A subsequent Will revoking an earlier Will is valid if good cause is shown and the nominee under the earlier Will has not completed the religious ceremonies to endorse the nomination.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.02.2009 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed.

2. The facts relevant to the case are that there exists "Dadumath" at village Sardarpura, District Tonk. To regulate the affairs of the aforesaid "Math", a public trust was created and got registered with Devsthan Department. According to the arrangement made, the "Mahant" was taken as head of spiritual family consisting of disciples. Succession of the "Mahant" was to be made by nomination in the form of will or as per the custom prevalent in "Dadupant Community". Mahant Gordhan Das made a "Will" on 15.01.1980 with its registration on 19.01.1980, nominating appellant as a next Mahant. Mahant Gordhan Das then expired on 17.02.1987. At the time of death, the appellant was minor, he moved an application through the guardian for appointing him as "Mahant". One Suraj Karan Das also made in application of similar nature before Assistant Commissioner of Devsthan Department. After hearing both the parties, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the application of the appellant vide order dated 10.07.1989 and at the same time, accepted the application of the respondent Suraj Karan Das. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Devsthan, Udaipur, which was also dismissed, thus the appellant preferred the writ petition but therein also, the appellant remained unsuccessful.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that once the Will is executed nominating the appellant as "Mahant", subsequent Will cannot be executed and otherwise also, the appellant was member of spiritual family, thus entitled to become "Mahant". It is stated that the Will initially executed on 15/19.01.1980 was erroneously revoked on 01.09.1983. In the subsequent Will, the respondent No. 2 was nominated as "Mahant" but in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal v. His Holiness Sri La Sri Kasivasi Arulnandi Thambiran Swamigal, reported in AIR 1974 SC 199 , once the Will is executed nominating one person as Successor of the `Math', subsequent will cannot be executed unless good cause is shown. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Judge failed to consider this aspect of the matter while upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner of the Devsthan Department.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Will dated 19.01.1980, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant was subsequently cancelled and a new Will was made on 01.09.1983 Pursuant to the aforesaid Will, the respondent has rightly been taken as Mahant of the Math. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred above is concerned, same is no applicable in the facts of this case. On cancellation of the Will, the document becomes non-existent and accordingly, no reliance can be placed on non-existent document. The subsequent Will dated 91.09.1983 was created looking to the fact that the appellant was only minor not only till the year 1983 but even at the time while Mahant Gordhan Das died in the year 1987, hence the Will dated 19.01.1989 was cancelled and new Will was created on 01.09.1983. The appellant was never taker as `Mahant' after completion of the religious ceremonies, which otherwise a material fact considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal (Supra).

5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

6. So far as the first issue is concerned, from the perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dealing with the factual aspects, it comes out that the first will was executed on 19.01.1917 but was then cancelled pursuant to the second Will dated 01.09.1983. The reasons given is that the appellant was a minor, therefore, not in position to l