1. Dispute over Mahantship of a Hindu religious institution — claim for declaration of right to office and recovery of possession based on alleged forfeiture due to marriage. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
1944 Supreme(SC) 42
Privy Council At Patna
Sir John Beaumont, Sir Madhavan Nai Air, Goddard, Wright, Justice Lords Russel of Killowen, JJ.
Rambhusan Das -Appellant
Versus
Anand Das -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 60 of 1941; Patna Appeal No. 35 of 1940
Decided On : 06-12-1944
Advocates Appeared:
Dold, Douglas Grant, Hy. S.L. Polak and Co., R.K. Handoo, D.N. Pritt , A.G.P. Puttan, Charles Bagram
Dold, Douglas Grant, Hy. S.L. Polak and Co., R.K. Handoo, D.N. Pritt , A.G.P. Puttan, Charles Bagram
A claimant seeking a religious office based on recognition by an assembly must prove the underlying qualification (such as being a disciple) upon which that recognition is predicated; failure to prove such status precludes the right to maintain the suit.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Religious Endowments - Succession to the office of Mahant - Custom and usage governing monastic institutions - Qualification of celibacy - Effect of marriage on the tenure of a Mahant - Right to maintain a suit for declaration of title to a religious office. (Paras 4, 5, 6)
(B) Interpretation of resolutions passed by an assembly of religious heads - Recognition of a successor as a disciple - If the title to the office is based on being a disciple (chela), the failure to prove such a relationship precludes the claimant from maintaining a suit for the office, regardless of any subsequent "selection" or "recognition" by an assembly if such action is not supported by a custom allowing the election of outsiders. (Paras 16-38)
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed for a declaration of right to the office of Mahant of a monastic Hindu religious institution and recovery of its properties. The claimant alleged that the incumbent Mahant forfeited his office by marrying, violating the custom of celibacy. An assembly of neighboring Mahants had passed a resolution removing the incumbent and recognizing the claimant as the successor. The incumbent contested the claimant's status as a disciple and denied that marriage resulted in the forfeiture of the office.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the claimant was not a disciple of the incumbent. The resolution passed by the assembly was interpreted as recognizing the claimant as Mahant on the basis that he was a fit disciple, not as an outsider elected irrespective of the disciple relationship. Since the claimant failed to establish the essential qualification of being a disciple, he had no title to the office.
Issues: (1) Whether the claimant had the right to maintain the suit based on the resolution of the assembly; (2) Whether the incumbent Mahant was disqualified from holding office due to his marriage according to the customs of the institution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claimant's title depended on the recognition by the assembly, which was predicated on the claimant being a disciple of the previous Mahant. As the fact of being a disciple was not established, the claimant had no legal standing to maintain the suit. Consequently, the question of whether marriage caused forfeiture of the office became academic and did not require determination. (Paras 32-38)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
Sir Madhavan Nair. -
This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated 4th October 1940, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga, dated 20th May 1936, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. During the pendency of the appeal in the Privy Council, Anand Das the defendant-respondent died and after contest between two rival claimants, Madan Mohan Das and Jadu Nandan Das, the High Court of Patna decided on 26th February 1943, that for the purposes of this appeal, and without prejudice to the right of Jadu Nandan Das to establish his claim by regular suit to be instituted hereafter, the name of Madan Mohan should be substituted in the place of the deceased respondent. Accordingly, Mohan Das, a minor, with his natural father Juggernath Boy as his guardian ad litem, has been substituted as respondent in this appeal. In this judgment the deceased respondent will be referred to as the respondent. . .
[2] The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff appellant for a declaration that he and not the defendant-respondent was the rightful Mahant of the Asthal known as the Mirzapur Asthal, and for recovery of possession of the suit properties appertaining to the Asthal.
[3] Two questions arise for determination an this appeal : (1) whether the appellant has any right to maintain the suit; (2) whether the respondent is disqualified from remaining as the Mahant by reason of his marriage, in accordance with the custom and usage which regulated the succession to the Asthal.
[4] An Asthal is a Hindu religious institution of a monastic nature. Its head is called a Mahant and the disciples are known as chelas. The Mirzapur Asthal hereafter referred to as "the Asthal," is situated in village Mirzapur in the district of Darbhanga. It is an asthal of importance with an annual income of Rs. 80,000. It belongs, as has been found by the Courts in India to the Lashkari Ramanandi sect of Vaishnava Bairagis (mendicants). The Asthal was founded by Lachhmi Ram the chela of one Goshain Ramlalla, at some date between the years 1732 and 1750 A. D. Four other chelas of Ramlalla founded four other Asthals in the neighbourhood, namely, the Asthals of Narghoghi, Rampatti, and Raipur, in the Darbhanga district, and Chorauth in the Mozaffarpur district. The Asthal is now admitted to be a maurasi (hereditary) Asthal where the succession is from guru (a spiritual teacher) to chela. In each case of succession, the successor was the chela of the preceding Mahant except in the case of Ajodhia Das, the fifth Mahant who was appointed as his successor by his "gurubhai" (the co-disciple of a religious teacher) Ramprasad, both having been disciples of Mahant Bhagwan Das. The respondent was the 10th Mahant. The first seven Mahants of the Asthal were all celibates. The eighth Mahant, Ramcharan, had married after he became Mahant. This gave rise to litigation started by his chela Deva Das which was afterwards compromised. Ramcharan remained a Mahant for the remainder of his life and was succeeded by Deva Das who nominated the respondent his chela to succeed him. He succeeded to the Mahantship on the death of his guru in 1919. He married in 1929, and this gave rise to the present suit.
[5] Paragraph 4, cls. 1 to 5 of the plaint sets out the rules and custom regulating succession to the Mahantship of the Asthal. According to these, only a celibate Vairagi Vishnava of Lashkary Ramanandi sect can become a Mahant, and the reigning Mahant usually appoints one of his celibate Bairagi chelas, if he is of good moral character, to succeed him (cls. 1 and 2). If for any reason he fails to appoint any one as his successor during his lifetime, then the senior-most chela succeeds, provided he is celibate and fit, but, if he is unfit, then any one of the celibate chelas who is fit succeeds him, and the Mahants and others mentioned in cl. 3 assemble together and invest him with the insignia of his office, chadar and pagri (shaw
