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

1954 Supreme(Pat) 70

PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Das and Narayan JJ.
Somar Puri
Versus
Shyam Narain Gir
Appeal from Original Decree No. 507 of 1946 ;
Decided On : MAY 04, 1954

Headnote:

Mahanth of Nongarh Math - Election - Custom - Dedication - Trust - Alienation - Res judicata - Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession - Maintainability.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, claiming to be the duly elected Mahanth of Nongarh Math, brought a suit for a declaration of title and recovery of possession of certain properties said to appertain to Nongarh Math and for mesne profits and costs. The appellant claimed that he was elected in accordance with the custom or usage prevailing in the said Math. The respondents contested the suit, denying the appellant's election and claiming that the properties were the personal properties of the Mahanth.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the properties in question were the properties of the Nongarh Math and constituted a trust, the idol of Lord Shiva being the owner of the properties. The court also found that the alienations challenged by the appellant were all unjustifiable and, therefore, illegal. On the issue of election, the court found that the appellant had never been elected or installed in the gaddi of Nongarh Math. Accordingly, the court dismissed the suit.

Issues: 1. Whether the properties in suit are trust properties of charitable or religious nature, or are the personal properties of the Mahanth, who should be sitting on the seat of this Math? 2. Whether the alienations of the properties in suit, challenged by the plaintiff, are justifiable? 3. What is the character of the office of the Mahanth; whether it is hereditary or elective? 4. Whether the plaintiff has been elected and installed on the seat of this math? 5. Whether the decision in Section 92 suit is binding on the parties to the suit? If so, to what extent? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the properties in suit? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits? If so, what should be the amount thereof? 8. What relief or reliefs, if any is the plaintiff entitled to?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sanad (Ex. A) granted to Gosain Kundan Puri in 1758 was a Shivottar grant, a dedication to Lord Shiva, and not a personal grant. The court relied on the fact that the sanad stated that the grant was a Shivottar grant and should be treated as a Shivottar grant, and that there was a Shiva temple at Nongarh. 2. The court held that there was a custom of electing the Mahanth of Nongarh Math, but that the appellant had failed to prove the particular rule or custom which he pleaded in paragraph 3 of the plaint. The court also found that the appellant had failed to prove that he was elected Mahanth of the Nongarh Mahal in accordance with the prevailing rule or custom of the Math. 3. The court held that the alienations of the Math properties by Mahanth Lachuman Puri were not justified by legal necessity and were, therefore, illegal.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Judgment

Das, J.

1. The plaintiff of the Court below is the appellant here. The appeal is from a decision of the learned second Subordinate Judge of Monghyr, dated 31-8-1946, in Title Suit No. 20 of 1944.

The appellant brought the suit for a declaration of title and recovery of possession of certain properties said to appertain to Nongarh, Math, and described in Schedules I to VII appended to the plaint, and for mesne profits and costs. The appellant claimed that he was the duly elected Mahanth of a Math or Asthal called Nongarh Math in the district of Monghyr, elected in accordance with the custom or usage prevailing in the said Math. His case was that there was a temple of Lord Shiva in village Nongarh.

Near about 1758 A.D. Sri Sri Amar Singh, the then Maharaja Gidhour, dedicated Mahal Nongarh tauzi No. 338, to Lord Shiva of the aforesaid temple. Thirty-two bighas of land situate in mahal Manjhwa, tauzi No. 8271 of the same district, where also there was a Shiva Temple, were similarly dedicated as Shivottar. It was alleged that both the dedications were for public, religious and charitable purposes, the purposes being (a) to make necessary arrangements for the worship of the idol of Lord Shiva, (b) for feeding, supporting and maintaining Sadhus, and (c) for giving alms to the poor.

Since the creation of the endowments the Mahanth of Nongarh Math managed the properties; and the custom of the Math is that one of the disciples of the preceding Mahanth or, if there is no disciple of the preceding Mahanth, any suitable disciple of any previous Mahanth or grand chela of any previous Mahanth, residing in the said Asthal, is selected by the people of the locality to become the successor-in-office of the preceding Mahanth, who is installed to the office of Mahanthship by observance of certain religious and customary ceremonies.

The appellant claimed that he was the disciple of Sri Pokhraj Puri, Gurubhai of Mahanth Shyam Lall Puri and disciple of Mahanth Gandhari Puri. After the death of Mahanth Gandhari Puri, Mahanth Shyam Lall Puri was elected to the gaddi in accordance with the aforesaid custom. After the death of Mahanth Shyam Lall Puri, Mahanth Lachuman Puri, disciple of Shyam Lall Puri, was installed in the gaddi by election according to the custom mentioned above. Mahanth Lachuman Puri began to live an immoral life and became addicted to drinks and other vices. He began to waste the endowed properties and make illegal alienations.

In 1935 a suit (Title Suit No. 3 of 1935) was brought under Section 92, Civil P. C. in the court of the District Judge, Monghyr, for an adjudiaction that the properties appertaining to Nongarh Math were endowed properties for public, religious and charitable purposes and also for removal of Mahanth Lachuman Furi. It was stated that the District Judge in that suit held that the properties of Nongarh Asthal were trust properties endowed for public, charitable and religious purposes; but as there were no grounds for the removal of Lachuman Puri, the suit was accordingly dismissed.

Mahanth Lachuman Puri died on 17-4-1940, without leaving any disciple. The appellant was then elected to the gaddi of Nongarh Math on 5-5-1940, and came in possession of the properties appertaining to the Math. It was stated that besides Mahals Nongarh and Manjhwa, there were about 100 bighas of raiyati lands situate in village Charan which had been acquired by previous Mahanths and had become part and parcel of the endowed properties.

In paragraph 10 of the plaint, details were given of the alleged illegal alienations said to have been made by Mahanth Lachuman Puri, and it was stated that Mahanth Lachuman Puri sold the entire Tauzi No. 338 to the defendant second party, Mahanth Shamsher Gir of village Sibsona, by two sale deeds dated 3-12-1936 and 8-11-1937. Mahanth Lachuman Gir also sold the entire 100 bighas of lands in village Charan to the defendant fourth party. Mahanth Lachuman Puri alienated some of the lands of Mahal Ma































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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