The main legal point established in the judgment is that the renunciation of the world by a deceased individual can sever their natural relations and inheritance rights, and a Sanyasi could own property with the Chela being the legal heir to succeed to the property.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. This first appeal is filed under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against the judgment of the probate court dated 31.5.2004 by which the probate court below has allowed the application of the respondent no.2 herein for revocation of the letters of administration granted on 6.2.1997 in the probate case bearing no.163/1997 in favour of the appellant/petitioner.

2. Before me, it could not be disputed, as stated in para 2 of the impugned judgment, that the issue of whether the deceased Sh. Gokal Chand did or did not renounce the world and became Swami Kesar Bharti was subject matter of a decision of a civil court in Punjab and which ultimately reached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in RSA No.1723 of 1983 titled as Kundan Lal Vs. Atam Parkash and Ors. In this judgment, the High Court has given its stamp of finality with respect to Sh. Gokal Chand @ Swami Kesar Bharti having taken sanyas and therefore renouncing the world. Since Sh. Gokal Chand @ Swami Kesar Bharti renounced the world, all his natural relations with natural heirs were severed and such natural heirs as per the personal law cannot claim inheritance and rights to the properties of Sh. Gokal Chand @ Swami Kesar Bharti on the ground of entitlement under the personal law.

3. The relevant paras of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court are paras 6 to 10 and which read as under:-

“6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that if the property is admitted to be a separate property of Gokal Chand and did not belong to any religious order, the plaintiff as a legal heir and the nearest agnate was entitled to succeed to the estate. Learned counsel would rely on the judgment in Krishan Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir and others AIR 1980 SC 707 to contend that without proof of religious ceremonies, line of succession cannot deviate from the succession to a legal heir, as per the rules of succession mentioned under the Hindu Succession Act. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would rely on the judgment of the Privy Council in Pandit Parma Nand Vs. Nihal Chand and another AIR 1938 Privy Council 195, which has also been referred to by the trial Court and Appellate Court to contend that even a private property acquired by a Mahant descends to a Chela and a descent to a Chela does not warrant its nature as religious. Learned counsel also refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sital Das Vs. Sant Ram and others AIR 1954 SC 606 that held that entrance into religious order generally operates as a civil death. The man who becomes an ascetic severs his connection with the members of his natural family and being adopted by his preceptor becomes, so to say a spiritual son of the latter.

VI. A Sanyasi need not be attached to any particular religious order – A secular sanyasi is not opposed to tradition.

7. It may seem a contradiction in terms that a Sanyasi that renounces the world leaves large properties for persons to fight for. A Mahant or Sanyasi that renounces the world cannot normally be expected to carry large chunk of properties in his peregrination. A Sanyasi, who is said to renounce the world, cannot be attached to property. But strange are the ways of world that it is ever an experience that Mahants and Sanyasis come to possess large estate and revel in luxury. It is normally expected that Sansayis or Mahants, who come by large donations from disciples secure the benefits of such acquisitions for the public at large and not for personal consumption. A Sanyasi may not at all times be professing any particular religion. A person that truly transcends sectarian approaches of ordinary mortals could alone be said to be a person, who is liberated. In this case, an attempt is made by plaintiff to show that the Gokal Chand was not attached to any particular religious order. The properties held by him ought to therefore devolve only on the blood relations and it ought not to be taken as a property acquir