Of these, the following are relevant: (1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the premises in suit? (8) Whether the plaintiff was nominated as a mahant and given Chadar in accordance with the custom? Is there any custom as alleged by the plaintiff? (12) Was Swami Atmavivekanand a sanyasi and had he ceased to be a Grihasti? (13) Is the plaintiff a Sudra and not entitled to become sanyasi according to Hindu law? (14) Is the 668 plaintiff chela of Swami Atmavivekanand and entitled to succeed to properties left by him in preference to his son Sri Krishna? (15) Is the house in suit a Math property? It appears that the case came up for hearing before the learned Munsif on October 5, 1953 when the plaintiff 's counsel accompanied by his parocar made oral pleadings under O. 10, r. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the effect: "The 'Sant Mat ' Sampradaya is one of the Dasnami sanyasis founded by the great Sankaracharya, and is governed by Naranjini Math Akhara.