No specific right in favour of individual disciples or Chelas can be recognised apart from usage. The court also found that no usage of the institution was established.

Judgement

DAS, J. :- The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit relates to an institution called Sri Biranchi Narayan Muth at Buguda, Ghumsur Taluk, Ganjam District. As appears from the connected civil Revisions Nos. 159/17 and 8/48 which have been heard with this appeal there appears to be some reasonable doubt whether this institution is a Muth or temple. But so far as this appeal is concerned, it has proceeded on the assumption put forward by the plaintiff in his plaint that it is a Muth. This has not been traversed by the defendant is his written statement. The plaintiffs case is that the defendant is the Mahant of the Muth and that he is his duly constituted Chela and that his residence in the Muth has been made impossible by the wrong conduct of the defendant and that he is denied even food and raiment and that he has had to leave the Muth in 1930. He accordingly asserts a right to be maintained out of the Muth funds and brings the suit against the defendant as the head of the Muth for recovery of maintenance past and future. The suit is of 1934 and has had a chequered career. It was decreed by the then Subordinate Judge of Berhampur in 1936 who held that the plaintiff was entitled to get a maintenance of Rs. 20 p.m. for the future from the date of the suit and arrears of maintenance at Rs. 10 p.m., for three years prior to the suit. On appeal to the learned District Judge, the then District Judge on 31st August 1937, recorded what be considered to be compromise between the parties to the effect that the plaintiff should get maintenance at Rs. 7 8-0 P.M. from the date of the suit and Rs. 5 p.m. for past arrears. On second appeal, it was found that the advocates who purported to compromise were not duly empowered to do so. The District Judges decree was accordingly set aside and the appeal was remanded to the District Court for fresh disposal. On remand the learn District Judge after rehearing the appeal, felt that it was necessary to frame an issue for ascertaining whether the essential formalities required for the valid initiation ceremony were gone through when the plaintiff was initiated. He accordingly set aside the decision of the Subordinate Judge in favour of the plaintiff given in 1936, and remanded the case on 3rd February 1942 to the trial Court for disposal, according to law. After remand the plaintiff has examined one additional witness, P.W. 6. The defendant has re-examined himself and his original fifth witness and has also examined three additional witnesses, D.Ws. 6, 7 and 8. In addition, the plaintiff has elicited some answers from the defendant on interrogatories, the answers being on dates 27th October 1942 and 28th February 1943. At the original trial the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiff was duly constituted and initiated as a Chela of the defendant ? (2) Whether the plaintiff has been initiated into Sanyasgrahan and has adopted the ascetic order from that date ? (3) Even if he has been initiated into Chelaship, whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim maintenance from the defendant ? (4) Whether the plaintiff is guilty of any conduct disentitling him to any maintenance ? (5) What if any in the right of maintenance to be allowed to the plaintiff ?

2. After remand of the suit to the trial Court, the following additional issues were framed on 24th March 1942 presumably in pursuance of the District Judges order of remand.

(1) To which sect of the Vaishnavites does the defendant belong ? (2) What are essential ceremonies that are according to the custom and practice prevailing in the Muth of the defendant, required for the valid initiation of a Chela in the said Muth ? (3) Whether the said ceremonies were performed in the case of the plaintiff ?

3. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was brought by the defendant to his Muth in the year 1914, when he was a boy of about 7 years and very shortly thereafter he executed a will Ex. 2, dated 16th April 1915, whereby he a