Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. P. Singh, C. J. and Faizanuddin, J.
RAMDAS - Appellant
Versus
VAISHNAVDAS - Respondents
First Appeal 236 Of 1976
Decided On : 10/05/1982
(2) Sheorinarayan Math - nature of.
The old temple of Sheorinarayan in Bilaspur District is that of Vishnu and not Shiva. Though Shaivism was the predominant cult of Dakshin Kosala, i.e., Chhatisgarh, Vaishnavism also prevailed. Beglar's opinion held incorrect. Views of Mirashi and Dr. Ram Kumar Singh approved, [Para 5
The Math at Sheorinarayan was initially was a Vaishnava Math of Ramanuja Sampradaya. But it appears that after the passage of time and with the spread of the order of Ramanand, the temple and Math came within its fold. [Para 6
The popular belief is that originally the place was known as Narayan Dham and it is only when Shri Ram visited the place and accepted the hospitality of Shabri that it came to be known as Sheorinarayan. [Para 6
(3) Hindu Law-Religious Endowments-Math-Mahantship-succession to the office- regulated by usage and custom.
Succession to the Mahantship of a Math is regulated by custom or usage of the particular institution except where a rule of succession is laid down by the founder himself who created the endowment. One who claims the office by right of succession is bound to allege and prove what the custom of the particular institution is, for the only law regulating succession to such institution is to he found in the custom and practice of that institution. Where the head of a religious institution is bound by celibacy, it is frequently the usage that he nominates his successor by appointment during his own life-time or by will Such a power of nomination must, however be exercised not corruptly or for ulterior reasons but bona fide and in the interest of the Math. AIR 1974 SC 199 & AIR 1980 SC 707 relied on. [Para 7
The custom or usage of the Sheorinarayan Math is that in absence of a Chela, Nati Chela can succeed to the office of Mahant. There is no evidence that a Nati Chela ever succeeded to this post. There is also no evidence that a person who is not a Chela can succeed by nomination to the office. [Paras 7-10
(4) Hindu Law-Religious Endowment-succession-a person not a chela but himself a Mahant of another Math-cannot be nominated particularly when the alleged will is held not genuine. [Para 10
(5) Hindu Law-Religious Endowment-Math-properties -Mahant is only a manager and not owner-cannot make a will in respect of such properties.
It is settled law that the properties of the Math vested in the institution and are held by the Mahant as a manager of the institution, and any person cannot claim the properties under a will executed by the late Mahant. [Para 11
(6) Practice (Civil)-plaintiff failing to prove his title-defendant also proved to be in wrongful possession-appellant's suit must fail.
Although the defendant is also in lawful possession of the Math and its properties as he was not appointed a successor by the late Mahant, yet the plaintiff's suit must fail for the reason that he has failed to prove his own title to the office of the Mahant. XIII IA 100 & AIR 1954 SC 606 relied on. [Para 13
( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21st Sept. 1976 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 3-A of 1976.
( 2 ) THE dispute in this appeal relates 1o the succession to the office of Mahant of the Sheorinarayan Math in Bilaspur District. The last Mahant Laldas, hereinafter referred to as the late Mahant, died on 24th Aug. 1958. The possession of the Math and its properties were taken over by defendant-respondent No. 1 Vaishnavdas, who is the Mahant of the Dudhadhari Math of Raipur. The respondent claimed that Laldas executed two wills, one on 11th March 1958, which is a registered will, and another on 15th Aug. 1958, which is an unregistered will, by virtue of which all the properties including the office of Mahant were bequeathed in his favour. The appellant instituted the suit on 19th May 1959 for declaration that he was entitled to succeed to the office of Mahant of the Math and to its properties mentioned in Schedules A to D to the plaint, as Nati Chela of the late Mahant. The appellant alleged that the office of Mahant of the Math descended from Guru to Chela through a long line of Mahants. The appellant also alleged that the late Mahant initiated as his Chela his brother's son Damodardas who predeceased him and the appellant was initiated as Chela by the said Damodardas. The appellant further alleged that the office f Mahant remained in the family of the late Mahant. The appellant by relation is grandson of the brother of the late Mahant-The properties mentioned in Schedules A to D of the plaint were referred to as private properties of the late Mahant. The appellant denied that there was any will executed by the late Mahant in favour of the respondent. It was also stated by him that the Math belonged to Ramanui Sampradaya and the respondent being of Ramanand Sampradaya, could not be made a Mahant of the Math. The respondent, on the other hand, relied upon the wills referred to above. The respondent denied that the appellant was Nati Chela of the late Mahant. The respondent alleged that in the absence of any Chela, the late Mahant could nominate by will or otherwise any ascetic belonging to the same cult as a Mahant of the Math. The respondent admitted that he belonged to Ramanand Sampradaya, but he alleged that the Math also was of the same Sampradaya and not of Ramanui Sampradaya.
( 3 ) THE trial Court held that the properties mentioned in Schedules A to D to the plaint were not personal properties of the late Mahant and that they were properties of the Math, and it is only the person who succeeded to the office of Mahant who could be entitled to possession of those properties by virtue of his office. The trial Court also held that it was not proved that the appellant was initiated as Chela by Damodardas. It was further held that there was not even any evidence that Damodardas was initiated as Chela by the late Mahant. The trial Court held in favour of the respondent that the registered will dated 11th March 1958 and the unregistered will dated 15th Aug. 1958 were both executed by the late Mahant. It was, however, held that the respondent succeeded to the office of Mahant by nomination under the unregistered will dated 15th Aug. 1958 and not under the registered will which merely bequeathed the properties and did not nominate the respondent as successor Mahant. It was also found in favour of the respondent that the Math belonged to Ramanand Sampradaya and that in absence of any Chela it was open to the late Mahant to nominate any Rama-nandi ascetic to the office of Mahant. On these findings the suit was dismissed.
( 4 ) BOTH the parties did not challenge before us the public character of the Math and its properties mentioned in Schedules A to D, It was conceded that only the person who succeeded to the office of Mahant could get possession of these properties in the capacity of manager by virtue of his office. The dispute before us
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
