{"id":80576,"date":"1972-01-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-01-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972"},"modified":"2017-05-07T19:42:04","modified_gmt":"2017-05-07T14:12:04","slug":"mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972","title":{"rendered":"Mahant Bhagwan Bhagat vs G. N. Bhugat And Ors on 4 January, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mahant Bhagwan Bhagat vs G. N. Bhugat And Ors on 4 January, 1972<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR  814, \t\t  1972 SCR  (2)1005<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Mitter<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Mitter, G.K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMAHANT BHAGWAN BHAGAT\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nG.   N. BHUGAT AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/01\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nSHELAT, J.M.\nDUA, I.D.\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR  814\t\t  1972 SCR  (2)1005\n 1972 SCC  (1) 486\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1974 SC 199\t (60)\n\n\nACT:\nCustom-Mutt-Method  of\tchoice\tof successor  to  office  of\nmohunt.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThree  aspects have to be borne in mind in  connection\twith\nthe  question of succession to the office of a mohunt :\t (i)\nif the rounder or endower has laid down any particular\trule\nof  succession, that is to be given effect to; (ii)  in\t the\nabsence\t  of   the  above  the\tusage  of   the\t  particular\ninstitution, is to be followed; and (iii) the party who lays\nclaim to the, office on the strength of any such usage\tmust\nestablish it affirmatively.  The fact that the defendant  is\na trespasser would not entitle the plaintiff to succeed, un-\nless he succeeds in proving the particular usage under which\nhe claims. [1 009 E-G]\nIn a Mourasi mutt the office of the mohunt is hereditary and\ndevolves upon a disciple of the existing mohunt who  usually\nnominates him as the successor.\t Though generally the senior\ndisciple  succeeds, a junior disciple may succeed if  he  is\nfound more capable and if he is selected by the last  mohunt\nas his successor.  The appointment or nomination is done  by\nthe  reigning mohunt during his life time or shortly  before\nhis death and it is possible for the mohunt to make over the\nendowment during his lifer time to the successor. [1010 B-D,\nF]\nIn  the present case, the mutt was a Mouriasi mutt  and\t the\nsecond\trespondent was its mohunt.  He nominated  the  first\nrespondent as his successor by a deed. and by a second deed,\nsurrendered to him his right to, the office of mohunt.\t The\nappellant  claimed the office as the senior disciple on\t the\ncontention  that  the devolution to the office\twas  to\t the\nsenior\tdisciple according to the tenets and customs of\t the\nsect which established the mutt.\nThe  trial  court decreed the suit but the  High  Court\t set\naside the decree\nDismissing the appeal to this Court,\nHELD  : The appellant had not discharged the onus which\t lay\non  him\t to  substantiate the custom pleaded  by  him.\t The\ndocumentary  evidence, which was ante litern motam  did\t not\nsupport the appellant's case that invariably only the senior\ndisciple was selected.\tOn the contrary, the entire evidence\nin  the\t case led to the conclusion that in  the  matter  of\nnomination of a successor to the office of mohunt  seniority\nwas   not  the\tdecisive  factor,  but\tthat  ability and\nefficiency   in\t management  coupled  with  a\tgood   moral\ncharacter,  adherence  to the religious rites  practised  at\nthe. mutt and a spirit of service to the sadhus etc. entered\ninto consideration in the selection of a successor. [1012 A-\nD]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1967.<br \/>\nAppeal from the judgment and decree dated April 12, 1966  of<br \/>\nthe  Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree  No.445<br \/>\nof 1963.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1006<\/span><\/p>\n<p>D.   V. Patel and U. P. Singh, for the appellant.<br \/>\nC.   B. Agarwala, Umesh Chandra singha , R. Goburdhun and D.   Gob<br \/>\nurdhun,<br \/>\nfor respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nMitter,\t J. This is an appeal from a judgment of  the  Patna<br \/>\nHigh Court reversing the decree in favour of the  plaintiff-<br \/>\nappellant declared to be the duly installed Mahant of  Turki<br \/>\nMath and of all its subsidiary maths and as such entitled to<br \/>\npossession of the properties covered by the decree.<br \/>\nThe,  undisputed  facts are as follows.\t In the\t village  of<br \/>\nTurki  in  North  Bihar there is a Math or as  that  of\t the<br \/>\nKabirpanthi  Bhagatatha\t Vairagi  sect\testablished  over  a<br \/>\ncentury\t  back.\t  There\t are  asthals  subordinate  to\t the<br \/>\nprincipal  one\tat Turki located in different  districts  of<br \/>\nBihar.\tDevolution of the Mahantship has always been from  a<br \/>\nGuru  to his Chela.  Defendant No. 2 executed a\t deed  dated<br \/>\nDecember  17,  1951  nominating the first  defendant  as  Ms<br \/>\nsuccessor  to the Mahantship and a second deed on  September<br \/>\n15, 1952 surrendering his right to the Mahantship in  favour<br \/>\nof the first defendant with, immediate effect.\tThe suit  of<br \/>\nthe appellant was launched in 1959 for a declaration that he<br \/>\nhimself was the duly installed Mahant of saddar asthal Turki<br \/>\nin  the\t circumstances\tmentioned in the  plaint,  that\t the<br \/>\nsecond\tdefendant  had\tceased\tto be  the  Mahant  by\this,<br \/>\nvoluntary  of  retirement and the first\t defendant  being  a<br \/>\njunior\tChela could have no right or Claim to  the  Mahants.<br \/>\nAs a corollary to the above declaration, he also asked for a<br \/>\ndecree\tfor recovery of possession of all the properties  of<br \/>\nthe  asthal including those which had been purported  to  be<br \/>\ntransferred by the first two defendants.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  appellant made a two-fold claim in his plaint.  It\t was<br \/>\nhis case that under the tenets and the customs of the asthal<br \/>\nand  Bhagataha sect of Kabirpanthies, the devolution of\t the<br \/>\noffice\tof  Mahantship is always from a Guru to\t the  senior<br \/>\ncelebate Chela ,either, on the death of. the Mahant for\t the<br \/>\ntime  being or by the said Mahant nominating. his  successor<br \/>\nby  deed and himself retiring from the Mahantship In  either<br \/>\ncase,  after the death or retirement of the Mahant  for\t the<br \/>\ntime being, the senior chela succeeds to the Mahantship\t and<br \/>\nis&#8217;  duly  installed on the Gaddi after\t the  perfomance  of<br \/>\nBhandara in an assemblage of Mahants and sadhus of the\tsect<br \/>\nand respectable persons of the locality at which The Chaddar<br \/>\nof  Mahanthi is bestowed on the new Mahant by the Mahant  of<br \/>\nAcharya\t Math Dhanauti in the District of Saran.  The  deeds<br \/>\nof 1951. and 1952 being in violation  of the ancient custom<br \/>\nof  the asthal, the first defendant was never of the  as  or<br \/>\nbecame the Mahant of Turki nor was any Chaddar ceremony<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1007<\/span><br \/>\nperformed at any requisite ceremony in recognition of\tsuch<br \/>\nsuccession.  &#8216;The appellant had filed a suit in the court of<br \/>\nthe  Subordinate Judge at Muzaffarpur in the year  1953\t for<br \/>\ndeclaration of his riots and for setting aside the deeds  of<br \/>\n1951 and 1952.\tAfter the suit was pending for some time,, a<br \/>\ncompromise  was\t arrived at whereby it was agreed  that\t the<br \/>\nappellant  should assume the office of Mahantship  and\ttake<br \/>\npossession of all the properties of the Math.  The appellant<br \/>\nput  his signature on a sheet of blank paper  for  recording<br \/>\nthe terms of settlement.  He had actually assumed the office<br \/>\nof  the\t Mahant\t of Turki in April 1954,  and  an  elaborate<br \/>\nceremony was performed on the 16th February 1956. whereat he<br \/>\nwas installed. as the Mahant of Turki and given the  Chaddar<br \/>\nof  Mahanti  by\t the  Acharya  of  Dhanauti  before  a\t big<br \/>\ngathering.  A document known as the Surat Hall was  prepared<br \/>\nregarding  the\tplaintiff&#8217;s  installation.   This  bore\t the<br \/>\nsignature, of innumerable persons.  This was followed by his<br \/>\ntaking,\t charge\t of  all the properties of  the\t saddar\t and<br \/>\nsubordinate  asthals.  The first two  defendants  thereafter<br \/>\ndispossessed him and being unsuccessful in proceedings under<br \/>\nthe  Code of Criminal Procedure for securing  possession  of<br \/>\nthe  math and its properties, he was compelled to  file\t the<br \/>\nsuit.\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondents  1 And 2 filed a joint written statement.\tThey<br \/>\npleaded\t that  the  custom  and usages\tof  the\t Turki\tMath<br \/>\nrelating to devolution of Mahantship was for the Mahant\t for<br \/>\nthe  time  being nominating a fit and proper person  as\t his<br \/>\nsuccessor  from\t amongst  his  Chelas  irrespective  of\t his<br \/>\nseniority and the person so nominated invariably became\t the<br \/>\nMahant on the demise or retirement of the; incumbent Mahant.<br \/>\nA  ceremony of installation of the new Mahant on  the  Gaddi<br \/>\nand the bestowing of a Chaddar on him were not essential for<br \/>\nestablishing  his  title  to this office  in  place  of\t the<br \/>\nretiring or the deceasing Mahant.  The defendants denied the<br \/>\nfactum of the installation of the appellant relied on in the<br \/>\nplaint.\t  According to them the appellant had at  all  times<br \/>\nknowledge  of the nomination of the first defendant  by\t the<br \/>\ndeed of December 17, 1951 and his appointment with immediate<br \/>\neffect\tby  the,  deed of September 15,\t 1952.\t It  was  on<br \/>\nrealisation  of\t the  weakness\tof  his\t case  that  he\t had<br \/>\napproached  the\t defendants for a  compromise  agreeing,  to<br \/>\ngiven up his claim in the suit of 1953.\t He had appended his<br \/>\nsignature  to the petition of compromise in that suit  being<br \/>\nfully conversant with the terms thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  two main issues framed by the trial court and  relevant<br \/>\nfor the disposal of this appeal bear on the custom governing<br \/>\nthe succession to the  Mahantship of the Turki Math and\t the<br \/>\nright of the incumbent mahant to nominate a junior Chela  in<br \/>\npreference  to a senior Chela.\tIssues were also  framed  by<br \/>\nthe  trial court as to whether an installation ceremony\t was<br \/>\nan essential pre-requisite<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1008<\/span><br \/>\nto  a Mahant&#8217;s lawfully functioning as such and whether\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff  had factually been installed as a Mahant  of\t the<br \/>\nTurki Math.  The findings of the trial court were as follows<br \/>\n:-\n<\/p>\n<p>1.From\t1899  onwards only senior  Chelas  had\tsucceeded<br \/>\ntheir Gurus.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.According to the custom of the Muth the Mahant had  the<br \/>\nright  to nominate his successor and the choice rested\tupon<br \/>\nthe    senior\tChela\tunless\t he   suffered\t from\t any<br \/>\ndisqualification  or was found to be unfit for\tthe  office.<br \/>\nThe right of nomination was not absolute but was subject  to<br \/>\nthe approval of others.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.An installation ceremony was not essential to complete the<br \/>\ntitle of the Mahant.  Such a ceremony had been performed  in<br \/>\nthe  ease of the plaintiff in 1956 and he became the  Mahant<br \/>\nof  Turki  although  not in  possession\t of  the  properties<br \/>\nthereof at the ,time of the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  High Court rejected the custom as to succession set  up<br \/>\nby the plaintiff.  It found-\n<\/p>\n<p>1.Since\t the time of the founder, Chaturbhuj Gosala,  six<br \/>\nMahants had occupied the office of whom three were described<br \/>\nas junior Chelas by some of the witnesses on the defendant&#8217;s<br \/>\nside.\tThe  evidence did not establish that  there  was  an<br \/>\ninvariable custom of the senior Chela being nominated by the<br \/>\noutgoing Mahant.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Mahant in office had an undoubted right to nominate<br \/>\nhis  successor and ordinarily the right of  appointment\t was<br \/>\nexercised  in favour of the senior Chela but the choice\t was<br \/>\nexercised in favour of a celebrate chela taking into account<br \/>\nhis  all round ability and character.  The second  defendant<br \/>\nhad  as a matter of fact nominated one Ganesh Bhagat as\t his<br \/>\nsuccessor  even\t before the deed of nomination\tof  1951  in<br \/>\nfavour\tof the first defendant.\t This nomination  of  Ganesh<br \/>\nBhagat was cancelled as he was found to be unfit.   Compared<br \/>\nto the plaintiff, the first defendant was decidedly superior<br \/>\nin  learning, ability and conduct : as the main function  of<br \/>\nthe  Mahant  was to propagate the Kabirpanthi cult  and\t the<br \/>\nmaintenance  of a peaceful and harmonious atmosphere in\t the<br \/>\nmutt where people were expected to congregate for  religious<br \/>\ndiscussion and discourses and other benevolent functions the<br \/>\nchoiceof the, first defendant by the second defendant in<br \/>\npreference  to the plaintiff was not undeserved and must  be<br \/>\ntaken as final.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   The  High\tCourt  did not examine the  question  as  to<br \/>\nwhether\t an installation ceremony was necessary\t to  perfect<br \/>\nthe title of Mahantship in view of the concession by counsel<br \/>\nfor  the plaintiff Differing from the finding of  the  trial<br \/>\ncourt, the High Court held that no ceremony of\tinstallation<br \/>\nof  the plaintiff had been performed in 1956 as\t alleged  in<br \/>\nthe plaint.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1009<\/span><\/p>\n<p>4.The deeds of nomination and surrender in 1951 and  1952<br \/>\nby the first defendant were valid and binding.<br \/>\nThe  general law as to succession to Mahantship is now\twell<br \/>\nsettled\t by innumerable decisions of the Judicial  Committee<br \/>\nof  the Privy Council and some decisions of this Court.\t  It<br \/>\nwill  be enough to quote some passages from Mukharji&#8217;s\tbook<br \/>\non  the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable  Trusts.\t The<br \/>\nlearned author states (third edition, p. 257):\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Once  a\tMutt is established,  succession  to<br \/>\n\t      headship\ttakes  place  within  the  spiritual<br \/>\n\t      family according to the usages that grow up in<br \/>\n\t      a particular institution.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;The,  primary purpose of a Mutt&#8230;&#8230;  is  to<br \/>\n\t      encourage\t and  foster spiritual\tlearning  by<br \/>\n\t      maintenance  of a competent line\tof  teachers<br \/>\n\t      who  impart  religious  instructions  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      disciples and followers of the Mutt and try to<br \/>\n\t      strengthen  the  doctrines of  the  particular<br \/>\n\t      school  or order of which they profess  to  be<br \/>\n\t      adherents.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      At page 269 :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;In a Mutt&#8230;. it is the custom or practice of<br \/>\n\t      a\t particular institution which determines  as<br \/>\n\t      to how a successor is to be appointed.&#8221;<br \/>\n\t      Three  aspects  have to be borne\tin  mind  in<br \/>\n\t      connection with the question of succession  to<br \/>\n\t      the office of a Mahant (p. 269):<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;The  first  is that if the grantor  has\tlaid<br \/>\n\t      down  any particular rule of succession,\tthat<br \/>\n\t      is  to  be given effect to. Secondly,  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      absence\tof  any\t grant\tthe  usage  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      particular institution is to be followed;\t and<br \/>\n\t      in  the third place, the party who lays  claim<br \/>\n\t      to  the office of a Mohunt on the strength  of<br \/>\n\t      any such usage must establish it affirmatively<br \/>\n\t      by  proper legal evidence.  The fact that\t the<br \/>\n\t      defendant\t is a trespasser would\tnot  entitle<br \/>\n\t      the  plaintiff to succeed even though he be  a<br \/>\n\t      disciple\t of  the  last\tMohunt,\t unless\t  he<br \/>\n\t      succeeds\tin proving, particular\tusage  under<br \/>\n\t      which succession takes place in the particular<br \/>\n\t      institution.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      At p. 270 :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Generally  speaking,  the Mutts\tare  divided<br \/>\n\t      into three classes according to the  different<br \/>\n\t      ways  in\twhich  the heads  or  superiors\t are<br \/>\n\t      appointed.  These, three descriptions of Mutts<br \/>\n\t      are  Mourasi, Panchayati and Hakimi.   In\t the<br \/>\n\t      first, the office of the Mohunt is  hereditary<br \/>\n\t      and  devolves upon the chief disciple  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      existing Mohunt<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1010<\/span><br \/>\n\t      who  moreover  usually nominates\thim  as\t his<br \/>\n\t      successor;  in  the  second,  the\t office\t  is<br \/>\n\t      elective, the presiding Mohunt being  selected<br \/>\n\t      by an assembly of Mohunts.  In the third,\t the<br \/>\n\t      appointment of the presiding Mohunt is  vested<br \/>\n\t      in  the ruling power or in the party  who\t has<br \/>\n\t      endowed the temple<br \/>\n\t      In a Mourasi Mutt the chela or disciple of the<br \/>\n\t      last Mohunt succeeds to the office when  there<br \/>\n\t      are more, chelas than one the eldest generally<br \/>\n\t      succeeds, but a junior chela may succeed if he<br \/>\n\t      is found more capable and if he is selected by<br \/>\n\t      the last Mohunt is his successor<br \/>\n\t      In various institutions the custom is that  in<br \/>\n\t      order  to entitle a chela to succeed, be\tmust<br \/>\n\t      be  appointed  or nominated  by  the  reigning<br \/>\n\t      Mohunt during his life time or shortly  before<br \/>\n\t      his  death  and this may be done either  by  a<br \/>\n\t      written\tdeclaration   or   some\t  sort\t  of<br \/>\n\t      testamentary document.  In other cases  again,<br \/>\n\t      the  nominee  is\tformally  installed  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      office   and  some  sort\tof  recognition\t  is<br \/>\n\t      accorded\t to  him  by  the  members  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      particular sect either during the life time of<br \/>\n\t      the last Mohunt or when the funeral ceremonies<br \/>\n\t      of the latter are performed.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      At p. 273.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;When the Mohunt has the right to appoint\t his<br \/>\n\t      successor, he may exercise the right by an act<br \/>\n\t      inter vivos or by will.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      At p. 274 :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;In  a  Mourashi Mutt it is possible  for\t the<br \/>\n\t      Mohunt  to make over the endowment during\t his<br \/>\n\t      life  time to his chela whom he appoints as  a<br \/>\n\t      successor.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      At p. 275:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;In  many cases when a successor is  appointed<br \/>\n\t      by  Mohunt,  he is installed  in\toffice\twith<br \/>\n\t      certain ceremonies,This cannot be deemed to be<br \/>\n\t      essential.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Admittedly  Turki  was\ta Mourasi Mutt The  evidence  as  to<br \/>\ncustom\tadduced\t in the case Is both documentary  and  oral.<br \/>\nThe   oral  evidence  which  will  be  noted  hereafter\t  is<br \/>\ndiscrepant and mostly of persons who were not disinterested.<br \/>\nThe documentary evidence undoubtedly furnishes more reliable<br \/>\ntestimony  being ante item motam and brought into  existance<br \/>\nat  a time when the plaintiff was not on the scene and\twhen<br \/>\nno dispute as to succession to ship was raging.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1011<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The earliest document exhibited in this case is that of 1899<br \/>\nexecuted  by  Mahant  Lal Bahadur Bhagat in  favour  of\t Ram<br \/>\nBhagat\tdescribing  him as the senior chela,  able,  clever,<br \/>\nliterate  and by all means tit for the\tMahantship.   Mahant<br \/>\nRam  Bhagat  in\t his turn nominated Mahadeo  Bhagat  as\t his<br \/>\nsuccessor by a deed of November 1910.  Like the document  of<br \/>\n1899  this deed also describes the nominee as  able,  clever<br \/>\nand fit to discharge the duties of the Mahant Mahadeo Bhaaat<br \/>\nhowever\t is not described as the senior Chela but only as  a<br \/>\ndisciple of the executant.  By a deed of August 1937  Mahant<br \/>\nMahadeo Bhagat nominated Narsingh Bhagat, defendant No. 2 as<br \/>\nhis  successor\tdescribing the latter as his  only  disciple<br \/>\nworthy, clever and fit in all respects for the Gaddi.  By  a<br \/>\ndocument  of June 1947 Narsingh Bhagat nominated one  Ganesh<br \/>\nBhagat\tas his successor to the Gaddi.\tThis nomination\t was<br \/>\ncancelled  by Narsingh Bhagat on the ground of unfitness  of<br \/>\nthe nominee for the office but mention is made in this docu-<br \/>\nment  of  1947 of the practice and custom  relating  to\t the<br \/>\nsuccession to the office of the Mahant.\t This document\tgoes<br \/>\nagainst\t the contention of the plaintiff that by custom\t the<br \/>\nsenior Chela was eligible to the office in preference to all<br \/>\nothers.\t It recites :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;It  has been the practice in the Asthal\tfrom<br \/>\n\t      the   time   of  my  predecessors\t  that\t the<br \/>\n\t      Gadinashin leads a life of Brahmacharya and he<br \/>\n\t      does   not  marry.   One\tMahanth\t  Gadinashin<br \/>\n\t      appoints\tand nominates his  able\t Brahmachari<br \/>\n\t      disciple\tas Gadinashin and  future  successor<br \/>\n\t      during  his lifetime.  After the death of\t his<br \/>\n\t      Guru,  the rightful disciple becomes heir\t and<br \/>\n\t      Gadinashin of the Asthal of the Sadar Nath  at<br \/>\n\t      Turki.   I the executant thought it proper  to<br \/>\n\t      make  over  the  management  of  the  property<br \/>\n\t      under a will, according to previous custom and<br \/>\n\t      appoint Ganesh Bhagat as my successor.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This  was  followed  by\t a description\tof  the\t nominee  as<br \/>\nliterate, able and efficient.  The document of December 1951<br \/>\nby  Narsingh Bhagat in favour of Girija Nandan\tBhagat.\t the<br \/>\nfirst defendant. describes the nominee as fit and  qualified<br \/>\nin  all respects to be the Mahant and recites the custom  as<br \/>\nin the case of Ganesh Bhagat.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  trial Judge&#8217;s view that the nominations if\t 1899,\t1910<br \/>\nand 1937 &#8216;being invariably in favour of the senior  disciple<br \/>\nwent  a\t long way to establish the custom relied on  by\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff  was not accepted by the High\t Court.\t  Apparently<br \/>\nthe  trial  Judge was of the view that Mahadeo\tBliagat\t who<br \/>\nbecame\tthe  Mahant  in 1910 was the only  disciple  of\t Ram<br \/>\nBhagat\tand it was therefore not felt necessary\t to  mention<br \/>\nhim  is\t the  senior chela Quite  a  number  of\t defendants&#8217;<br \/>\nwitnesses  made statements to the effect that Ran-.   Bhagat<br \/>\nhad  a\tnumber of Chelas.  The trial Judge  obviously  over-<br \/>\nlocked\t the  statement\t of  the  plaintiff  in\t his   cross<br \/>\nexamination that<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1012<\/span><br \/>\nRam Gossai had 5 or 6 Chelas and he himself had seen all  of<br \/>\nthem.\tA fairly large number of witnesses stated  that\t the<br \/>\nqualifications\tfor a person&#8217;s nomination to the  Mahantship<br \/>\ndid  not depend only on seniority but on ability to  manage,<br \/>\ncelibacy,  adherence to religious principles and a habit  of<br \/>\nserving\t sadhus,  fakirs and visitors besides a\t good  moral<br \/>\ncharacter.  Some even suggested that it was the ablest Chela<br \/>\nwho  was  made\tthe Mahant.  Making due\t allowance  for\t the<br \/>\nwitnesses  who\tcame  to  support the case  of\tthe  party<br \/>\nexamining them, the oral testimony unquestionably leads\t us<br \/>\nto  hold that in the matter of nomination of a successor  to<br \/>\nthe  Mahantship\t seniority was not the decisive\t factor\t but<br \/>\nthat  ability  and efficiency in management coupled  with  a<br \/>\ngood  moral character and adherence to the  religious  rites<br \/>\npractised at the mutt and a spirit of service to sadhus etc.<br \/>\nall  entered  into  consideration  in  the  selection  of  a<br \/>\nsuccessor by a Mahant.\tThis conclusion is fortified by\t the<br \/>\ndocuments  exhibited.  As already noted they do not  support<br \/>\nthe plaintiff&#8217;s version that invariably the senior Chela was<br \/>\nselected.   In\tour view the document executed\tby  Narsingh<br \/>\nBhagat in favour of Ganesh Bhagat sets out the custom as  to<br \/>\nsuccession fairly accurately.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  argument advanced on behalf of the appellant  that\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff  was\tinstalled  as the Mahant of  Turki  in\t1956<br \/>\nbefore a wide gathering of sadhus and respectable persons at<br \/>\nwhich the Chaddar ceremony was performed does not merit\t any<br \/>\nelaborate  or serious consideration.  As noted already,\t the<br \/>\ntrial,\tcourt did not take the view that the performance  of<br \/>\nthe  Chaddar ceremony was an essential pre-requisite  to  a<br \/>\nperson\tbecoming a Mahant and before the High Court  counsel<br \/>\nfor  the plaintiff expressly gave up that  point.   Although<br \/>\nthe trial court found in favour of the plaintiff that such a<br \/>\nceremony had actually been performed, the High Court came to<br \/>\na  different conclusion.  One of the reasons which  prompted<br \/>\nthe  High  Court  to take this view was\t that  the  document<br \/>\nevidencing  the installation ceremony styled the Surat\tHall<br \/>\nhad  not  been\tproduced  in any court\tof  law\t before\t the<br \/>\ninstitution  of\t the  suit of 1959  although  litigation  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of the properties of the mutt and  the\t plaintiff&#8217;s<br \/>\nright  to possession were being canvassed before ,courts  of<br \/>\nlaw.   The  High Court also relied on the fact that  a\tres-<br \/>\npectable and reliable witness like the Mahant of the Acharya<br \/>\nMutt  denied  having  signed this document  Ex.\t  1  and  no<br \/>\nattempt\t was made on behalf of the plaintiff  to  controvert<br \/>\nthe  said  denial by examination of a  hand-writing  expert.<br \/>\nReliance was also placed by the High Court on the fact\tthat<br \/>\nthe plaintiff who filed a petition under ss. 107 and 145 Cr.<br \/>\nP.C.  against  the  first defendant and\t 12  others  on\t 8th<br \/>\nDecember,  1956\t described himself as the Mahant  of  Chanwa<br \/>\nMath  and  made no reference in the petition itself  to\t the<br \/>\ninstallation  ceremony at Turki.  The High Court  also\t,did<br \/>\nnot  believe  the plaintiff&#8217;s version that he had  signed  a<br \/>\nblank<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1013<\/span><br \/>\nsheet  of paper to be used as a compromise petition  in\t the<br \/>\nearlier\t suit filed by him and nothing has been shown to  us<br \/>\nas to why we should take a different-view.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  the\t result\t we hold that the plaintiff  was  unable  to<br \/>\ndischarge  the\tonus which lay on him  to  substantiate\t the<br \/>\ncustom\tas  to succession pleaded in his  plaint.   He\talso<br \/>\nfailed\tto establish that he had in fact been  installed  as<br \/>\nthe  Mahant  of\t the said Math.\t The  appeal  fails  and  is<br \/>\ndismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V.P.S.\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n17-736 Sup CI\/72\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1014<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Mahant Bhagwan Bhagat vs G. N. Bhugat And Ors on 4 January, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 814, 1972 SCR (2)1005 Author: G Mitter Bench: Mitter, G.K. 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. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-80576","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mahant Bhagwan Bhagat vs G. N. Bhugat And Ors on 4 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahant Bhagwan Bhagat vs G. N. Bhugat And Ors on 4 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1972-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-07T14:12:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahant Bhagwan Bhagat vs G. N. Bhugat And Ors on 4 January, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-07T14:12:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972\"},\"wordCount\":3237,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972\",\"name\":\"Mahant Bhagwan Bhagat vs G. N. Bhugat And Ors on 4 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-07T14:12:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahant Bhagwan Bhagat vs G. N. Bhugat And Ors on 4 January, 1972\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mahant Bhagwan Bhagat vs G. N. Bhugat And Ors on 4 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahant Bhagwan Bhagat vs G. N. Bhugat And Ors on 4 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-07T14:12:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahant Bhagwan Bhagat vs G. N. Bhugat And Ors on 4 January, 1972","datePublished":"1972-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-07T14:12:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972"},"wordCount":3237,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972","name":"Mahant Bhagwan Bhagat vs G. N. Bhugat And Ors on 4 January, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-07T14:12:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-bhagwan-bhagat-vs-g-n-bhugat-and-ors-on-4-january-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahant Bhagwan Bhagat vs G. N. Bhugat And Ors on 4 January, 1972"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80576","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=80576"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80576\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}