RAMDAS Vs. VAISHNAVDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21st Sept. 1976 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 3-A of 1976.

(2.) The dispute in this appeal relates 1o the succession to the office of Mahant of the Sheorinarayan Math in Bilaspur District. The last Mahant Laldas, hereinafter referred to as the late Mahant, died on 24th Aug. 1958. The possession of the Math and its properties were taken over by defendant-respondent No. 1 Vaishnavdas, who is the Mahant of the Dudhadhari Math of Raipur. The respondent claimed that Laldas executed two wills, one on 11th March 1958, which is a registered will, and another on 15th Aug. 1958, which is an unregistered will, by virtue of which all the properties including the office of Mahant were bequeathed in his favour. The appellant instituted the suit on 19th May 1959 for declaration that he was entitled to succeed to the office of Mahant of the Math and to its properties mentioned in Schedules A to D to the plaint, as Nati Chela of the late Mahant. The appellant alleged that the office of Mahant of the Math descended from Guru to Chela through a long line of Mahants. The appellant also alleged that the late Mahant initiated as his Chela his brother's son Damodardas who predeceased him and the appellant was initiated as Chela by the said Damodardas. The appellant further alleged that the office f Mahant remained in the family of the late Mahant. The appellant by relation is grandson of the brother of the late Mahant-The properties mentioned in Schedules A to D of the plaint were referred to as private properties of the late Mahant. The appellant denied that there was any will executed by the late Mahant in favour of the respondent. It was also stated by him that the Math belonged to Ramanui Sampradaya and the respondent being of Ramanand Sampradaya, could not be made a Mahant of the Math. The respondent, on the other hand, relied upon the wills referred to above. The respondent denied that the appellant was Nati Chela of the late Mahant. The respondent alleged that in the absence of any Chela, the late Mahant could nominate by will or otherwise any ascetic belonging to the same cult as a Mahant of the Math. The respondent admitted that he belonged to Ramanand Sampradaya, but he alleged that the Math also was of the same Sampradaya and not of Ramanui Sampradaya.

(3.) The trial Court held that the properties mentioned in Schedules A to D to the plaint were not personal properties of the late Mahant and that they were properties of the Math, and it is only the person who succeeded to the office of Mahant who could be entitled to possession of those properties by virtue of his office. The trial Court also held that it was not proved that the appellant was initiated as Chela by Damodardas. It was further held that there was not even any evidence that Damodardas was initiated as Chela by the late Mahant. The trial Court held in favour of the respondent that the registered will dated 11th March 1958 and the unregistered will dated 15th Aug. 1958 were both executed by the late Mahant. It was, however, held that the respondent succeeded to the office of Mahant by nomination under the unregistered will dated 15th Aug. 1958 and not under the registered will which merely bequeathed the properties and did not nominate the respondent as successor Mahant. It was also found in favour of the respondent that the Math belonged to Ramanand Sampradaya and that in absence of any Chela it was open to the late Mahant to nominate any Rama-nandi ascetic to the office of Mahant. On these findings the suit was dismissed.