RAMPRAPANNA RAMANUJ DAS Vs. SUDARSAN RAMANUJ DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff having lost his cause in both the courts below has come up with the present Second Appeal, Defendant No. 1, who is meanwhile dead, was the Mahant of the Samadhi Math at Puri. On 29-11-1944, the said Mahant executed a will 'Ext. 1' nominating the plaintiff as his successor. On 12-7-1952 he cancelled Ext. 1 by another deed (Ext. D). On that very day, he executed a will Ext. E nominating defendant No. 2 as his successor. On the same day, that is, 12-7-1952, the plaintiff brought a suit against defendant No. 1 for declaration that he was not in his proper senses and was incompetent to act as the Mahant and that the plaintiff, as his legal heir and successor, was entitled to act as the Mahant in his place, having been nominated by a valid will which had long since been acted upon, (vide plaint Ext. A(1)). This suit was, however, not actively proceeded with and the plaintiff instituted another suit (vide plaint Ext. A) for a permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from interfering with the management of the Samadhi Math by the plaintiff. While this suit was pending (it was subsequently abandoned) the Suit under appeal was instituted for a declaration that the cancellation of the plaintiff's nomination and the debarring of the plaintiff thereby from being the future Mahant was illegal. During the pendency of the last suit, defendant No. 1 died and no substitution was made in his place. This suit was valued at Rs. 200/- for purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction. After the death of defendant No. 1, the plaint was amended in certain minor aspects, but no consequential relief was claimed against defendant No. 2 who, after the death of defendant No. 1, became the Mahant.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case is that after he had been validly initiated as a Chela followed by a nomination for the future Mahantship, he acquired a vested status as the junior Mahant, and the Mahant defendant No. 1 had no power to control that nomination far less to do so, without any justifying reasons. THE case on the defendant's side was that after the death of defendant 1, a pure declaratory suit without any consequential relief against defendant No. 2 was not maintainable; and that since the Math had extensive property, the suit had been under-valued. It was also contended that all the ceremonies necessary for initiating of a Chela had not been performed in case of the plaintiff and the plaintiff could not be validly initiated as a Chela by defendant No. 1 since the plaintiff had been previously initiated as a Chela by one Basudeb Ramanuj Das, who was defendant No. 1's earlier Chela and who was murdered sometime before the will in 1944 was executed by defendant No. 1. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had ceased to be a Satsishya to defendant No. 1 by misconduct, and so the earlier nomination was rightly cancelled by defendant No. 1. According to the defendant, the right of defendant No. 1 to cancel the earlier nomination was absolute and not circumscribed by any limitation : and that the usage of the institution authorised such cancellation.