RAMSARUP DAS Vs. RAMESHWAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals by the defendants arise out of a single judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Monghyr, dated 21st June 1946, in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the properties as shebait of the deity, Shree Lakshmi Narayan Jee. First Appeal No. 171 is on behalf of defendant 1 Ramsarup Das, and First Appeal No. 332 is on behalf of defendants 2 and 3.

(2.) The plaintiff alleged that there is an ancient Asthal in village Salauna in the Begusarai sub-division of Monghyr District endowed with considerable properties. The institution was founded by Mahanth Masta Ram Bairagi Brabmachari Grihatyagi Vaishnava Sadhu of Shree Sampradaya Sect, with the help and support of the Hindus of the locality. He also alleged that the Asthal was a public charitable and religious institution for the behoof of the Hindu community; that the Asthal has large income from gifts and offerings made by the public for religious and charitable purposes; that out of the income and offerings, the mahanths successively acquired properties, and thus made accretions to the endowment; that the Asthal had thus acquired considerable properties detailed in Schedule A to the plaint; and that Mahanth Lakshmi Das, the plaintiff's guru, made considerable acquisitions for the public trust aforesaid, and erected a stonebuilt temple on the site of the old dilapidated temple at a large cost, and, in phagoon 1323 Fasli, formally endowed all the properties of the Asthal by mantra sankalpa to the deity, Shree Lakshmi Narayan Jee. The properties thus became debottar properties after the endowment aforesaid. Mahanth Lakshmi Das aforesaid died in Magh 1336 Fasli, leaving him surviving three chelas, namely, Bishun Das, Bhagwat Das and Rameshwar Das. During the bhandara, that is to say, sradh ceremony, of Mahanth Lakshmi Das, there arose a dispute amongst his chelas as regards succession to the shebaitship. That dispute was settled, and the deed of settlement is the ekrarnama, dated 5th February 1919, the terms of which were that the three chelas aforesaid ware to succeed one another as shebait, that is to say, Bishun Das was to come first, next to him was to be Bhagwat Das, and the plaintiff wag to come after him, and that, after the lapse of the life estate of those three persons a worthy bairagi of brahman descent would be selected by the gentlemen of the locality and the sadhus of the neighbourhood. It was also agreed as a result of the settlement that those three persons would not nominate their successors. Accordingly, Bishun Das became the first mahanth and shebait, and he was recorded in the Collector's records as shebait of the deity. Bishun Das died on 3rd March 1931, and, on his death, Bhagwat Das succeeded him as the mahanth and shebait according to the terms of the ekrarnama, and he also was recorded as shebait of the deity in the Collector's registers. Bhagwat Das died on 25th February 1935, and the plaintiff succeeded him as the shebait of the deity. The plaintiff thus became the shebait and mahanth not only as a result of the ekrarnama but also according to the custom and usage of the Asthal and the agreement of the people of the locality and the mahanths of the neighbourhood. The plaintiff also alleged that, according to the custom prevalent in the Asthal, the ablest chela is appointed shebait by the people of the locality and the sadhus and mahanths of the neighbouring mathas, irrespective of whether he was a senior or junior chela, in case the last reigning mahanth died leaving more than one chela. The plaintiff made an application for mutation of his name in the Collector's records in substitution of the name of last mahanth, Bhagwat Das; but he was opposed by defendant 1 who was set up by designing persons as the chela of the last mahanth, Bhagwat Das. The land registration case ended in favour of defendant 1, and, on the strength of the order of the Land Registration Courts, defendant 1 dispossessed the plaintiff from the office of the shebait on 15th December 1935, Defendants 2 and 3 were also impleaded, as some of the Asthal properties set out in Schedule B of the plaint stood recorded in their names. The plaintiff also sets out a number of legations between the parties, which are not very material for the purposes of these appeals. The plaintiff prayed for the declaration that, according to the terms of the ekrarnama, dated 5th February 1919, the plaintiff is the mahanth and shebait of the Salauna Asthal after the death of Mahanth Bhagwat Das; that defendant 1 had no title to the office of shebait; and that be was never appointed mahanth and shebait of the aforesaid Asthal. It was also claimed that the possession of defendant 1 as shebait of the properties appertaining to the Asthal was that of a trespasser, and that the plaintiff be put in possession of the shebaitship by dispossessing the defendant, or any other persons found to be in possession of the Asthal properties. A decree for mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit until the date of delivery of possession was also prayed for.

(3.) The suit was contested by all the defendants. Defendant 1 filed a separate written statement, and defendants 2 and 3 their own. Except for the formal pleas in bar of the suit, the substantial contentions raised in the written statements were that the Asthal and its properties were not of the nature of a public and charitable trust; that the properties of the Asthal were the personal properties of the mahanths; and though it was admitted that Mahanth Lakshmi Das established a temple, and installed the deity Lakshmi Narayan Jee, it was denied that be dedicated all the movable and immovable properties appertaining to the matha or the Asthal to the deity, or that the properties thus became debottar. Defendant 1 did not admit the genuineness or the validity of the ekrarnama dated 5th February 1919, and asserted that, even if the ekrarnama was duly executed, it could not bind the defendant. He denied that the plaintiff became entitled to the shebaitship, or that he became the mahanth and shebait by virtue of the ekrarnama, or as a result of the agreement of the people of the locality and the sadhus and Mahanths of the neighbouring institutions. It was also asserted that Mahanth Lakshmi Das had no legal right to declare any of the properties appertaining to the math, to be debottar, nor did he make any such declaration. This defendant claimed to be the legal successor to the mahanthship, and, in accordance with the customs and traditions of the Asthal, became the successor, to Mahanth Bhagwat Das as his chela, and the mahanths and gentry of the locality, on the death of Bhagwat Das, gave kanthi and chadar and tilalc and pagri to him, He also denied the plaintiff's statement that he was not a bairagi chela of Bhagwat Das. Defendants 2 and 3 denied that the properties in Schedule B were Asthal properties, and claimed those properties as their personal properties. They also denied that they were farzidars of the math in the matter of the purchase of the property at a revenue sale.