MAHANTH GIRJANAND BHAGAT Vs. BHAGWAN BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants Respondent 1, Bhagwan Bhagal brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chapra, for declaration that he was the duly installed Mahant of Saddar Asthal of Turki and its subordinate asthals: and that neither of defendants 1 and 2 had any right or claim to the Mahanthship; and that the transfers made in favour of the defendants third and fourth party by defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the property belonging to that Asthal were fraudulent, without consideration and without any legal necessity, and therefore nut binding on the plaintiff or the Asthal. He asked for recovery of possession of the lands and properties of the Asthal and for a permanent injunction against defendants 1 and 2 restraining them from withdrawing the amount of compensation money of Rs. 59,471.86 P. on account of acquisition of land and Rs. 2,235 as the price of sugarcane. He wanted to be held entitled to receive those two amounts, which had been deposited in suspense account by the Collector. Muzaffarpur. He also prayed for a decree for mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit till the delivery of possession of properties. The transferees from defendants 1 and 2 were made the defendants third and fourth party to the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff's case, in brief, was that an Asthal of Kabirpanthi Bhaggataha Vairagi seet was situate in village Turki, thana Kurahni in the district of Muzaffarpur. There were several asthals at different places subordinate to that main asthal, which was established more than 300 years back. A long line of Mahanths had presided over that and were successively in possession of all properties belonging to the Sadar and the subordinate asthals. The devolution of office of Mahanthship had always been from Guru to the seniormost celebate chela. Defendant 2, Narsingh Bhagat, was the last reigning Mahanth. He had succeeded to the Mahantship after the death of his Guru Mahanth Mahadeo Bhagat. The plaintiff was the seniormost celebate chela and had been entrusted with the management of the properties and affairs of three subordinate maths (asthals) in the district of Saran, while defendant 1, who was a junior chela, was put in management of the subordinate maths at Siswa in the district of Muzaffarpur and Bhusawar in the district of Darbhanga. Mahanth Narsingh Bhagat fell in bad company and habits and began to waste the properties of the math- He, in collusion with defendant 1, executed a deed of nomination in his (defendant 1's) favour on the I7th December. 1951, whereby he nominated defendant 1 to succeed him after his death as Mahanth. Subsequently, he also executed a deed of surrender on the 15th September, 1952, in favour of defendant 1, Girjanand Bhagat, whereby he (defendant 2) gave up his Mahanth ship to him. The plaintiff filed a suit--title suit No 87 of 1953 against both the defendants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Muzaffarpur, for declaration that he being the seniormost chela of defendant 2, was entitled to succeed to the office of Mahantship of the asthal at Turki according to the custom on the retirement of defendant 2 from that office by execution of the deed of surrender dated the 15th September, 1952, and that defendant 1 had acquired no right to that office by virtue of the nomination made by defendant 2. There was a compromise between the parties in that suit to the effect that the plaintiff should assume the Mahanthship: and a compromise petition was to be filed to that effect in the suit. The plaintiff signed on a blank paper and gave it to the defendants to write the compromise petition on that and file it in Court. According to that compromise, the plaintiff assumed the office of Mahanthship and took possession of all the properties of the math. His installation ceremony took place on the 16th February, 1956, according to the custom and usage of the math. Later on the plaintiff came to know that the petition of compromise, that was filed in his suit by defendants 1 and 2, was not in accordance with the terms of agreement and the defendants had practised fraud on him in that respect. When defendant 1 asked for mutation of his name in the Hathwa Revenue office in respect of properties of Chanwa subordinate asthal, the plaintiff objected to that; but without success. Later, a proceeding under Section 145. Criminal Procedure Code, arose between the parties in respect of Chanawe properties and was decided against defendant 1 by the order passed by the Magistrate on the 4th June, 1947; but that order was revised by the High Court at the instance of defendant 1 on the 25th February, 1959. Following that, defendants 1 and 2 dispossessed the plaintiff from all the properties of the math and the subordinate asthals, details of which were given in schedule 1 of the plaint. In the plaint, the transfers made by defendants 1 and 2 of some of the math properties in favour of the defendants third and fourth party were also stated and challenged. The plaintiff asserted that the custom about succession to the office of Mahantship as prevalent in the asthal in this case is that, after the death or retirement of the reigning Mahanth, his seniormost chela succeeds to the Mahanthship and he is installed to the Gaddi after the performance of Bhandara when, in an assemblage of Mahanths and sadhus of the sect of Kabirpanthi and respectable persons of the locality, the Chhadar is bestowed on him by the Mahanth of Achharya Math, Dhanauti in the district of Saran; and after those ceremonies are duly performed the seniormost chela gets the recognition. Since defendant 1, Girjanand was a junior chela, the plaintiff attacked the validity of his nomination by defendant 2, and further pleaded that without the chhadar ceremony and the installation, he (defendant 1) had not become the mahanth. On these allegations, he claimed the reliefs as already stated.

(3.) One written statement was filed on behalf of both defendants 1 and 2, wherein they referred to the custom and usage of the Turki Math to the effect that a Mahanth in his lifetime nominates a competent chela of his as his successor irrespective of his seniority. As such, the chela becomes the Mahanth on the death or retirement of the reigning Mahanth. Installation or the Chaddar ceremony is not an essential part of conferment of title to the math and its properties. According to the custom, the Mahanth is to lead celebate life and to maintain high character and lead a life of discipline They challenged the plaintiff by saying that he was a householder and not a celebate chela. The nomination by defendant 2 of defendant 1 as his successor was asserted to be valid and not contrary to the prevailing custom and usage. The transfers of properties by the defendants were similarly claimed to he valid. About the compromise in the previous suit filed by the plaintiff, they said that no fraud was practised upon them and the present suit was challenged as barred by res judicata on that account. On these pleadings ten issues were framed of which issues 4 and 5 related to custom and issue 8 was about the compromise in the previous suit, issues 7 and 9 about the plaintiff's possession and dispossession and his acting as Mahanth. Issue 6 was in regard to the nomination of defendant 1 as successor to defendant 2. The question of res judicata was in issue No. 2; and whether the plaintiff was a celebate chela of defendant 2 was raised in issue 3.