MAHANT BHAGWAN BHAGAT Vs. G N BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) The undisputed facts are as follows. In the village of Turki in North Bihar there is a Math or asthal of the Kabirpanthi Bhagataha 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 nominated the first defendant as his 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 act 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 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 performance 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 recognised as or became the Mahant of Turki nor was any Chaddar ceremony 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 rights 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 possessession of the math and its properties, he was compelled to file the suit.