Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (August 26, 1910) reversing a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge (Second Court) of Mozufferpur (June 16, 1909).

The suit related to the mahantship of a math known as asthal Patepur, of which the first respondent became mahant in 1866. By a will made in 1890 he nominated his nephew the second respondent (Ram Partab Singh), described as his senior chela, to succeed him. By a deed executed in 1897 he purported to constitute the second respondent mahant in his place, and made over to him the properties of the asthal subject to certain conditions. These conditions included the reservation of an annuity of Rs. 12,000 and of a consultative right in the affairs of the asthal, together with a provision that the second respondent should not be entitled to appoint a successor without the sanction of the grantor. The second respondent was ceremoniously instituted as mahant, and mutation of names took place as to the properties. By an ekrarnama entered into by the respondents in 1904 it was agreed that the third respondent, the brother of the second respondent, should succeed the latter as mahant.

In 1906 the appellant instituted a suit alleging that he was senior bairagi chela of the first respondent and that in that capacity he was entitled as of right to succeed him as mahant. He alleged that neither the second nor third respondents were bairagi chelas, and that the second respondent was disqualified from being mahant since he was a married man who had had children since his purported initiation. He claimed that the documents above referred to were collusive and invalid, and prayed for a declaration that he was entitled to succeed the first respondent, or alternatively, if it should be held that the first respondent had resigned, that he should be put into possession of the office and properties.

The respondents filed separate written statements by which it was denied that the appellant was a chela of, or had any connection with, the asthal; it was further alleged that according to the custom of the math the mahant had the right to appoint his successor from among the bairagi chelas, and reliance was placed upon the deed and ekrarnama.

The Subordinate Judge found that the appellant was senior bairagi chela and that according to the custom of the math he was entitled to succeed if competent, which he admittedly was. With regard to the further issues, it was found that the second and third respondents were chelas of the first respondent, but that the second respondent was disqualified for the reason alleged, that the deed and ekrarnama were collusive and void, and that the first respondent had effectually relinquished the office. A decree was made that the appellant was entitled to the mahantship and to possession of the properties, subject to a certain provision for the maintenance of the first respondent.

The High Court reversed the decision of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the suit. The learned judges (Brett and Vincent JJ.) found that the appellant was not a chela of the first respondent at all, and therefore, in any event, was not entitled to succeed. They further found that according to the custom of the math the mahant had the right to select one of his bairagi chelas and to appoint him by a mahanti deed to succeed ; that the second and third respondents were bairagi chelas, the evidence that the second respondent was a married man being inconclusive.

The third respondent died before the hearing of the present appeal.

The arguments before the Judicial Committee were almost wholly confined to the facts of the case.

1916. Feb. 3, 7, 8, 9,10,14,15,16,17. Dunne, for the appellant.

Sir W. Garth and Dube, for the respondents.

In the course of the argument counsel referred to Greedharee Doss v. Nundokissore Doss (( 1867) 11 Moo. Ind. Ap. 405.); Rajah Muttu Ramalinga Setupati v. Perianayagam Pillai (( 1874) L. R. 1 Ind. Ap. 209.); Rajah Vurma Valiah v. Ravi Vurma