Back
1977 Supreme(Bom) 109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(G. N, Vaidya and R. L. Agarwal JJ.)
RUKMINIBAI GURU RAJDHARBUWA
MAHANUBHAV SUKENKAR- Appellant.
Versus
NANABUWA GURU UMABAI MAHANUBHAV
SPKENKAR, since deceased by his heir
Bapu Guru Nanabuwa Mahanubhav - Respondent.
First Appeal No. 558 of 1969
Decided on 7-7-1977
For appellant – M.L. Pendse
For respondent – M.A. Rane
In matters of succession to Math and Math properties, the usage of the particular Math governs, and the burden of proof lies on the party claiming a right to establish the usage.
Headnote:
SUCCESSION TO MATH AND MATH PROPERTIES - USAGE OF PARTICULAR MATH - BURDEN OF PROOF - ADVERSE POSSESSION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Rukminibai, claimed a right, title, and interest in certain properties belonging to the Mahanubhav Panth, including a house, a temple, and three pieces of land. She alleged that she was the disciple (shishya) of Rajdharbuwa, who was the previous Mahant of the Math, and that she was entitled to a share in the management of the Puja and other archa in the Matha. The defendant, Umabai, claimed that she was the rightful successor to the Math and its properties as she was the disciple of Rajdharbuwa's predecessor, Yesubuwa.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish her rights as claimed in the suit because she did not plead or establish the usage of the Math supporting her right. The court also held that the defendant had not established the usage that after becoming a Mahant, he had no right over the estate that he had before becoming a Mahant.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had established her right to a share in the suit properties as the disciple of Rajdharbuwa? 2. Whether the defendant had established the usage that after becoming a Mahant, he had no right over the estate that he had before becoming a Mahant? 3. Whether the suit was barred by adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish her right to a share in the suit properties as the disciple of Rajdharbuwa because she did not plead or establish the usage of the Math supporting her right. The court noted that the plaintiff did not mention any usage in her plaint and that the evidence she led did not clearly establish the usage. 2. The court held that the defendant had not established the usage that after becoming a Mahant, he had no right over the estate that he had before becoming a Mahant. The court noted that the defendant's evidence was not sufficient or well established to support his contention.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, confirming the decree dismissing the suit. The court also set aside the decree for costs passed by the trial court and ordered that the parties should bear their own costs throughout.
VAIDYA J. – The main question which arises in the above First Appeal, is whether the appellant-plaintiff Rukminibai can claim any right title or interest in the suit properties comprising of a house dedicated to Mahanubhav Panth situated in Pimpad in taluka Niphad, District Nasik; another hours dedicated to Mahanubhav Panth situated in village Wadali, Taluka Nipad; and in the three pieces of lands which belonged to the other Mahanubhav Panth and to a share in the management of Puja and other archa in the said Matha.
2. It is well settled that once a Matha is established succession to headship takes place within the spiritual family according to the usages that grow up in a particular institution. In a Matha it is the custom or practice of a particular institution which determines as to how a successor is to be appointed. In various institutions the custom is that in order to entitle a Chela to succeed, he must be appointed or nominated by the reigning Mahant during his lifetime or shortly before his death and this may be done either by a written declaration or some sort of testamentary document.
3. In other cases again the nominee is formally installed in the office and some sort of recognition is accorded to him by the members of the particular sect either during the lifetime of the last Mahant or when the funeral ceremonies of the latter are performed. When the Mahant has the right to appoint his successor he may exercise the right by an act inter vivos or by will. In a Matha it is possible for the Mahant to make over the endowment during his lifetime to his Chela whom he appoints as a successor.
4. In many cases when successor is appointed by Mahant he is installed in office with certain ceremonies. This cannot be deemed to be essential. See Mahanth Bhagwan Bhagat v. Girija Nandan Bhagat and others1. In Mukharji’s The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, Third Edition, 1970 at pages 269 and 270, the Law is summarized as follows:
“Three things you would have to bear in mind in connection with the question of succession to the office of a Mahant. The first is that if the grantor has laid down any particular rule of succession that is to be given effect to. Secondly in the absence of any grant the usage of the particular institution is to be followed and in the third place the party who lays claim to the office of a Mahant on the strength of any such usage must establish it affirmatively by proper legal evidence. The fact that the defendant is a trespasser would not entitle the plaintiff to succeeds even though he be a disciple of the last Mahant unless he succeeds in proving the particular usage under which succession takes place in the particular institution.”
See Genda Puri and another And Chhatar Puri2.
5. We are concerned in the present case in the present case with the Matha and Mahant properties of what is known as Mahanubhav Panth. It is to be regretted that neither in the paint nor in the written statement or the evidence the parties have tried to plead or establish the true nature of the suit Mathas and properties in accordance with Mahanubhav Pantha.
6. In Chatturbhuj Vithaladas Jasani v. Moreshwar Parashram and others3, where the questions was about the fact of the conversion of Mahar into Mahanubhav Pantha with respect to his inclusion in the scheduled caste for the purpose of the allegation Bose J. speaking for the Court observed at pages 836 and 837 as follows:-
“The only questions here is whether he ceased to be a Mahar when he joined the Mahanubhav Panth. This gave rise to much controversy and we have been presented with many conflicting opinions. Thus the Imperial Gazetteer of India, Volume XXI, page, 301, state8~hat the founder of the sect repudiated the caste system as also a multiplicity of Gods and insisted on the monotheistic principle. At the' same time it says that he taught his disciples to eat with none but the initiated and to break off all former ties of caste and religion. Russell in Volu
