Case: Prithi Nath Vs. Birkha Nath &amp; Another

whether a Chela or Chelas were in a position to succeed to the Guru, that question could be determined with reference to the position as it obtained at the time when the succession to the property of that Guru opened out and the only Chela or Chelas who could succeed to the property could be the Chelas of that Guru whose property was to devolve upon them.The Chelas of any earlier Guru, whatever their spiritual affinity may, could never be thought of in this connection. We are fortified in this conclusion by the events that happened in 1918. When Bhola Nath, the last representative of the line of Sehaj Nath died on 10th April, 1918, the only two persons who claimed to inherit his estate as on the extinction of his line and the devolution of succession to the surviving lines were Pancham Nath and Sandhiya Nath.Phul Nath, the Guru of Respondent 1 was then alive and if propinquity of relationship in this spiritual descent which we are concerned with was the criterion of the right to inheritance. Phul Nath was certainly nearer in relationship than Sandhiya Nath and he could have claimed to inherit the property of Bhola Nath to the extent of the 1/2 share therein along with Pancham Nath.No such claim was, however, made by Phul Nath and Sandhiya Nath, as the representative of the line of Maya Nath was the only person who made such claim for inheritance and was recognised as the heir of Bhola Nath along with Pancham Nath when mutation came to be made.This goes to show that the succession from Guru to Chela only means the devolution of property from the last representative of the line to his Chela and when one talks of the succession from one Chela, on his death, to another Chela, it is also to another Chela of the Guru who is the last representative of the line. When one talks similarly of the extinction of the line, it only means that when the last representative of that particular line dies without leaving a Chela or Chelas or a Gurbhai who could succeed to his estate that line becomes extinct and one has not got to go backwards in order to ascertain whether there is any Chela of any Guru in that line at all surviving.We are therefore of the opinion that on the death of Sandhiya Nath, his Chelas Shanker Nath, Hardwari Nath and Badlu Nath succeed to the properties left by him one after the other and that when Badlu Nath died, there was neither his Chela or any Gurbhai of his who could succeed to the properties with the result that there was no. succession possible in that line from Guru to Chela and the line became extinct.11. It was, however, urged by Mr. Achhru Ram that unless the Appellant proved that when Bhola Nath died on 10th April, 1918, there were Chelas existing in the line of Sehaj Nath & yet the line of Sehaj Nath was treated as extinct and the succession devolved upon Pancham Nath and Sandhiya Nath who represented the two surviving lines of Sahib Nath and Maya Nath, the second part of the rule of succession propounded by the Appellant could not be held proved.The answer to this contention was furnished by the District Judge, Delhi in his judgment when he observed that it was admitted that Sehaj Nath had three Chelas and it was improbable that the other two Chelas who did not succeed had no. Chela of their own; nor was it very probable that Sanwat Nath and Shiv Nath in turn had no. other Chelas apart from their own who actually succeeded.The evidence was that these Jogis had the habit of initiating several Chelas. Respondent 1 himself admitted that Naina Nath had as many as twenty Chelas and there was evidence of another witness also. It was, therefore, probable that the line of Sehaj Nath was taken to be extinct not because there was no. Chela but because the last Mahant i.e. Bhola Nath had no. Chela of his own nor was any Gurbhai of his nor a Chela of a Gurbhai.Another circumstance relied upon by the learned Dist. Judge in support of this position was that in the disputed line there were other Chelas actually living & one of them, Har Nath had given evidence as the witness of Respondent1. He was the Chela of Misri Nath and thus nearer in spiritual relationship to the last Mahant than Respondent 1 : yet Har Nath had never made any claim to the Gaddi that was now in dispute although if the case of Respondent 1 was well founded Har Nath was entitled to the Gaddi in preference to him.The reason could only have been that Har Nath knew that not being the Chela of the last Mahant nor the Chela of the Gurbhai he had no. claim.12. We are in accord with this reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge and we endorse the conclusion to which he reached after taking all these factors into consideration that the rule of succession propounded on behalf of the Appellant was the rule of succession governing these institutions, i. e., a Mahant is succeeded by his Chela or his Gurbhai or the Chela of that Gurbhai and failing such claimants the line is deemed extinct and succession goes to the representative of the other line.13. This is sufficient to dispose of the Appeal and we need not discuss the other points which were adverted to in the judgment of the Letters Patent Bench. On a consideration of all the circumstances of the case we have come to the conclusion that there was no. vagueness or indefiniteness in the rule of succession propounded by the Appellant in paras 4 and 6 of the plaint, that the custom propounded therein has been established by the Appellant and the conclusion which was reached by the Letters Patent Bench to the contrary was incorrect.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. It may be observed at the outset that Respondent 1 failed to prove the rule of succession which he set out in para 4 of his written statement and the finding reached by the trial Court, in this behalf that there has never been any election to the office of Mahant in these institutions was not challenged in the Court of the District Judge, Delhi, nor before the High Court.Mr. Achhru Ram appearing before us for Respondent 1 also did not challenge that finding with the result that contention must be taken as negatived. The Appellant has, however, got to succeed on the strength of his own title and not on the infirmity of that of Respondent 1 and he has, therefore, got to establish the rule of succession, propounded by him in paras 4 and 6 of the plaint.The elective principle having been negatived, it can be safely assumed that the succession to the estate in these lines of descent from Balak Nath was hereditary and it devolved from Guru tofindings are sufficient to establish the first part of the rule of succession propounded by the Appellant, viz, that succession devolves from Guru to Chela and if one Chela does not survive then it devolves upon the other Chela, meaning thereby the other Chela of the last Mahant who would thus be the Gurbhai of the Chela who died.The succession would thus be in the line of descent from the last Mahant who was the representative of the particular line qua whom it would be determined whether his Chela or Chelas succeed to his property. This position is supported by what happened in the case of succession to the property of Pancham Nath in the line of Sahibextinction of a line could take place only once and such occurrences would be very rare. Under these circumstances, even one instance of that type would be enough to establish the rule of succession asLetters Patent Benchs finding against the Appellant rested mainly on the construction which it put on the wording of para 6 of the plaint and the Court was impressed by the fact that there was some confusion in the drafting of this paragraph and it did not accept the contention urged by the Advocate of the Appellant that that confusion was clarified in the other paragraphs of the plaint.We are, however, unable to accept this reasoning of the Letters Patent Bench. If the succession was from Guru to Chela and the question was whether a Chela or Chelas were in a position to succeed to the Guru, that question could be determined with reference to the position as it obtained at the time when the succession to the property of that Guru opened out and the only Chela or Chelas who could succeed to the property could be the Chelas of that Guru whose property was to devolve upon them.The Chelas of any earlier Guru, whatever their spiritual affinity may, could never be thought of in this connection. We are fortified in this conclusion by the events that happened in 1918. When Bhola Nath, the last representative of the line of Sehaj Nath died on 10th April, 1918, the only two persons who claimed to inherit his estate as on the extinction of his line and the devolution of succession to the surviving lines were Pancham Nath and Sandhiyagoes to show that the succession from Guru to Chela only means the devolution of property from the last representative of the line to his Chela and when one talks of the succession from one Chela, on his death, to another Chela, it is also to another Chela of the Guru who is the last representative of the line. When one talks similarly of the extinction of the line, it only means that when the last representative of that particular line dies without leaving a Chela or Chelas or a Gurbhai who could succeed to his estate that line becomes extinct and one has not got to go backwards in order to ascertain whether there is any Chela of any Guru in that line at all surviving.We are therefore of the opinion that on the death of Sandhiya Nath, his Chelas Shanker Nath, Hardwari Nath and Badlu Nath succeed to the properties left by him one after the other and that when Badlu Nath died, there was neither his Chela or any Gurbhai of his who could succeed to the properties with the result that there was no. succession possible in that line from Guru to Chela and the line becameanswer to this contention was furnished by the District Judge, Delhi in his judgment when he observed that it was admitted that Sehaj Nath had three Chelas and it was improbable that the other two Chelas who did not succeed had no. Chela of their own; nor was it very probable that Sanwat Nath and Shiv Nath in turn had no. other Chelas apart from their own who actually succeeded.The evidence was that these Jogis had the habit of initiating several Chelas. Respondent 1 himself admitted that Naina Nath had as many as twenty Chelas and there was evidence of another witness also. It was, therefore, probable that the line of Sehaj Nath was taken to be extinct not because there was no. Chela but because the last Mahant i.e. Bhola Nath had no. Chela of his own nor was any Gurbhai of his nor a Chela of a Gurbhai.Another circumstance relied upon by the learned Dist. Judge in support of this position was that in the disputed line there were other Chelas actually living & one of them, Har Nath had given evidence as the witness ofHe was the Chela of Misri Nath and thus nearer in spiritual relationship to the last Mahant than Respondent 1 : yet Har Nath had never made any claim to the Gaddi that was now in dispute although if the case of Respondent 1 was well founded Har Nath was entitled to the Gaddi in preference to him.The reason could only have been that Har Nath knew that not being the Chela of the last Mahant nor the Chela of the Gurbhai he had no. claim.We are in accord with this reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge and we endorse the conclusion to which he reached after taking all these factors into consideration that the rule of succession propounded on behalf of the Appellant was the rule of succession governing these institutions, i. e., a Mahant is succeeded by his Chela or his Gurbhai or the Chela of that Gurbhai and failing such claimants the line is deemed extinct and succession goes to the representative of the other line.This is sufficient to dispose of the Appeal and we need not discuss the other points which were adverted to in the judgment of the Letters Patent Bench. On a consideration of all the circumstances of the case we have come to the conclusion that there was no. vagueness or indefiniteness in the rule of succession propounded by the Appellant in paras 4 and 6 of the plaint, that the custom propounded therein has been established by the Appellant and the conclusion which was reached by the Letters Patent Bench to the contrary was incorrect.