1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6961 OF 2010 Sidhanathban Gurugovindban Gosavi ... Petitioner Vs. Nagarbai Dadu Atpadkar & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh, adv. For Petitioner. Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure, adv. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 1st September, 2010. P. C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 The respondent no.1 filed civil application no.122 of 2009 seeking succession certificate in respect of amount of Rs.4,11,221/­ lying in the account no.6844 with the respondent no.3/Bank of India Kharsundi Branch in the name of the deceased Krishnathban Govindban Gosavi (Maharaj) on the ground that the respondent no.1 is mother and only legal heir of the deceased Krishnathban G. Gosavi. Respondent no.2 Pawan Kumar, who was non applicant in the said application, was a nominee in the said account. Present applicant filed an application, Ex.26 as a third party seeking to be impleaded as respondent in the said application. According to him, said Krishnathban Govindban Gosavi was 2 Mathadhipati and manager of Shri Nath Kharsundi Math (In short ‘Math’) and the present applicant was his disciple. As per the custom of the said religious order or community Dasnam Panth, the present applicant is successor on the Gadi of the Mathadhipati after the death of the deceased Krishnathban G. Gosavi. His last rites were also performed by the petitioner. Therefore, whatever amount or property was accumulated in his name as such Mathadhipati, that property has to be succeeded not by his relatives by blood but by the Math or his successor as Mathadhipati. It was contended that in such circumstances, it was necessary for the present petitioner to be impleaded in the said application for succession certificate to oppose the same. 3 Application was opposed by the respondent no.1/original applicant and the trial Court held that the application under Section 372 can be filed only by the family or other relatives of the deceased, who are entitled to succeed him. It was also observed that the applicant being mother of the deceased falls in Class I heir and, therefore, she is entitled to get succession certificate. He also held that the present petitioner had no legal right to oppose that application and, therefore, he could not be impleaded as party. Accordingly, his application came to be rejected. 4 Normal rules of succession among the Hindus are to be found in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and in case of death of a male Hindu, 3 his property will be succeeded by his legal heirs as shown in the schedule. Mother being the heir of class I would be entitled to succeed him under the Hindu Succession Act. However, in the present case, present petitioner had clearly taken a plea that the deceased had renounced his worldly life. Original name of the deceased was Ramchandra Dadu Atpadkar but when he was initiated in the religious order, i.e., Dasnam Panth, he renounced even his name and he was given a new name as Krishnathban GuruGovindban Gosavi. As per Guru­Chela tradition of that particular religious order after death of Krishnathban Gosavi, the petitioner became Mathadhipati, i.e., the head of the Math of that religious order. It is the contention of the petitioner that after renouncing the worldly life, deceased was not doing any work nor he was holding any personal property, yielding any personal income to him. However, he used to receive presents and donations from the devotees and the disciples and that money or the property would be treated as property of the Math and now he, being Mathadhipati of the Math, is entitled to that property. It is settled position of law that a Math, like an idol, is in Hindu Law, a juridical person capable of acquiring, holding and vindicating legal rights, though of necessity, it can only act in relation to those rights through the medium of some human agency. When the property is vested in the math, then litigation in respect of it has ordinarily to be conducted by, and in the 4 name of the manager (mahant). I am supported by the judgment of this Court in Babajirao v. Laxmandas (1904) 28 Bom 215, p. 223. 5 If the amount in the account of the Bank of India in the name of the deceased was received only as donations and presents from the disciples or the devotees of that religious order, it would be the property of Mahant and naturally on the death of Mathadhipati or Mahant, it would be succeeded by the successor Mathadhipati or Mahant and not by relatives by blood. However, if that amount or property was not received by the deceased either as Mahant or Mathadhipati of Math but from any other source of income like service, profession, business or yields of any personal property held by him, that property can be succeeded by his ordinary legal heir under the Hindu Succession Act. Whether the amount lying in the bank account in the name of the deceased was his personal property or was the property received by him as Mathadhipati of the said Math or head of that religious order can not be decided without giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Only after his application to be impleaded as opponent is allowed, he can file detail written statement contesting the application for succession certificate filed by the mother of the deceased. The trial Court rejected the application and thus, closed the doors for the enquiry even without giving opportunity of being heard to the present petitioner. This was against the principles of natural 5 justice and it may lead to the miscarriage of the justice. In view of all these circumstances, I find that trial Court committed serious error in rejecting application. Application should have been allowed and opportunity should have been given to the present petitioner to contest application for succession certificate. 6 For the aforesaid reasons, petition is allowed. Impugned order is hereby set aside and the application Ex.26 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.122 of 2009 filed by the present petitioner is hereby allowed. Name of the petitioner be impleaded as the respondent no.3 in the said application. Amendment be effected within three weeks from this day and the petitioner shall be allowed to file written statement within three weeks thereafter. The trial Court shall expedite the hearing and dispose off the application for succession certificate as early as possible and preferably within six months. (J. H. BHATIA, J.)