PETITIONER: MAHANT BHAGWAN BHAGAT Vs. RESPONDENT: G. N. BHUGAT AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT04/01/1972 BENCH: MITTER, G.K. BENCH: MITTER, G.K. SHELAT, J.M. DUA, I.D. KHANNA, HANS RAJ CITATION: 1972 AIR 814 1972 SCR (2)1005 1972 SCC (1) 486 CITATOR INFO : R 1974 SC 199 (60) ACT: Custom-Mutt-Method of choice of successor to office of mohunt. HEADNOTE: Three aspects have to be borne in mind in connection with the question of succession to the office of a mohunt : (i) if the rounder or endower has laid down any particular rule of succession, that is to be given effect to; (ii) in the absence of the above the usage of the particular institution, is to be followed; and (iii) the party who lays claim to the, office on the strength of any such usage must establish it affirmatively. The fact that the defendant is a trespasser would not entitle the plaintiff to succeed, un- less he succeeds in proving the particular usage under which he claims. [1 009 E-G] In a Mourasi mutt the office of the mohunt is hereditary and devolves upon a disciple of the existing mohunt who usually nominates him as the successor. Though generally the senior disciple succeeds, a junior disciple may succeed if he is found more capable and if he is selected by the last mohunt as his successor. The appointment or nomination is done by the reigning mohunt during his life time or shortly before his death and it is possible for the mohunt to make over the endowment during his lifer time to the successor. [1010 B-D, F] In the present case, the mutt was a Mouriasi mutt and the second respondent was its mohunt. He nominated the first respondent as his successor by a deed. and by a second deed, surrendered to him his right to, the office of mohunt. The appellant claimed the office as the senior disciple on the contention that the devolution to the office was to the senior disciple according to the tenets and customs of the sect which established the mutt. The trial court decreed the suit but the High Court set aside the decree Dismissing the appeal to this Court, HELD : The appellant had not discharged the onus which lay on him to substantiate the custom pleaded by him. The documentary evidence, which was ante litern motam did not support the appellant's case that invariably only the senior disciple was selected. On the contrary, the entire evidence in the case led to the conclusion that in the matter of nomination of a successor to the office of mohunt seniority was not the decisive factor, but that ability and efficiency in management coupled with a good moral character, adherence to the religious rites practised at the. mutt and a spirit of service to the sadhus etc. entered into consideration in the selection of a successor. [1012 A- D] JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1967.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 12, 1966 of
the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.445
of 1963.
1006
D. V. Patel and U. P. Singh, for the appellant.
C. B. Agarwala, Umesh Chandra singha , R. Goburdhun and D. Gob
urdhun,
for respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Mitter, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Patna
High Court reversing the decree in favour of the plaintiff-
appellant declared to be the duly installed Mahant of Turki
Math and of all its subsidiary maths and as such entitled to
possession of the properties covered by the decree.
The, undisputed facts are as follows. In the village of
Turki in North Bihar there is a Math or as that of the
Kabirpanthi Bhagatatha Vairagi sect established over a
century back. There are asthals subordinate to the
principal one at Turki located in different districts of
Bihar. Devolution of the Mahantship has always been from a
Guru to his Chela. Defendant No. 2 executed a deed dated
December 17, 1951 nominating the first defendant as Ms
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 Mahants.
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.
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
celebate 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 the Mahant for the
time being, the senior chela succeeds to the Mahantship and
is’ duly installed on the Gaddi after the perfomance of
Bhandara in an assemblage of Mahants and sadhus of the sect
and respectable persons of the locality at which The Chaddar
of Mahanthi is bestowed on the new Mahant by the Mahant of
Acharya Math Dhanauti in the District of Saran. The deeds
of 1951. and 1952 being in violation of the ancient custom
of the asthal, the first defendant was never of the as or
became the Mahant of Turki nor was any Chaddar ceremony
1007
performed at any requisite ceremony in recognition of such
succession. ‘The appellant had filed a suit in the court of
the Subordinate Judge at Muzaffarpur in the year 1953 for
declaration of his riots and for setting aside the deeds of
1951 and 1952. After the suit was pending for some time,, a
compromise was arrived at whereby it was agreed that the
appellant should assume the office of Mahantship and take
possession of all the properties of the Math. The appellant
put his signature on a sheet of blank paper for recording
the terms of settlement. He had actually assumed the office
of the Mahant of Turki in April 1954, and an elaborate
ceremony was performed on the 16th February 1956. whereat he
was installed. as the Mahant of Turki and given the Chaddar
of Mahanti by the Acharya of Dhanauti before a big
gathering. A document known as the Surat Hall was prepared
regarding the plaintiff’s installation. This bore the
signature, of innumerable persons. This was followed by his
taking, charge of all the properties of the saddar and
subordinate asthals. The first two defendants thereafter
dispossessed him and being unsuccessful in proceedings under
the Code of Criminal Procedure for securing possession of
the math and its properties, he was compelled to file the
suit.
Respondents 1 And 2 filed a joint written statement. They
pleaded that the custom and usages of the Turki Math
relating to devolution of Mahantship was for the Mahant for
the time being nominating a fit and proper person as his
successor from amongst his Chelas irrespective of his
seniority and the person so nominated invariably became the
Mahant on the demise or retirement of the; incumbent Mahant.
A ceremony of installation of the new Mahant on the Gaddi
and the bestowing of a Chaddar on him were not essential for
establishing his title to this office in place of the
retiring or the 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.
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
1008
to a Mahant’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 senior Chelas had succeeded
their Gurus.
2.According to the custom of the Muth the Mahant had the
right to nominate his successor and the choice rested upon
the senior Chela unless he suffered from any
disqualification or was found to be unfit for the office.
The right of nomination was not absolute but was subject to
the approval of others.
3.An installation ceremony was not essential to complete the
title of the Mahant. Such a ceremony had been performed in
the ease of the plaintiff in 1956 and he became the Mahant
of Turki although not in possession of the properties
thereof at the ,time of the suit.
The High Court rejected the custom as to succession set up
by the plaintiff. It found-
1.Since the time of the founder, Chaturbhuj Gosala, six
Mahants had occupied the office of whom three were described
as junior Chelas by some of the witnesses on the defendant’s
side. The evidence did not establish that there was an
invariable custom of the senior Chela being nominated by the
outgoing Mahant.
2.The Mahant in office had an undoubted right to nominate
his successor and ordinarily the right of appointment was
exercised in favour of the senior Chela but the choice was
exercised in favour of a celebrate chela taking into account
his all round ability and character. The second defendant
had as a matter of fact nominated one Ganesh Bhagat as his
successor even before the deed of nomination of 1951 in
favour of the first defendant. This nomination of Ganesh
Bhagat was cancelled as he was found to be unfit. Compared
to the plaintiff, the first defendant was decidedly superior
in learning, ability and conduct : as the main function of
the Mahant was to propagate the Kabirpanthi cult and the
maintenance of a peaceful and harmonious atmosphere in the
mutt where people were expected to congregate for religious
discussion and discourses and other benevolent functions the
choiceof the, first defendant by the second defendant in
preference to the plaintiff was not undeserved and must be
taken as final.
3. The High Court did not examine the question as to
whether an installation ceremony was necessary to perfect
the title of Mahantship in view of the concession by counsel
for the plaintiff Differing from the finding of the trial
court, the High Court held that no ceremony of installation
of the plaintiff had been performed in 1956 as alleged in
the plaint.
1009
4.The deeds of nomination and surrender in 1951 and 1952
by the first defendant were valid and binding.
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 Mahant (p. 269):
“The first is that if the grantor has laid
down any particular rule of succession, that
is to be given effect to. Secondly, in the
absence of any grant the usage of the
particular institution is to be followed; and
in the third place, the party who lays claim
to the office of a Mohunt on the strength of
any such usage must establish it affirmatively
by proper legal evidence. The fact that the
defendant is a trespasser would not entitle
the plaintiff to succeed even though he be a
disciple of the last Mohunt, unless he
succeeds in proving, particular usage under
which succession takes place in the particular
institution.”
At p. 270 :
“Generally speaking, the Mutts are divided
into three classes according to the different
ways in which the heads or superiors are
appointed. These, three descriptions of Mutts
are Mourasi, Panchayati and Hakimi. In the
first, the office of the Mohunt is hereditary
and devolves upon the chief disciple of the
existing Mohunt
1010
who moreover usually nominates him as his
successor; in the second, the office is
elective, the presiding Mohunt being selected
by an assembly of Mohunts. In the third, the
appointment of the presiding Mohunt is vested
in the ruling power or in the party who has
endowed the temple
In a Mourasi Mutt the chela or disciple of the
last Mohunt succeeds to the office when there
are more, chelas than one the eldest generally
succeeds, but a junior chela may succeed if he
is found more capable and if he is selected by
the last Mohunt is his successor
In various institutions the custom is that in
order to entitle a chela to succeed, be must
be appointed or nominated by the reigning
Mohunt during his life time or shortly before
his death and this may be done either by a
written declaration or some sort of
testamentary document. In other cases again,
the nominee is formally installed in the
office and some sort of recognition is
accorded to him by the members of the
particular sect either during the life time of
the last Mohunt or when the funeral ceremonies
of the latter are performed.”
At p. 273.
“When the Mohunt has the right to appoint his
successor, he may exercise the right by an act
inter vivos or by will.”
At p. 274 :
“In a Mourashi Mutt it is possible for the
Mohunt to make over the endowment during his
life time to his chela whom he appoints as a
successor.”
At p. 275:
“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.”
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 item motam and brought into existance
at a time when the plaintiff was not on the scene and when
no dispute as to succession to ship was raging.
1011
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 tit 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 Bhaaat
however is not described as the senior Chela but only as a
disciple of the executant. By a deed of August 1937 Mahant
Mahadeo Bhagat nominated Narsingh Bhagat, defendant No. 2 as
his successor describing the latter as his only disciple
worthy, clever and fit in all respects for the Gaddi. By a
document of June 1947 Narsingh Bhagat nominated one Ganesh
Bhagat as his successor to the Gaddi. This nomination was
cancelled by Narsingh Bhagat on the ground of unfitness of
the nominee for the office but mention is made in this docu-
ment of 1947 of the practice and custom relating to the
succession to the office of the Mahant. This document goes
against the contention of the plaintiff that by custom the
senior Chela was eligible to the office in preference to all
others. It recites :
“It has been the practice in the Asthal from
the time of my predecessors that the
Gadinashin leads a life of Brahmacharya and he
does not marry. One Mahanth Gadinashin
appoints and nominates his able Brahmachari
disciple as Gadinashin and future successor
during his lifetime. After the death of his
Guru, the rightful disciple becomes heir and
Gadinashin of the Asthal of the Sadar Nath at
Turki. I the executant thought it proper to
make over the management of the property
under a will, according to previous custom and
appoint Ganesh Bhagat as my successor.”
This was followed by a description of the nominee as
literate, able and efficient. The document of December 1951
by Narsingh Bhagat in favour of Girija Nandan Bhagat. the
first defendant. describes the nominee as fit and qualified
in all respects to be the Mahant and recites the custom as
in the case of Ganesh Bhagat.
The trial Judge’s view that the nominations if 1899, 1910
and 1937 ‘being invariably in favour of the senior disciple
went a long way to establish the custom relied on by the
plaintiff was not accepted by the High Court. Apparently
the trial Judge was of the view that Mahadeo Bliagat who
became the Mahant in 1910 was the only disciple of Ram
Bhagat and it was therefore not felt necessary to mention
him is the senior chela Quite a number of defendants’
witnesses made statements to the effect that Ran-. Bhagat
had a number of Chelas. The trial Judge obviously over-
locked the statement of the plaintiff in his cross
examination that
1012
Ram Gossai had 5 or 6 Chelas and he himself had seen all of
them. A fairly large number of witnesses stated that the
qualifications for a person’s nomination to the Mahantship
did not 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.
The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the
plaintiff was installed as the Mahant of Turki in 1956
before a wide gathering of sadhus and respectable persons at
which the Chaddar ceremony was performed does not merit any
elaborate or serious consideration. As noted already, the
trial, court did not take the view that the performance of
the Chaddar ceremony was an essential pre-requisite to a
person becoming a Mahant and before the High Court counsel
for the plaintiff expressly gave up that point. Although
the trial court found in favour of the plaintiff that such a
ceremony had actually been performed, the High Court came to
a different conclusion. One of the reasons which prompted
the High Court to take this view was that the document
evidencing the installation ceremony styled the Surat Hall
had not been produced in any court of law before the
institution of the suit of 1959 although litigation in
respect of the properties of the mutt and the plaintiff’s
right to possession were being canvassed before ,courts of
law. The High Court also relied on the fact that a res-
pectable and reliable witness like the Mahant of the Acharya
Mutt denied having signed this document Ex. 1 and no
attempt was made on behalf of the plaintiff to controvert
the said denial by examination of a hand-writing expert.
Reliance was also placed by the High Court on the fact that
the plaintiff who filed a petition under ss. 107 and 145 Cr.
P.C. against the first defendant and 12 others on 8th
December, 1956 described himself as the Mahant of Chanwa
Math and made no reference in the petition itself to the
installation ceremony at Turki. The High Court also ,did
not believe the plaintiff’s version that he had signed a
blank
1013
sheet of paper to be used as a compromise petition in the
earlier suit filed by him and nothing has been shown to us
as to why we should take a different-view.
In the result we hold that the plaintiff was unable to
discharge the onus which lay on him to substantiate the
custom as to succession pleaded in his plaint. He also
failed to establish that he had in fact been installed as
the Mahant of the said Math. The appeal fails and is
dismissed with costs.
V.P.S. Appeal dismissed.
17-736 Sup CI/72
1014