JUDGMENT

K.C. Agarwal, J. - This appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been preferred by the Administrator-General, U.P. against the judgment dated November 26, 1982 given in Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1982.

2. Suit No. 1 of 1982 had been filed by Swami Shantanand Saraswati for the grant of letters of Administration to the estate of the deceased Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati, who died on September 1, 1976.

3. Swami Shantanand Saraswati claimed in his petition for Letters of Administration that January 24, 1954 Swami Bhagwatanand Sarswati was initiated as Sanyasi by him. Before taking Sanyas the deceased Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati came in contact with Swami Shantanand Saraswati in 1952. He first left his family life and, thereafter, took religious discourses and, thereafter, was initiated as a Sanyasi after due performance of the religious ceremony. He continued to live as the Chela of the Respondent till his death on September 1, 1976. The respondent claimed that according to Hindu law, he was entitled to succeed the estate and assets left by deceased Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati.

4. In Annexures I and II attached to the petition for grant of Letters of Administration, the respondent gave the details of the assets which had been left by deceased Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati. The valuation of these assets was Rs. 2,47,982.49. Most of the assets of deceased were in shape of fixed deposit or in accounts with Banks and post offices and were under different names like 'S.B. Anand', S. Bhagwatanand, Swami B. Saraswati and B. Anand Swami.

5. The petition for grant was subsequently, contested by the Administrator General and upon contest being put in, the application was treated as a plaint of the suit. On behalf of the Administrator General a counter-affidavit was filed stating that the deceased Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati had not been initiated by the respondent and as such, he could not claim the grant of Letters of Administration on that basis. The contention further was that the deceased Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati was since a Sanyasi, he could not hold any property except books, sandles, clothes and it was further pleaded that the respondent, even if was the Guru having initiated the deceased Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati, was not entitled to succeed the properties.

6. Upon the pleading of the parties, the learned judge framed as many as nine issues. Out of these issues, these relevant for deciding this appeal are issues 4, 5, and 6, which are as follows :-

4. Whether the amounts shown in Annexure-1 to the petition are assets of the deceased Sanyasi or that of the deceased in his personal capacity ?

5. What provisions of the personal law of the Hindu Law or any other law would be applicable? Is the petitioner entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased under the Hindu law, usage or custom ?

6. Was the deceased a member and attached to the Jyotirmath of Shanker sect ? if so, its effect ?

7. The respondent produced six witnesses and examined himself on commission. On behalf of the Administrator General, no oral evidence was led. Documentary evidence brought on record consisted of Cheque Books, Drafts, Specimen signature cards issued at Banks and post offices.

8. Before coming to the discussion of issues 4, 5, and 6, it may be stated that on issue no. 3, which was to the following effect, there was a controversy in between the respondent and the administrator General.

9. Issue no. 3. Who was the real initiator (Guru) of the deceased, Sri Brahmanand Saraswati or the petitioner ?

10. The Administrator General took the stand that the deceased, Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati, had not been initiated by the respondent. The Learned Single Judge decided the aforesaid issue in favour of the respondent and against the Administrator General. No argument was 'advanced before us on behalf of the Administrator General challenging the correctness of this finding. That apart, we hold the same view on this issue, as was that of t