Bhagaban Ramanuj Das vs Ram Praparna Ramanuj Das

R. Couch, J. 1. The question in this appeal relates to the right to succeed as mohant of a muth, or Hindu religious institution, called Dakhinparsa situated in Puri near the Temple of Juggernath, of which in 1850 and for some years before Chaturbhuj Das Gossain was the mohant. On the 15th February 1850 the Collector of the southern division of zillah Cuttack, with a view to putting an end to the frequent disputes which arose as to the right of succession to the ninths at Puri, of which there was a very great number, called on the mohants, who claimed the right of nominating their successors, to make their selections and report them to him, and to inform him also whether they were of opinion that so doing was contrary to the Shastras, and he invited a detailed representation on the matter and their opinion thereon. On the 18th April 1850 a report was submitted to the Collector by a great number of the mohants, Chaturbhuj being one of them, and from this and the oral evidence in the case it has been found by the Subordinate Judge and the High Court that the mohant has a power of appointment from among his chelas or disciples if more than one; that in the absence of appointment a chela succeeds; if there are more than one, the eldest succeeds; and in the absence of a chela a gurubhai (a co-chela of the mohant) succeeds. 2. On the 6th May 1861 Chaturbhuj presented a petition to the Civil Court of Cuttsick within whose jurisdiction the Dakhinparsa muth was, in which he said: "I have kept in my muth a Brahmin lad whose name is Hanuman Das and who belongs to the North-West, the place of my birth, and whom I brought here when he was only five years old. I have invested him with the sacred thread in accordance with the Shastras, and having duly made him my chela and having as used him to read the Shastras in Sanskrit, etc., I have instructed and brought him up in a variety of accomplishments. I have given him the custody of the key and lock of the building of the muth, and have through him been managing all sorts of business. Besides him I have nobody else.... The said Hanuman Das, better known as Hoigrib Ramanuj Das, will after my death become the mohant and occupier of the guddi of the muth and manage all affairs and expenses of the amrita-manohi of Jagannath Mahaprobhu. If anybody object to this on the allegation that he is my chela then his objection will not be fit to be accepted, nor will it be accepted. So with the object of avoiding any dispute regarding my muth I file this petition and pray that it to ordered that this petition may be kept in the public office." The petition appears from an official entry to have been presented by Chaturbhuj in person, and it was ordered to be filed in the office. 3. On the 21st August 1862 Chaturbhuj executed a deed in which he declared as follows:

I am the mohant and occupier of the guddi muth. I have a chela Hoigrib Ramanuj Das who is very expert in serving me. His conduct is also good and worthy of an occupier of a mohant''s guddi. I have no other chela or heir besides him. With this view I have already filed in the Civil Courts and in the Collectorate petitions making known that the said Hoigrib Ramanuj Das will be the successor to my office after my death and will be the occupier of the mohantai guddi and owner and possessor of the muth and all moveable and immoveable properties belonging to it. Therefore, inasmuch as at present I have become old and intend to prevent all future obstruction to the succession to my mohantai guddi, I transfer, with the exception of the right of occupying the mohantai guddi, all the aforesaid movoable and immoveable properties to the said Hoigrib Ramanuj Das of my own will and make him the owner as of right and in possession of the same. He will get his name registered in accordance with law , After my death he will get the mohantai guddi. 4. On the 27th March 1867 Chaturbhuj presented another petition, referring to the former one, and stating that he had put Hoigrib in possession of the muth with all its properties, and praying that, in accordance with the prayer of his chela Hoigrib Ramanuj Das, it might be ordered that his name might be recorded. In this petition Chaturbhuj says : I have no other chela or heir besides the said Hoigrib Das." Chaturbhuj died on the 20th March 1868. On the 12th June 1873 Roghunundun, the original respondent, who has died during the appeal, presented a petition in opposition to a petition of Hoigrib for a certificate of heirship to Chaturbhuj in which he is described as "Mohant Roghunundun Ramanuj Das, eldest chela and heir of Mohant Chaturbhuj Ramanuj Das deceased." That petition contains the following statements: Hoigrib Ramanuj Das, alleging himself to be the chela and heir of Mohant Chaturbhuj Das, deceased, has applied for a certificate of heirship and notification to that effect has been issued. The petitioner is by no means the chela and heir of my deceased guru and cannot obtain a certificate on that basis. The deceased Mohant Chaturbhuj Das, knowing that I am the son of a good Brahmin and fit to be the mohant of the muth in accordance with the custom of muth-holders, took me as chela in proper form and brought me up by educating me in several branches of learning and the Baishnab religion. The petitioner is by birth the son of the uterine brother of my deceased guru. The petitioner being afflicted with leprosy from childhood, and not being fit in after-life to perform the duties of a householder, was left by his father to pass his days in the muth. My guru, the deceased mohant, being led by affection used to show favour to the petitioner as his nephew and as one who had fallen into bad circumstances. For this reason the petitioner was called by people generally the younger chela of my guru. Under these circumstances, even if the petitioner is the younger chela, I being the elder am the proper person to be the heir.... For a mohant has frequently to perform the sheba of Jagannatbji and has to manage the amrita manohi duties of the deity. A man afflicted with leprosy is unfit to perform such duties as deb sheba, etc., and people cannot come in contact with (touch) him, Therefore the petitioner being afflicted with leprosy is not fit to be mohant in accordance with the Shastras and custom and cannot obtain the certificate of heirship. 5. In a deposition made on the 28th July 1873 in support of his petition Roghunundun said: "After the death of Chaturbhuj Hoigrib became the mohant with my permission. Before the death of Chaturbhuj I used to do the duties of pujari in the muth. I lived in the muth up to the death of Chaturbhuj." In a petition in answer to this presented by Hoigrib on the 28th July 1873 Hoigrib said: "The objector is by no means the chela of my deceased guru.... My guru had no other chela besides myself." No order for a certificate of heirship was made. Hoigrib continued in possession of the muth and to be the mohant until his death on the 10th May. After, July 1873 Roghunundun took no steps during Hoigrib''s lifetime to assert his right to be mohant or to have it declared that he was a chela of Chaturbhuj. He continued to perform the duties of pujari. On the 25th November 1887 the appellant brought a suit against Roghunundun, alleging that on the 20th February 1875 Hoigrib duly made the appellant his chela and that being the chela and heir of Hoigrib he was entitled to possession of the muth and the properties appertaining thereto, and praying that on its being established that he was the chela and heir a decree might be passed giving him possession. His case is that being Hoigrib''s uterine brother''s son Hoigrib caused him to be brought to Puri from his birthplace and changed his former name Bhagabat Dobey according to the custom observed by previous mohants, and gave him the name of Bhagaban Ramanuj Das and duly made him his chela; that he remained in the Dakhinparsa muth for about four years after he became chela and then went to Benares; that he studied for eight or nine months and then went on pilgrimage; he then travelled as a pilgrim for two years and some months and then returned to Benares where he remained for about two or three months; after that he came to Puri where he learned that his guru died; that he wanted to enter the muth and was not allowed to enter it. 6. The case of Roghunundun in his written statement is that the appellant never became the chela of Hoigrib; that Hoigrib long before his death had been suffering from leprosy and was therefore, according to the Shastras and custom, incompetent to adopt any body as his chela, and if he adopted a chela, the adoption was invalid; that when Roghunundun was twelve years old Chaturbhuj adopted him as his chela and Hoigrib was the younger chela; that Hoigrib, knowing Roghunundun was his gurubhai, and that he was in every respect competent to be mohant, consulted the principal mohants and adhikaris (superintendents) of the muths of his sect and the gentlemen of the town of Puri and the old servants of the muth, and before his death a will was duly executed in Roghunundun''s favour stating therein the above facts, and after Hoigrib''s death the santhas and mohants and gentlemen of the town of Puri assembled, gave him the mohantai kanthi and made him guddi-nashin. 7. The first and main question in the case is, was the appellant validly adopted by Hoigrib? In addition to the appellant''s own evidence seven witnesses were called who said they were present when the adoption took place and spoke of the ceremonies then performed. Of these, three were mohants and two were adhikaris of neighbouring muths, and it did not appear that they had any connection with the appellant. On the part of Roghunundun there was the evidence on this question of five witnesses. The first was a mohurrir of the Puri Collectorate who spoke to a conversation with Hoigrib ten or twelve years before his death, in which he told him he had taken no chela. No other person appears to have been present. Such evidence is of no value. The next witness was one of Roghunundun''s pleaders. His evidence was that Hoigrib about five or seven months before his death brought him a draft of a will, and having read it and afterwards conversed with Hoigrib, he came to know that up to that time he had taken no chela. He also said that Hoigrib told him that Roghunundun was his gurubhai. Another witness (No. 5) was Roghunundun''s mokhtar. He said Hoigrib did not adopt any chela, but he could not when asked explain his reason for making that statement. Witness No. 6 said that if the appellant was made a chela he must have known it (his reason for it apparently being his having gone to the muth frequently in Hoigrib''s time). Several other witnesses gave similar evidence that the appellant was not made a chela; if Hoigrib had made a chela they must have known it. Witness No. 8 said that he had heard from Hoigrib that Roghunundun was his gurubhai. 8. The appellant''s evidence of his going to Benares to be educated was supported by two witnesses who were examined there under a commission. One was the son of Isri, the pundit to whose house the appellant went, who was dead. He said the appellant used to send letters to Hoigrib, in which he addressed him as his guru, and he also received letters from Hoigrib, in which the latter styled him as his chela. The other witness said he saw the appellant at Benares with Isri Pundit. Nothing was elicited from either of these witnesses which affected his credit. The High Court said that the story about the absence of the appellant at Benares and the pilgrimage was a very doubtful one, and if it was to be believed it might have been much more fully proved. This does not appear to their Lordships to be a satisfactory way of dealing with this evidence. 9. The next question is the adoption of Roghunundun by Chaturbhuj. This is important, because if he was not adopted he was not a gurubhai of Hoigrib, and according to the custom was not entitled to succeed him if the appellant had not been adopted. The evidence afforded by the so-called will applies to the adoption principally of Roghunundun but also of the appellant. The Subordinate Judge says in his judgment: "The only document filed on behalf of the defence to rebut the evidence as to plaintiff''s chelaship and to prove that defendant was Hoigrib''s gurubhai, is a will purporting to be the will of Hoigrib Das, deceased, dated 9th May 1880. Defendant does not claim the property under this will, but tendered it to prove certain admissions of Hoigrib as he did not take any probate." The learned Judges of the High Court seem to treat the will as conclusive. They say: "If Hoigrib made the will in dispute, it is impossible to believe that the plaintiff was ever appointed chela, for the expressions used in the will negative any such idea. If the plaintiff was appointed chela, it is difficult to see why Hoigrib should have made this will." Their Lordships do not accept this view of the will. They think it is necessary to consider whether, having regard to the other evidence in the case, the statements in the will should be accepted as true. The statements are as follows: That my venerable guru had two chelas, i.e., the elder Roghunundun Ramanuj Das and the younger myself. That during the last days of my guru the said Roghununduu having gone on pilgrimage and I having remained in my own muth and rendered help to the best of my ability in the matter of sheba and other services to my guru the said mohant and to Jagannath Mahaprobhu my guru the said mohant became satisfied and gave me the mohantai kanthi in the presence of all the santhas and mohants of Puri in accordance with the custom prevailing from before and gave me permission to become guddinashin (to succeed him as the mohant) after his death. Some time after my guru having died I became the guddinashin and have been duly managing all affairs. In the meantime my elder gurubhai, the said Roghunundun Ramanuj Das, having returned from pilgrimage wanted to have from me some position of authority. Thereupon I appointed him as the principal pujari to perform the puja services of Sri Roghunathji Thakoor, the presiding deity in that muth, and also as my representative in many matters to be done by me.... He has up to this time been satisfactorily discharging all those duties and he is virtuous and is one of the heirs of my guru. His character has given satisfaction to me, to other santhas and mohants, and to all persons young and old living in the muth. I had intended to bring a Brahmin boy from the North-West Provinces and adopt him as my chela, but my body having been diseased from before, and of late there having been an aggravation of the disease, my life is in danger. So in the presence of Mohun Das, Mohunt of Sri Muth, Mohant Narain Das, Mohant Anirudha Das, Mohant Baroda Ramanuj Das and Adhikari Komul Narain Romanuj Das, all belonging to our sect, and with their advice, I have made this arrangement that after my death my gurubhai the said Roghunundun Ramanuj Das shall be my successor and heir and shall be the occupant of the guddi of this muth. He will also be the owner.... And the Brahmin boy from the North-West whom I intended to adopt as my chela is one Bhagaban Dobey, the son of Sanman Dobey, resident of Mouzah Tewaripore, pergunnah Kanda, zillah Ghazipore in the North-Western Provinces. If hereafter ho comes and agrees to become a chela then my gurubhai, the said Mohant Reghunundun Ramanuj Das, will duly adopt that Bhagaban as his chela, and if after being adopted as chela ho the said Bhagaban proves to be of good character, then after the death of Roghunundun he will be Roghunundun''s heir and the mohant of the muth. 10. The statement in this document that Chaturbhuj had two chelas and that Roghunundun was Hoigrib''s gurubhai is directly opposed to the statement of Chaturbhuj in his petition of the 6th May 1861, his deed of the 21st August 1862, and his petition of the 27th March 1867, and to the petition of Hoigrib of the 28th July 1873, in which Hoigrib says: "My guru had no other chela besides myself." The statement that during the last days of my guru the said Roghunundun having gone on "pilgrimage" is contrary to Roghunundun''s deposition in the certificate case on the 28th July 1873 in which he says: "Before the death of Chaturbhuj I used to do the duties of pujari in the muth. I lived in the muth up to the death of Chaturbhuj." Apparently it was thought necessary to state the pilgrimage to account for Hoigrib becoming mohant. Then the statement of the intention to bring Bhagaban Dobey from the North-Western Provinces and adopt him as his chela cannot be true if the evidence of the appellant''s witnesses who say they were present at his adoption is true. As to these witnesses the Subordinate Judge says: "It has not been shown that plaintiff''s mohant and adhikari witnesses have connections with plaintiff or with mohant Uttarparsa muth; and knowing the jealousy with which Baishnabs regard men who do not belong to their sect it does not appear why these men should swear to a daring falsehood and accept one as a member of their class who did never go through any of the rites necessary to make a Baishnab, and not only so accept him but invest him with a character by a series of false and Derjured statements which will make him not merely a Baishnab but give him the highest position which men of their sect can attain. "Their Lordships think this observation has great weight. The document is not a will, it hay no testamentary effect; it is simply a statement by Hoigrib, and when compared with the other evidence is not in their Lordships'' opinion entitled to credit. The evidence of Roghunundun''s witnesses as to his adoption by Chaturbhuj does not appear to be of any value. 11. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the will was not the will of Hoigrib. The High Court appears to have thought that the only question with regard to the will was whether it had been satisfactorily proved. They found "as a fact that the will was the will of Hoigrib." And if their Lordships rightly understand their judgment they thought this would be an answer to the appellant''s case, and that it was unnecessary to consider whether the statements in it were true. 12. It remains to consider the question of leprosy. Upon this the Subordinate Judge and the High Court also differed. The remark of the Subordinate Judge as to the appellant''s mohant and adhikari witnesses, before quoted, is applicable to this question. It is improbable that the mohants and adhikaris would have taken part in the ceremonies of adoption-religious ceremonies-if it were known or there were reasons for thinking that Hoigrib was afflicted with leprosy which disqualified him from performing those ceremonies. In order to disqualify from making an adoption the leprosy must be of a virulent form. In this case there is no medical evidence, and there is evidence that Hoigrib till a few days before his death performed ceremonies which, if he was suffering from leprosy, he was incapable of performing. It was argued that no one would like to interfere, but it may reasonably be thought that there would have been some remonstrance or attempt to persuade him not to perform the ceremonies by some of the persons around him or by mohants or adhikaris of other muths. The conclusion of their Lordships from the evidence is, that Hoigrib was not disqualified by leprosy from making an adoption; that the appellant was validly adopted as his chela by Hoigrib, and that Roghunundun was not a chela of Chaturbhuj. What was done after Hoigrib''s death could not deprive the appellant of his right to succeed as mohant, or give a title to Roghunundun. There was no custom to authorize the choice of a mohant in that way. In the view which their Lordships take of the will they do not feel called upon to decide whether or not it was made by Hoigrib, upon which question the High Court and the Subordinate Judge have differed. 13. Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise Her Majesty to reverse the decree of the High Court, to dismiss the appeal to the High Court with costs, and to affirm the decree of the Subordinate Judge. The respondent will pay the costs of this appeal.