RAMLAKHAN TIWARI Vs. RAMLAGAN GOSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Muzafferpur is preferred by Ramlakhan Tiwari, the first of defendants six in the suit and (except that defendant 6 filed a written statement) the only contesting defendant. The suit out of which the appeal arises was instituted by Mahant Ramlagan Gosain, Mahant of the Damodarpur Lohari math in the district of Saran against the appellant and; (2) Sarjug Jha, son of Abhidatta Jha, a Brahman; (3) Achhelal Sahu son of Nandipat Mahto, a Sundi; (4) Raghunandan Raut, apparently a Goala; (5) Gena Mahto, a Nonia; and (6) Baldeodas, a Brahman fakir, for whom was substituted Rajadas described as the disciple of Baldeodas deceased, a fakir, all cultivators of Dostia (sometimes wrongly written Dosaria)-Araria in the district of Muzaffarpur. The names and description of the defendants have some significance.

(2.) The material allegations were briefly as follows: The plaintiff is the mahant of the Damodarpur Lohari math in the district of Saran which is a Bhagtahi Kabirpanthi institution, that is to say, of that cult or sect (panth) of the followers of the religious reformer kabir (15 century A.D.) who are termed bhagtahis. The term "bhakti" or as it is pronounced in Bihar "bhagti" means devotion or loving faith and involves the idea of God as a personal being.

(3.) A former mahant of that math, Alam Gosain, had five disciples including Sheonath, Subhao and Tahal Gosains. Sheonath became mahant of Damodarpur- Lohari and the other disciples established maths at different places which remain subordinate to the parent math. One such math was Dostia Araria (formerly in Champaran, now in Muzaffarpur district) of which the mahant was Bhagwat Bhagat who died in January 1920, without leaving any chela (disciple). The present appellant, a recent arrival in the neighbourhood, having won over Bhagwat Bhagat whose intellect was enfeebled from age, in collusion with the other defendants, manufactured a fraudulent mukhtarnama dated 4 November 1919, purporting to be executed by Bhagwat Bhagat (although the latter had no power to execute such a document); and relying upon it defendants 1 to 5 have illegally taken possession of the math and its properties and appointed defendant 6 as pujari.