. Nov. 16, 19. Dunne K.C. and Hyam for the appellant.
De Gruyther K.C. and Wallach for the first respondent.
[Reference was made to Mahant Ramanooj Doss v. Mahant Debraj Doss (( 1839) 6 S. D. A. (Beng.) 262.); Greedharee Doss v. Nundokissore Doss (( 1867) 11 Moo. I. A. 445.) ; Ram Parkash Das v. Anand Das (( 1916) L. R. 43 I. A. 73.); Sethuramaswamiar v. Meruswamiar (( 1917) L. R. 45 I. A. 1, 9.); Adams v. Southerden ([ 1925] P. 177.); Maynes Hindu Law, paras. 439, 440.]
Dec. 17. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD PHILLIMORE. In the district of Midnapur there is a math or charitable endowment of ancient foundation, and this appeal concerns a dispute as to the title to the office and emoluments of the mahant of this math.
Nothing is known of its earlier history. There is a deed of gift in the year 1841 to one Lachhman being then mahant. And he on September 11, 1878, appointed Bharat Das, his disciple, to be his successor in the office. The document is in the form of a letter attested by various witnesses and addressed to the appointee, and the appointment is per verba de presenti; but the document is described as a will and was registered as such, and the appointment was only to operate upon the death of the appointor. In this document Lachhman describes himself as the gaddinishin mahant of the well-known akhra named bara asthal, wherein two known idols, Raghunathjiu and Gopinathjiu and other idols have been installed from the time of his predecessors and to which certain other asthals described in the schedule, and also in his possession, are said to be subordinate, of all of which he is owner and manager. Five asthals or houses are mentioned in the schedule.
Lachhman died and was succeeded by Bharat, and Bharat in turn died on August 27, 1918. He had on February 24, 1908, executed an appointment of his successor. The document is in the same form as that by which he himself was appointed, and must be deemed to be a will. In it he describes himself as
Law Rep. 56 Ind. App. 104 ( 1928- 1929) Ram C haran Ramanuj Das V. Gobinda Ramanuj Das
258
gaddinishin chela of the mahant Lachhman, and recites his own appointment, and makes Gobinda Ramanuj, the plaintiff in the present suit and a respondent in this appeal, chief chela and malik and gaddinishin mahant like himself. To this document a schedule is appended in the same form as the schedule to the previous document containing the names and descriptions of the five minor asthals.
Ten years later, in 1918, Bharat executed two new wills. Both are da
