(BABU) MAHADEO PRASAD SINGH Vs. KARIA BHARTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal relates to a village khown at Saktni, which is situated in the District of Gorakbpur in the province of Agra. The village formed part of the estate annexed to the math of Kanchanpur in that District and was sold to the defendants, hereinafter called the appellants, on 1 March 1914, by one Rajbans Bharthi alleged to be the mahant of the math at that time. Rajbans died on 21 March 1916, and the present action was brought on 23rd February 1926, by Karia Bharthi, who claimed to be his successor as the mahant of the shrine. A large number of pleas were raised to defeat the suit, but there are only two questions which have been argued on this appeal: first, that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit; second, that the claim was barred by limitation. The facts of the case bearing on these questions do not admit of any real dispute. In April 1894, one Bachchu Bharthi, who was admittedly the mahant of the math, died, and two persons, namely Rajbans Bharthi and Karia Bharthi, came forward to claim the office of the mahant. Karia was, at that time, a boy of only about 13 years of age; and his father, acting as his guardian, settled the dispute with the rival claimant by a compromise. In accordance with this compromise Rajbans executed on 2nd May 1894 a deed by which he promised to adopt the boy as his chela and declared him to be his successor to the office of mahant. As a result of this settlement, Rajbans was recognised and installed as the mahant of the math.

(2.) On attaining majority Karia repudiated the compromise and instituted in 1899 a suit to establish his claim to the office of mahant on the death of his guru Bachchu Bharthi. This claim was allowed by the trial Court but dismissed on appeal by the High Court. Against the judgment of the High Court Karia preferred an appeal to His Majesty in Council, but, while the appeal was pending, he entered into a compromise with Rajbans. In compliance with the compromise Rajbans executed, on 25 April 1904, a document by which he assigned to Karia two villages Kanchanpur and Pathkauli, and also the building of the math situated at Kanchanpur; while he retained for himself the rest of the property appertaining to the institution including the village of Saktni. The deed also provided that each of the claimants would be competent to alienate the property allotted to him without any objection by his rival. In the result, Karia did not prosecute his appeal to the Privy Council and that appeal was apparently dismissed without any decision on the question of his title to the mahantship. After this compropromise Karia lived in the building of the math at Kanchanpur, and Rajbans took his abode at Pakri, one of the five villages which continued to be in his possession. Karia has admittedly alienated both the villages which were assigned to him by the compromise, and Rajbans also has transferred some properties annexed to the institution including the village of Saktni. In the plaint filed by Karia in the present case he laid claim to the village in question on the ground that be was the dhela of Rajbans, and was, after his death, installed as the mahant of the math. The trial Court and the High Court have, however, held that he was neither the chela of Rajbans, nor appointed to be the head of the institution. Both the Courts have also found that Karia, though not duly installed, was, in fact, the mahant of the math; but they differed on the question of whether he could, in that capacity, recover the property. The learned Judges of the High Court have answered the question in the affirmative, and their Lordships are of opinion that the conclusion reached by them is correct.

(3.) There can be little doubt that Karia has been managing the affairs of the institution since 1904, and has since the death of Rajbans been treated as its mahant by all the persons interested therein. The property entered in the revenue records in the name of Rajbans was, on his death, mutated to Karia, and it is not suggested that there is any person who disputes his title to the office of the mahant. In these circumstances their Lordships ships agree with the High Court that Karia was entitled to recover for the benefit of the math the property which belonged to the math and is now wrongly held by the appellants. They are in no better position than trespassers. As observed by this Board in Ram Charan Das V/s. Naurangi Lal, 1933 PC 75, a person in actual possession of the math is entitled to maintain a suit to recover property appertaining to it, not for his own benefit, but for the benefit of the math.