KRISHNA SINGH Vs. MATHURA AHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT No. 469 of 1951 was filed by the plaintiff -respondent on 21 -8 -1951 against respondents 2 to 5 inter alia, for the ejectment of the said de fendant -respondents from house No. C -27/ 33 Mohallah Jagatgani. Varanasi. It was pleaded that Avodhesh Narain. defendant No. 1 had taken the house on rent at Rs. 15/ - per month from Swami Atmavi -vekanand, the deceased Guru of the plain tiff. Defendants 2 to 4 were alleged to have been put in possession of the house illegally by defendant No. 1. The suit Was contested by the defendants, who denied the tenancy and, inter alia, plead ed that they were in occupation of the house as chelas of Swami Atmavivekanand in their own right by virtue of the licence granted to them by the said Swamiji. The plaintiff's right to sue was denied and it was alleged that he was neither chela of the Swamiji nor his successor. It was alleged that on the death of Swami A_tmavivankanand his natural son and disciple. Shri Krishna became the owner of the house. In the circumstances, the plaintiff got his plaint amended and im -pleaded Shri Krishna as defendant No. 5, The suit was also converted into a re gular suit for possession.

(2.) ACCORDING to the averments in the plaint. Swami Sarupanand. Guru of Swami Atmavivenkanand came to Banaras some time in or about 1925 and started preaching and propagating the tenets and precepts of "Sant Mat" of which he was himself an adherent and follower. The said Swamiii stayed in the building known as "Bangla Kuti" situate at Garwaghat, Varanasi. Subsequently the said "Bangla Kuti" and other build ings and land appurtenant or adiacent thereto became a math of which Swami Sarupanand was initially the mahant. There after Swami Atmavivenkanand. the chief disciple of Swami Sarupanand be came the mahant and, on the demise of the latter, the plaintiff, who was his chief disciple, became the mahant having been nominated to be the successor by his said Guru and also having been recognised and acknowledged as the mahant at a con gregation of the followers of the Sant Mat and the mahants of several other maths or religious institutions. It is not necessary to mention the details of the other averments in the plaint, nor is it necessary to mention in detail the various pleas raised in the written statements filed by the defendants. It will be suffi cient, however, to mention that Shri Krishna, defendant No. 5, who has filed the instant appeal, was the principal, con testing defendant. He denied the exis tence of the math as pleaded by the plaintiff and asserted that the house in suit, in any case, was not math property. He further pleaded that the plaintiff being a Sudra was legally incompetent to be come a Sanyasi and that the plaintiff was not the mahant of the alleged Garwaghat math. The said defendant claimed that after the death of Swami Atmavivekanand he became the owner of the house in suit by inheritence, as also of the properties alleged by the plaintiff to belong to Garwaghat Math. All these properties, according to defendant No.5 were secular and personal properties of his father Baikunth Singh, who was also known as Swami Atmavivenkanand.

(3.) THE property at Garwaghat was Math property of which Swami Atmavi -vekanand was the duly installed Mahant as per custom and he was and remained in possession of the Math properties as Mahant till his death.