SWAMI PARMARATH GIR Vs. RAMSARUP SINGH ALIAS TRIGUNANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This an application for re vision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, and is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Benares, dated the 3 of November, 1930, dismissing the plaintiff's application lor leave to sue as a pauper upon the ground that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action. The facts of this cage which have given rise to this application are briefly these: The plaintiff alleges that there is an ancestral math belonging to Dasnami sanyasis of the gir sect in Mohalla Suraj Kund in the city of Benares and that this math owns property worth Rs. 10,000,00. A geneolegical table has been set out in para. 3 of this application. Narain Gir is alleged to be the last mahant of this gaddi. He died a minor on the a July, 1910. Swarath Gir, guru of the applicant, who was a chachera guru bhat of Narain Gir, is described as the next mahant of the, gaddi, as according to Paramarath Gir), he was duly given the chadar according to the custom of the math and thus became the mahant, The property was in the possession of the Court off Wards. Three suits were instituted with reference to this properly: one by Jagannath Gir; the second, by Swarath Gir and the third by Trigunanand, Theee suits were numbered and registered reppectively as No. 2d of 1913, No. 122 of 1913 and No 27 of 1915. There was a triangular duel amongst these three persons, the position of the Court of Wards being that of a Neutral state which held the property in the capacity of a Stake-holder. All the three suits were dismissed by the trial Court in December, 1915 There were three appeals lodged in this Court. The appeal of Trigunanand was allowed and the other two appeais were dismissed. Theee appeals were decided on the 30 of April, 1922. Swarath. Gir made two applications to this Court for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council; one in his own suit and the other in the suit of Trigunanand, Leava to appeal was granted on both these applications. Swarath Gir failed to deposit Rs. 4,000 as security, in one of his appeals and the result was that that appeals as dismissed for default of prosecution. Swarath Gir died on the 22nd of February 1924 On the 25 of July 1924, Parmarath Gir, alleging himself to be the chela of Swarath Gir, applied for substitution of his name in place of Swarath Gir in Privy Council Appeal No. 17 of 1922. Trigunanand opposed this application on the ground that Parmarath Gir was not the chela of Swaraths Gir at all but was an imposter on the 28 of November 1924, Paramarath Girs application was dismissed for default of prosecution and it was declared that the Privy Council Appeal No. 17 of 1922 had abated. On the. 23 of December 1924 Parmarath Gir applied for setting aside the order, dated the 28 of Novenber 1024, dismissing his application for substitution of his name and he further prayed for the setting aside of the order of abatement but this application was dismissed on the 8 of January 1825.

(2.) The present application for leave to sue in forma pauperis was lodged by him on the 31 of March 1930. This was rejected by th6 Subordinate Judge on the ground that so far as the claim purported to be one for the determination of his title to the property as chela of Swarath Gir, it offended against the provisions of Order XXII, Rules 9 and 11 Civil Procedure Code, and was not competent, and so far as it purported to be a claim founded upon his personal right as a sanyasi belonging to the gir sect, which held the math, his apli-cation did not disclose any causa of action and was therefore liable to dismissal under Order XXXIII, Rule 5 (d), Civil Proce-dure Code. An application for revision has been filed against this order.

(3.) Upon an examination of the petition, it is clear that the applicant-plaintiff has no cause of action for the reliefs claimed. He is not the successor nominated by the last mahant nor is he a person, who has been selected and placed upon the gaddi by the electoral body in accordance with the custom of the foundation. He comes into court on the allegation that as the sole surviving sanyasi, belonging to this math, be has a right of action. Upon his own showing, he is not a person who is qualified to sue because he is not a person who...has been duly selected to the gaddi in accordance with the conditions set out ia para. 4 (a) of his plaint. We are therefore of opinion that the court below was right in coming to the conclusion that his petition did not disclose any cause of action.