JUDGMENT

Kendall, J. - This appeal arises from a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is the "gaddinashin owner" of the property named in the plaint and the mahanth of Chaitan Math, a Sikh Math, in the city of Benares. The late mahanth, Ratan Singh, died on 23rd June 1928 leaving the defendant-appellant, Satnam Singh, in possession of the math property, after nominating him as his successor and executing a will in his favour. The plaintiff, who is now called Bawan Bhagwan Singh, is by birth a Brahmin, whose Hindu name was Murli, and is the son of a man originally named Mahadeo, who acted as cook of the late mahant for several years. Both father and son were converted, to Sikhism and renamed Hardeo Singh and Bawan Bhagwan Singh, and both, according to the evidence for the plaintiff, were initiated as chelas of the late mahant; and subsequently on 13th April 1928, Bhagwan Singh was installed as mahant under the guardianship of his father, but was afterwards turned out in favour of the appellant, Satnam Singh. The case for the plaintiff was that the will executed by the late mahant in favour of Satnam Singh on 5th June 1928 was a collusive document obtained by fraud and undue pressure, and that in view of the fact that the plaintiff had himself been installed as mahant during the life-time of the late mahant, it was invalid, and the ceremonies of nominating Satnam Singh during the lifetime of the late mahant and subsequently installing him were ineffective. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant, Satnam Singh, on the grounds that the plaintiff was not a chela of Ratan Singh's (in the written statement it was said that he was not even a Sikh, but this objection was dropped), that he was never installed as mahant, and that the defendant-appellant himself was a chela and had been nominated and duly installed as mahant; and amongst his evidence he included two photographs of groups taken at his nomination and installation ceremonies. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the will of the late mahant was duly executed, and that there was no doubt also that the ceremonies of nominating and installing the appellant were observed; but he has also found that the appellant was not a "chela" of the late mahant's. As regards the plaintiff, the finding is that he was duly installed first, and consequently that the late mahant had no longer any disposing power when he executed the will in favour of the appellant, so that it was of no effect, as were the ceremonies of nominating and installing the appellant.

2. The circumstances that led up to the suit, so far as they appear from the evidence, are as follows:

According to the plaintiff and his witnesses, the plaintiff's father, Hardeo Singh (who is a party to the suit), who had been acting as a cook to the late mahant for the last 10 or 11 years, and the plaintiff himself were initiated as chelas on 16th March 1927. There has been some juggling with the alleged date of this initiation, for at one time it is said to have been in 1984 Sambat, and that is the date given in the plaint. But the trial Court has found that the earlier date is correct, and we do not feel justified in differing from this decision. As we are clearly of opinion that the plaintiff, and his father were initiated as chelas, the exact date on which the ceremony took place is not of great importance. On 23rd March 1928 there was a meeting of Nirmal Sadhuis in Benares and a resolution was passed urging the mahant not to give the gaddi to Bhagwan Singh. The meeting has been described by Narhari Narain Singh, a witness for the plaintiff, who stated that, in order to organise the opposition, a president and secretary were appointed, and it was decided that sadhus should be deputed to the Punjab for holding meetings and passing resolutions, etc.; some documents were produced in evidence by the plaintiff to show that these meetings took place and that these resolutions were passed, and some of these