TMI Blog1972 (1) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... successor to the Mahantship and a second deed on September 15, 1952 surrendering his right to the Mahantship in favour of the first defendant with immediate effect. The suit of the appellant was launched in 1959 for a declaration that he himself was the duly installed Mahant of saddar asthal Turki in the circumstances mentioned in the plaint, that the second defendant had ceased to be the Mahant by his voluntary of retirement and the first defendant being a junior Chela could have no right or claim to the Mahantship. As a corollary to the above declaration, he also asked for a decree for recovery of possession of all the properties of the asthal including those which had been purported to be transferred by the first two defendants. 3. The appellant made a two-fold claim in his plaint. It was his case that under the tenets and the customs of the asthal and Bhagataha sect of Kabirpanthies, the devolution of the office of Mahantship is always from a Guru to the senior celebrate Chela either on the death of the Mahant for the time being or by the said Mahant nominating his successor by deed and himself retiring from the Mahantship. In either case, after the death or retirement of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deceasing Mahant. The defendants denied the factum of the installation of the appellant relied on in the plaint. According to them the appellant had at all times knowledge of the nomination of the first defendant by the deed of December 17, 1951 and his appointment with immediate effect by the deed of September 15, 1952. It was on realisation of the weakness of his case that he had approached the defendants for a compromise agreeing to given up his claim in the suit of 1953. He had appended his signature to the petition of compromise in that suit being fully conversant with the terms thereof. 5. The two main issues framed by the trial court and relevant for the disposal of this appeal bear on the custom governing the succession to the Mahantship of the Turki Math and the right of the incumbent Mahant to nominate a junior Chela in preference to a senior Chela. Issues were also framed by the trial court as to whether an installation ceremony was an essential pre-requisite to a Mabant's lawfully functioning as such and whether the plaintiff had factually been installed as a Mahant of the Turki Math. The findings of the trial court were as follows :- 1. From 1899 onwards only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the plaint. 4. The deeds of nomination and surrender in 1951 and 1952 by the first defendant were valid and binding. 7. The general law as to succession to Mahantship is now well settled by innumerable decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and some decisions of this Court. It will be enough to quote some passages from Mukharji's book on the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts. The learned author states (third edition, p. 257): Once a Mutt is established, succession to headship takes place within the spiritual family according to the usages that grow up in a particular institution. The primary purpose of a Mutt...is to encourage and foster spiritual learning by maintenance of a competent line of teachers who impart religious instructions to the disciples and followers of the Mutt and try to strengthen the doctrines of the particular school or order of which they profess to be adherents. At page 269 : In a Mutt...it is the custom or practice of a particular institution which determines as to how a successor is to be appointed. Three aspects have to be borne in mind in connection with the question of succession to the office of a Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 : In many cases when a successor is appointed by Mohunt, he is installed in office with certain ceremonies. This cannot be deemed to be essential. 8. Admittedly Turki was a Mourasi Mutt. The evidence as to custom adduced in the case is both documentary and oral. The oral evidence which will be noted hereafter is discrepant and mostly of persons who were not disinterested. The documentary evidence undoubtedly furnishes more reliable testimony being ante litem (sic)tam and brought into existence at a time when the plaintiff was not on the scene and when no dispute as to succession to Mahant-ship was raging. 9. The earliest document exhibited in this case is that of 1899 executed by Mahant Lal Bahadur Bhagat in favour of Ram Bhagat describing him as the senior chela, able, clever, literate and by all means fit for the Mahantship. Mahant Ram Bhagat in his turn nominated Mahadeo Bhagat as his successor by a deed of November, 1910. Like the document of 1899 this deed also describes the nominee as able, clever and fit to discharge the duties of the Mahant. Mahadeo Bhagat however is not described as the senior Chela but only as a disciple of the executant. By a deed of August 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t depend only on seniority but on ability to manage, celibacy, adherence to religious principles and a habit of serving sadhus, fakirs and visitors besides a good moral character. Some even suggested that it was the ablest Chela who was made the Mahant. Making due allowance for the witnesses who came to support the case of the party examining them, the oral testimony unquestionably leads us to hold that in the matter of nomination of a successor to the Mahantship seniority was not the decisive factor but that ability and efficiency in management coupled with a good moral character and adherence to the religious rites practised at the mutt and a spirit of service to sadhus etc. all entered into consideration in the selection of a successor by a Mahant. This conclusion is fortified by the documents exhibited. As already noted they do not support the plaintiff's version that invariably the senior Chela was selected. In our view the document executed by Narsingh Bhagat in favour of Ganesh Bhagat sets out the custom as to succession fairly accurately. 11. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the plaintiff was installed as the Mahant of Turki in 1956 before a wide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
