1971 Supreme(All) 232

Allahbad High Court
A.K.KIRTY
Krishna Singh - Appellant
Versus
Mathura Ahir - Respondent
Decided On : 11/02/1971

Headnote:

MATH - SUCCESSION - CUSTOM - DISQUALIFICATION OF SUDRA - VALIDITY - CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES - APPLICABILITY - Held, the disqualification of a Sudra to enter into an order of Sanyasam or asceticism did not survive with the passage of time. This is clear from the fact that Sudra Maths came to be established in several places in India. This would have been impossible if the very orthodox and conservative inhibitions prevailed under which a Sudra was debarred from entering into the order of Sanyasam. From a perusal of Mukherjea's book referred to above and other books on the subject it will be clear that in the Vedic Ages Sanyasam as such was unknown. It is also clear that maths were also unknown. The asceticism recognised by Vedas and other religious texts was for those who adopted the life of mendicants. They were debarred from acquiring or holding property other than the barest minimum necessary for their sustenance. Therefore when maths came to be established presided over by a superior or Mahant, the law itself underwent a radical change, because although in most of the maths only Sanyasis were deemed to be qualified to hold the office of Mahant, the mahants were recognised as having in a large measure dominion and control over the math properties and the income therefrom. This position would be wholly inconsistent with the rigorous life of a Sanyasi prescribed by ancient Hindu texts.

Fact of the Case:

The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on 21-8-1951 against respondents 2 to 5 inter alia, for the ejectment of the said defendant-respondents from house No.C-27/ 33 Mohallah Jagatganj, Varanasi. It was pleaded that Avodhesh Narain, defendant No.1 had taken the house on rent at Rs.15/- per month from Swami Atmavivekanand, the deceased Guru of the plaintiff. Defendants 2 to 4 were alleged to have been put in possession of the house illegally by defendant No.1. The suit was contested by the defendants, who denied the tenancy and, inter alia, pleaded that they were in occupation of the house as chelas of Swami Atmavivekanand in their own right by virtue of the licence granted to them by the said Swamiji. The plaintiff's right to sue was denied and it was alleged that he was neither chela of the Swamiji nor his successor. It was alleged that on the death of Swami Atmavivekanand his natural son and disciple. Shri Krishna became the owner of the house in suit, in any case, was not math property. He further pleaded that the plaintiff being a Sudra was legally incompetent to become a Sanyasi and that the plaintiff was not the mahant of the alleged Garwaghat math. The said defendant claimed that after the death of Swami Atmavivekanand he became the owner of the house in suit by inheritence, as also of the properties alleged by the plaintiff to belong to Garwaghat Math. All these properties, according to defendant No.5, were secular and personal properties of his father Baikunth Singh, who was also known as Swami Atmavivekanand.

Finding of the Court:

The court below while reversing some of the findings of the trial court upheld the decree. The instant appeal has been filed by defendant No.5 only, who was also sole appellant in the court below.

Issues: 1. Whether Swami Atmavivekanand was a Sanyasi and whether there existed any Math known by the name "Math Garwaghat", and, if so, whether Swami Atmavivekanand was the Mahant of this Math? 2. Whether the plaintiff is a Sanyasi and could be initiated into Sanyasi, and, if he is a Sanyasi, whether he was installed as a Mahant of the Math according to the custom and usage of the religious order concerned; and 3. Whether the disputed house was the secular property of Swami Atmavivekanand or was it Math property and, in any case, who is the successor of Swami Atmavivekanand?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The disqualification of a Sudra to enter into an order of Sanyasam or asceticism did not survive with the passage of time. 2. The plaintiff and his two predecessors were not legally incompetent to hold the office of the Mahant of the Math in question. 3. The plaintiff as held by the courts below, was entitled in his capacity as the Mahant of the Math to institute the suit for recovery of possession of the house in suit, which was rightly held by the trial court to appertain to the Math. 4. Even if there be any room for doubt as to whether the plaintiff validly assumed and held the office of the Mahant of the Math, though I have none, I fully endorse the finding of the trial court that he in any event as the de facto Mahant was entitled to sue for the recovery of the property.

Final Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs.