RAMDHAN PURI Vs. BALKISHUN PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision of the order of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya allowing an application to sue in forma pauperies. The plaintiff sued to eject the present possessor of the muth of Budhouli in Gaya and for the appointment of a receiver pendent lite, on the ground that he had a better title to the office of Mahanth than the defendant. The defendant took the objection that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action within the meaning of Order 33, Rule 5(d); but this objection was overruled by the learned Subordinate Judge. In para. 7 of the plaint the plaintiff describes the custom by which succession to the muth is regulated, stating that the reigning Mahanth nominates one of his chelas and that the chela so nominated succeeds him on his death; but that he does not become a legally constituted Mahanth until he has performed the dasnami-bhandara and has obtained the dasnami chadar from other Mahanchs of the surrounding and co- related muths.

(2.) It was not asserted that the plaintiff had obtained the dasnama-chadar as a token of election by the neighbouring Mahanth; and the objection was taker on behalf of the defendant that so long as the plaintiff was not the legally constituted Mahanth, he could not claim to eject the defendant from the muth. The learned Subordinate Judge, quoting from Shastri's work on Hindu Law held that the succession of the trusteeship of a muth could be evidenced either by the nomination of the late Mahanth or by the election by the members of the fraternity; and he considered that the allegation in the plaint that the previous Mahanth had nominated the plaintiff as his successor made out a good cause of action for the plaintiff to maintain his suit.

(3.) Mr. P.R. Das on behalf of the petitioner argues that the custom described in para. 7 of the plaint indicates that in order to constitute the plaintiff the legal Mahanth of this muth, it is necessary that his nomination should be confirmed by election by the assembled Mahanths and that so long as the plaintiff has not been so elected he cannot claim to be the legally constituted Mahanth, so that the title by virtue of which he claims to eject the defendant is on the face of it defective. On behalf of the respondent it is argued in the first place that where the trial Court has definitely found that the plaint does disclose a cause of action, it is not open to this Court to interfere with that order in revision, because that is a matter within the discretion of the Subordinate Judge.