MAHANT GOSWAMI KRISHNADEVANAND RAMJI Vs. MAHANT KAPILDEO RAMJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition in revision is directed against a summary order passed under Section 194, Succession Act (39 of 1925), regarding the possession of properties which to start with, were described as the properties of a muth called the Rajipur Asthal otherwise known as Dhana Asthal. The last mahant of the Asthal was Mahant Goswami Madhwanand Ramji who died on 26 February 1940. Thereupon dispute arose regarding succession to the office of mahant.

(2.) On 21 March 1940, Mahant Goswami Kapildeo Ramji filed an application under Section 192, Succession Act, impleading 17 persons as opposite party, in the Court of the District Judge, Patna, alleging that he was the lawful successor-in- office of the last Mahant "by virtue of his being descended from the common Mahant of the institution aforesaid and also by virtue of his having been so nominated by the Mahants of the neighbouring places and districts," and that the opposite party with a view to make illegal and wrongful gain to themselves have been trying to take possession of the properties by forcible means although the petitioner has taken possession of the properties of the Muth in exercise of his legal right to the properties aforesaid, and praying that peaceful possession of the properties of the Muth be given to the applicant. On receipt of this application the learned District Judge examined the applicant on oath, as required by Section 193 of the Act, and being satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for taking further action, as laid down in that section, he summoned the opposite party under Section 194 of the Act. He also appointed a curator under Section 195 of the Act. The application was opposed by the opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the objector), one Kishundeo Pandey son of Sheopujan Pande, who however appeared not intnat name but as Mahant Goswami Krishnadevanand. He claimed that he was the duly adopted Chela of the deceased Mahant and as such had succeeded him and come into possession of the Asthal and its properties. He altogether denied the claim of the applicant. He also raised an objection to the maintainability of the application on the ground that the properties in dispute being properties of the Asthal, the provisions of Section 192 and the succeeding sections of the Act were not applicable.

(3.) On 15 April 1941, the following points were settled for determination: (1) Is the application maintainable? (2) Was opposite party No. 1 adopted as Chela by the late Mahant of Rajipore? (3) Is the opposite party No. 1 a minor? (4) Is opposite party No. 1 not a Sadhu? (5) Was the applicant recognised by neighbouring Mahants as Mahant of Eajipore after the death of the late Mahant? (6) Is the applicant of a different sect from the late Mahant?