Mahanth Dewa Das vs Shew Prasad Singh and Others

Kulwant Sahay, J.—The contest in this case relates to the succession to the office of mahanth of a math at Mauza Aunta in the District of Patna which is a math belonging to the Harbasi sect of Bairagis, The principal math is at Mauza Aunta Raghuram and there are two dependent maths, one at Aunta Chandrabhan and another at Barhi, The last admitted mahanth was Lal Das who died on the 8th of February 1918. He had three chelas named Jairamdas, Gobind Das and the defendant Dewa Das. Jairam Das and Gobind Das pre-deceased Lal Das and on his death Jamuna Das, the chela of Gobind Das, became the mahanth. Jamuna Das died on the 17th of April, 1919. The plaintiff claims the mahanthship as the chela of Jamuna Das: the defendant No. 1, Dewa Das claims it as the chela of Lal Das. The question is which of the two claimants is entitled to the office of mahanth. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiff is the rightful mahanth and has made a decree in his favour.

Three points have been argued by the learned Advocate for the appellant:

Whether the defendant No. 1, whose chelaship was denied by the plaintiff, was the chela of Lal Das?

Whether the plaintiff was the chela of Jamuna Das and was nominated by him as his successor?

Whether Jamuna Das was nominated by Lal Das as his successor and whether Lal Das could nominate Jamuna Das in preference to Dewa Das?

As regards the first point there can be no doubt upon the evidence that the defendant No. 1, Dewa Das, is the chela of Lal Das. Lal Das himself admitted in his written statement (Ex C) that Dewa Das was his chela. Exhibit D is a mortgage bond executed by Dewa Das and Jamuna Das on the 13th of February, 1918, in which it is recited that Dewa Das was the junior chela of Lal Das and that Jamuna Das was the chela of Gobind Das. The witnesses examined on behalf of Dewa Das prove that he was the chela of Lal Das. Some of the plaintiff''s witnesses no doubt assert that he was not the chela of Lal Das; but having regard to the documentary evidence and the evidence adduced by Dewa Das there can be no doubt that he was the chela of Lal Das.

As regards the second point, I am of opinion that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff satisfactorily establishes the fact that he was the chela of Jamuna Das. The plaintiff''s case is that he was initiated by Jamuna Das on the Ramnavmi day in the year 1326 F.S. which corresponded to 9th April, 1919. He has examined himself and has given his life history and an account of his initiation and has examined other witnesses in support of it. He states that he was made chela on the Ramnavmi day in the month of Chait 1326 F.S. and that he had come to the math in Magh preceding. He states that he left home at the age of 15 or 20 years and went on pilgrimage for five years before he came to the math. He had no concern with home or his family for these five years, his parents having died in his infancy. He has produced a document which is called a Will and which he alleges was executed by Jamuna Das on the day he was initated as a chela and by this document he was nominated as the successor of Jamuna Das. It is strenuously contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant that this document is an impudent forgery. This document bears the signature and thumb-impression of Jamuna Das. In his signature Jamuna Das writes that he was executing the document which was correct. The signature of Jamuna Das and his thumb-impression are admitted to be his signature and thumb-impression; but it is alleged that the signature and the thumb impression were made on a blank piece of paper and the body of the document was written sometime after the death of Jamuna Das and is a forgery. It is conceded by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the fact that the signature and the thumb-impression are those of Jamuna Das lead to the presumption that the body of the dead had been written out before he signed it and put his thumb-impression thereon. But it is argued that this presumption is rebutted by certain facts and circumstances which he contends have been proved in the case.

[His Lordship referred to these facts and circumstances and proceeded.]

On a consideration of all the circumstances and the evidence in the case placed before us by the learned Advocate for the appellant, I am satisfied that the document Ex. 1 (6), dated the 9th of April, 1919, is a genuine document executed by Jamuna Das nominating his chela Rukmini Das as his successor. The second point, therefore, must be decided in favour of the plaintiff respondent, and it must be held that he is the chela of Jamuna Das and was nominated by him as his successor.

The next point relates to the question whether Jamuna Das was a valid mahanth. The rule of succession to the office of a mahanth must depend on the peculiar custom and usage of the particular math and in the absence of proof of such custom or usage upon the general Hindu Law on the subject. The custom alleged by the plaintiff as prevailing in this math is stated in para. 3 of the plaint which, runs thus:

That the custom and practice of the said institution, with regard to the succession to the office of the mahanth of the said institution, is that the mahanth nominates in his life-time his successor who shall be his head religious chela or in his absence by prior death the latter''s head religious chela and that the same is confirmed after the mahanth''s death by the neighbouring mahanths of the same sect and a ceremony is held with all the religious ceremonies of the occasion and the said nominated person is installed on the mahanthi gaddi by the said assembly of mahanths assisted by the math Acherja and priest.

The defendant accepts the custom alleged by the plaintiff with the exception that there is no custom of succession of chela of a deceased head chela. It is, therefore, common case of both parties that the custom in this math is that the head chela of the reigning mahanth is nominated by the mahanth in his life-time and after his death his nomination is confirmed in an assemblage of the neighbouring mahanths of the sect and after such confirmation the nominated chela sits on the gaddi. The contention of the defendant is that in the present case Jairamdas the eldest chela and Gobind Das the second chela of Lal Das were dead at the time of the death of Lal Das, that he the defendant No. 1, Dewa Das, was the only surviving chela at the time and he was entitled to succeed to the mahanthship on the death of Lal Das and that Jamuna Das, who was the chela of the predeceased chela Gobind Das, had no right to succeed. The defendant No. 1 alleges that he had been nominated by Lal Das and that after the latter''s death his nomination was confirmed by an assemblage of the mahanths. It is sufficient to say that there is hardly any evidence to prove the nomination of Dewa Das by Lal Das. There might have been an assemblage after the death of Lal Das to elect Dewa Das, but the evidence on this point also is hardly satisfactory. On the other hand, we find that there was a dispute between Gobind Das and his Guru Lal Das and there was a civil suit instituted by Gobind Das for the removal of Lal Das. That case resulted in a compromise. The petition of compromise is Ex. 7 in this case and it was filed on the 23rd of April, 1907. In this petition Mahanth Lal Das admitted that Gobind Das was his head chela and as such entitled to succeed him after his death. We further find that even in the lifetime of Lal Das Jamuna Das was recorded in the survey khatian as the mahanth of the subordinate math at Barhi. In the Land Registration proceedings which followed after the death of Lal Das, Jamuna Das was held to be the mahanth in possession of the math, and the defendant No. 1, Dewa Das, was found not to be in possession. The defendant No. 1 has given evidence to show that he wanted to prefer an appeal, against the order of the Deputy Collector rejecting his application for registration and ordering the registration of the name of Jamuna Das but he was advised to bring a regular civil suit, and that no civil suit was instituted because Jamuna Das died soon after. Jamuna Das survived several months after the registration of his name and if Dewa Das had any rightful claim it is clear he abandoned that claim and acquiesced in Jamuna Das being the mahanth. After the death of Jamuna Das the defendant No. 1 performed his funeral rites and raised money by a mortgage to meet the expenses of the sradh of Jamuna Das. He thereafter, made an application for the registration of his name in place of mahanth Jamuna Das whom he thus admitted to be the rightful mahanth. Upon the evidence, therefore, there can be no doubt that Jamuna Das was the de facto mahanth after Lal Das, The defendant No. 1 points to the fact that since the establishment of the math by mahanth Kewal Das there has been no instance of the chela of a predeceased chela of the reigning mahanth succeeding to the exclusion of a junior chela of the mahanth; on the other hand, instances are to be found of a junior chela succeeding a senior chela. Kewal Das, the founder of the math, had two chelas Nirbhaya Das and Alakh Ram Das. Nirbhaya Das became the mahanth and after his death it is alleged that Alakh Ram succeeded although Nirbhaya had left a chela Sudarshan Das. The evidence, however, shows that Alakh Ram remained a mahanth only for a short time and was turned out and Sudarshan the chela of Nirbhaya became the mahanth. Sudarshan had also two chelas Chaitan Das and Lal Das. Chaitan Das became the mahanth and after him Lal Das became the mahanth. There is nothing to show that Chaitan Das left any chela. Although there has been no instance of a chela of a predeceased chela succeeding a mahanth, the defendant also cannot rely on any instance of a junior chela succeeding his senior brother chela to the exclusion of the chela of a deceased chela.

The question next to be considered is whether Jamuna Das could have been nominated by Lal Das as his successor in preference to Dewa Das. Reference in this connection is made by the learned Advocate to a number of decisions to show that it is the chela of the reigning mahanth who is entitled to succeed and not his chela''s chela. In Mohunt Rama Nooj Das v. Mohunt Debraj Doss (1839) S.D.A. 262 the question was put to the Pandit attached to the Sudder Dewanny Adawlat to state what was the law of the Shastras in regard to the appointment of a presiding mahanth of a math or temple called mouroosi; whether the principal disciple of the last mahanth should succeed or whether the existing mahanth was competent to appoint whom he pleased from among the body of his disciples. The reply of the Pandit was as follows:

Under the circumstance stated in the question, the principal chela or pupil is entitled to succeed on the death of the presiding mahanth of a mouroosi, or hereditary math. If the principal pupil be personally unfit to succeed, or be disqualified by any of those causes which according to the Shaster are sufficient for such disqualification, then in that case, the presiding mahanth should, during his life-time, select one properly qualified from among his pupils to succeed him. The person so selected will succeed." Upon this reply of the Pandit it is contended that the reigning mahanth can select only one of his pupils to succeed and that there is no justification in law or the Shastras for a mahanth to select a pupil of his pupil. Reference is also made to Mohunt Sheoprokash Doss v. Mohunt Joyram Doss 5 W.R. Mis. 48 where it was held that according to Hindu Law a chela is the heir to and as such entitled to a certificate enabling him to collect debts of a deceased mahanth. In Mahanth Ramji Dass v. Lachhu Dass 7 C.W.N. 145 it was held that a chela is primarily entitled to succeed a mahanth of the sanyasi sect who has to follow a life of celibacy; but where there are more chelas than one, custom and practice intervene. In Achyutananda Das v. Jagannath Das 27 Ind. Cas. 739 : 21 Cri.L.J. 96 : 20 C.W.N. 122 it was held that in mouroosi maths the chela succeeds and in default of a chela the guru bhai succeeds, and where there are more chelas than one the eldest generally succeeds, but a junior chela may succeed, if he be found more capable and if he be selected by the last mahanth as his successor. In Kartar Rai and Another Vs. Taley Chowdhury and Others, it was held that where the office of mahanth is hereditary, it devolves apart from custom upon the chief disciple of the existing mahanth. On reference to these cases it is contended that it has always been held that it is the chela of the reigning mahanth who is entitled to succeed. Now it may be remarked that in all these cases the contest was between persons who claimed to be the chelas of the same mahanth. In none of these cases was there a contest between a chela of the last mahanth and his deceased chela''s chela. As has been pointed out in all these cases the succession to the office of a mahanthship depends on the peculiar custom and usages of the math and the fact that in the cases referred to by the learned Advocate for the appellant it was held that the chief chela of the last mahanth was entitled to succeed does not go to show that there can be no custom in a math whereby the chela of a predeceased head chela excludes a junior chela of the mahanth.

Upon the entire evidence in the case and on a consideration of the fact that the defendant Dewa Das applied to the Land Registration Officer for registration of his name in place of Jamuna Das it must be held that Jamuna Das was the rightful mahanth and if he was the rightful mahanth then the plaintiff who was initiated by him and was nominated as his successor must be taken to be the person rightfully entitled to succeed to the mahanthship.

Assuming that the peculiar custom of nomination and confirmation set up in the present case has not been established, then the succession must follow the general Hindu Law on the subject and the general Hindu Law is thus described by Shama-churn Sircar in his Vyavastha-Darpana, page 115, Vol. 1 (3rd edition):

Generally, the usage or custom of mahanths is, that the mahanth principal of every math or monastery selects his principal and most worthy pupil to succeed to him at his decease, that after his death the mahanths of other similar institutes in the vicinage convene an assembly of the order and perform his bhandara, or funeral obsequies, at which they generally confirm the nomination made by the deceased, and install the pupil he selected as his authorised successor, that if the mahanth for the time being does not find any of his pupils worthy of the office he selects some one from any other math of the order and appoints him his successor, and his appointment is confirmed by the mahanths convened at the bhandara, but where a mahanth dies without appointing a successor there his successor is selected generally from amongst his pupils by the mahanths convened at his bhandara, and invested with the mahanthship of the math, that if the person nominated by the late mahanth be found by them to be unworthy of that office, then they (the convened mahanths) elect a fit person and appoint him successor of the late mahanth. In short, the installation of the successor by an assembly of mahanths at the obsequies of the deceased mahanth is in all cases indispensable and conclusive, and, consequently, the appointment of a successor by the late mahanth is not final BO long as it is not confirmed by the mahanths convened at the bhandara.

Now if this be the general law, then it was open to Lal Das to select some one from any other math of the order and appoint him his successor. There was, therefore, nothing to prevent him to nominate Jamuna Das his '' chela''s chela to the exclusion of Dewa Das. It is proved that the appointment of Jamuna Das was confirmed by the mahanths of the sect after the death of Lal Das and he was, therefore, the rightful mahanth. If Jamuna Das was the rightful mahanth then the plaintiff as his chela and nominee is entitled to succeed and it has been established in this case that his nomination was confirmed in the assembly of the mahanths of the sect.

In my opinion the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct and this appeal ought to be dismissed with costs.

Das, J.

I agree.