JUDGMENT

Bajpai, J. - This is an appeal by the defendant Jagarnath Gir arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Sher Bahadur tSingh, for possession of zamindari property in two villages, Gopijot known as Shanker-jot 16 annas and Kundaria Ganesh, 5 annas 4 pies. The plaintiff's allegations were that Onkar Bharthi was the absolute owner of the property in suit and that he died leaving behind him his widow Musammat Marat and his mother Musammat Lakhraji, defendant No. 2, that after the death of Onkar Bharthi Musammat Murat entered into possession of the property as a limited owner and on her death Musammat Lakhraji, the mother, became entitled to the property. The plaint then goes on to say that after the death of Musammat Murat there were disputes regarding mutation in the Revenue Court and, although the first Court decided in favour of Masammat Lakhraji, the appellate Revenue Court decided in favour of Jagarnath Gir, who, however, was not the chela of Onkar Bharthi nor was the property a math property and Onkar Bharthi had no right to initiate a disciple. It is then slated that Musammat Lakhraji the second defendant has executed a sale-deed dated February 13, 1923, in favour of the plaintiff transferring the plaint property and all the rights appertaining thereto to the plaintiff.

2. Musammat Lakhraji supported the plaintiff but Jagarnath Gir filed a written statement pleading that the property in suit was not the personal property of Onkar Bharthi but belonged to the nihang gaddi of math Shankerjot and has, according to the custom of the gaddi, been devolving with the office of the mahant upon the chela initiated by the last holder of the gaddi. It was then said that Onkar Bhirthi was like his predecessors a nihang sadhu and that Jagarnath Gir was initiated a chela by Onkar Bharthi, that Onkar Bharthi could not take a wife nor could Musammat Murat, even if she was married, get a right of inheritance. As regards defendant No. 2, Musammat Lakhraji, it was pleaded that she was neither the mother of Onkar Bharthi nor the wife of Oudh Bharthi but was a fictitious person from whom the plaintiff had obtained a fictitious sale deed without paying any consideration. In the alternative it was pleaded that Onkar Bharthi had executed a will in favour of Musammat Murat by virtue of which she had become the absolute owner of the property in suit, and she in her turn executed a will dated June 15, 1923, in favour of Jagarnath Gir and the plaintiff was by no means entitled to get the property in dispute.

3. Upon these pleadings the following issues were framed by the Court of first instance:

(1) Whether the property in dispute was the personal property of Onkar Bharthi or it was the property of math?

(2) Whether the defendant No. 1 is the chela of Onkar Bharthi?

(3) Whether Onkar Bharthi belongs to the class of nihang sadhus? If so, what is its effect on the suit?

(4) Whether there is any special custom in the Shankerjot math about the devolution of the math property? If so, what is its effect?

(5) Whether the defendant No. 2 is the mother of Onkar Bharthi and wife of Oudh Bharthi, and if so can she legally transfer the property in suit?

(6) Whether Onkar Bharthi executed any will in favour of Musammat Murat and whether she had become absolute owner, of the property in suit?

(7) Whether Musammat Murat executed a will, dated June 15, 1923, in favour of the defendant, and if so, what is its effect on the suit?

(8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief?

4. The Court of first instance has decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and has, therefore, decreed the plaintiff's suit. The defendant has filed the present appeal in which he challenges the findings of the Court below.

5. The first point that we have got to decide is whether the property in suit is endowed property dedicated to Shankerjot math or is the personal property of Onkar Bharthi. There is no document on the record to prove that the disputed property is endowed property