MAHANT SATNAM SINGH Vs. BAWAN BHAGWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant seeks reversal of both the judgment and decree of the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge at Benares dated 3 July 1931, and the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 18 September 1934, which affirmed it. The appeal was heard ex parte as the respondent did not appear.The dispute relates to the office of Mahant of the Chaitanya Math, founded in Benares according to the rules and practice of Sadhus of a Sikh community known as the Nanakshahi Nirmali Sampradaya, according to the custom and usage of the Math. For the purposes of this appeal, the facts are much clarified by concurrent findings by the Courts below, and the matters in dispute are narrowed so that the main point left in dispute is whether the respondent, who is plaintiff in the suit, was validly installed as Mahant on 13 April 1928.

(2.) The last Mahant, Ratan Singh, died on 23 June 1928, leaving a will dated 5 June 1928, under which he nominated the appellant as his successor and made him owner in possession of the Math property. The appellant claims that his nomination was subsequently accepted by the Bhek, or fraternity, and that he was duly installed on the gaddi by them on 9 July 1928, in accordance with custom. The appellant has since, in fact, continued in possession of the Math and the Math property.

(3.) While the validity of the appellant's installation has been disputed by the respondent on other grounds, the main ground is that the respondent had already been validly installed, and that accordingly there was no vacancy at the time of the appellant's installation. Mr. Dunne, on behalf of the appellant, admitted that this contention must succeed, if the respondent's installation was a valid one. If the respondents' installation was invalid, the suit must fail, as it is framed solely on the basis that the respondent is Mahant, and in this view, it would be equally unnecessary to consider the validity of the appellant's installation. It may, however, be mentioned that the respondent's attack on the validity of Mahant Ratan Singh's will has failed, by reason of concurrent findings of the Courts below, and the only question is whether it was inoperative, on the ground that prior to its date Ratan Singh had already effectively divested himself in favour of the respondent. The decision of this appeal, therefore, turns solely on the validity of the respondent's installation.