RAMAMOHAN DAS Vs. BASUDEB DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit relates to an institution called Sri Biranshi Narayan Muth at Buguda, Ghumsur Taluk, Ganjam District. As appears from the connected civil Revisions Nos. 169/47 and 8/48 which have been heard with this appeal there appears to be some reasonable doubt whether this institution is a Muth or a temple. But so far as this appeal is concerned, it has proceeded on the assumption put forward by the plaintiff in his plaint that it is a Muth. This has not been traversed by the defendant in his written statement. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant is the Mahant of the Muthand that he is his duly constituted Chela and that his residence in the Math has been made impossible by the wrong conduct of the defendant and that he is denied even food and raiment and that he has had to leave the Muth in 1930. He accordingly asserts a right to be maintained out of the Muth funds and brings the suit against the defendant as the head of the Muth for recovery of maintenance past and future. The suit is of 1934 and has bad a chequered career. It was decreed by the then Subordinate Judge of Berhampur in 1936 who held that the plaintiff was entitled to get a maintenance of Rs. 20 p.m. for the future from the date of the suit and arrears of maintenance at E8. 10 p.m., for three years prior to the suit. On appeal to the learned District; Judge, the then District Judge on 31st August 1937, recorded what he considered to be a compromise between the parties to the effect that the plaintiff should get maintenance at Rs. 7 8.0 P.M. from the date of the suit and Rs. 5 p.m. for past arrears. On second appeal, it was found that the advocates who purported to compromise were not duly empowered to do so. The District Judge's decree was accordingly set aside and the appeal was remanded to the District Court for fresh disposal. On remand the learned District Judge after rehearing the appeal, felt that it was necessary to frame an issue for ascertaining whether the essential formalities required for the valid initiation ceremony were gone through when the plaintiff was initiated. He accordingly set aside the decision of the Subordinate Judge in favour of the plaintiff given in 1936, and remanded the case on 3rd February 1942 to the trial Court for disposal, according to law. After remand the plaintiff has examined one additional witness P.W. 6. The defendant has re -examined himself and his original fifth witness and has also examined three additional witnesses, D. Ws. 6, 7 and 8. In addition, the plaintiff has elicited some answers from the defendant on interrogatories, the answers being on dates 27th October 1942 and 28th February 1943. At the original trial the following issues were framed:

(2.) AFTER remand of the suit to the trial Court, the following additional issues were framed on 24th March 1942 presumably in pursuance of the District Judge's order of remand. (1) To which sect of the Yaishnavites does the defendant belong ? (2) What are essential ceremonies that are according to the custom and practice prevailing in the Muth of the defendant, required for the valid initiation of a Chela in the said Muth ? (3) Whether the said ceremonies were performed in the case of the plaintiff

(3.) ON the first question as already stated, the defendant's case is that beyond Upanayan, no other ceremony took place. It is the plaintiff's case that the Upanayan took place in the morning and after its close, an additional ceremony for the initiation of the plaintiff as a Chela was performed by the defendant. The trial Court both before and after remand, as well as the appellate Court after remand, have rejected the story of the defendant that he did not perform the Upanayan of the plaintiff and hence also held that an additional ceremony for initiation the plaintiff as a Chela was performed by the defendant. These facts have been found concurrently by the lower Courts and are no longer open to challenge. The only question therefore is whether the initiation of the plaintiff as a Chela of the defendant is invalid owing to the absence of any of the requisite formalities and ceremonies.