Case: Shri Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir and Others

by his Guru Swami Atmavivekanand, the then mahant, in 1937 and nominated to be his successor and accordingly upon his demise on August 23, 1949, had been duly installed as mahant of the math by the Sant Mat Sampradaya, i.e., by the mahants and sanyasis of the bhesh and given chadar mahanti according to the tenets of fraternity. It was alleged that according to the tenets of this particular sect, anyone, including a Sudra, could be a sanyasi, and further that succession to the office of mahant was from Guru to chela according to the custom or usage prevailing in the sect. One of the issues on which the parties went on trial was whether there was in existence a math at Garwaghat, and if so, whether the house in suit was an accretion thereto.82. The High Court agreeing with the learned Munsif has upheld the plaintiffs claim. It was held that the house in suit was required by Swami Atmavivekanand from out of the offerings (bhent) made by his disciples and, therefore, was not his secular property, but was an accretion to the Garwaghat Math. It has further been held that the plaintiff Harsewanand was the validly initiated chela of Swami Atmavivekanand and was dully installed as mahant of the math after his death, by the Sant Mat fraternity according to his wishes. The defendants have been held to be rank trespassers. The decree under appeal crystallizes the rights of the parties. The cause of action did not die with the plaintiff. In the circumstances, respondent 1, Harshankaranand, who now claims to be the mahant, has the right to contest the appeal as representing the math, being the de facto mahant, for preservation of its properties.83. According to the Hindu jurisprudence, religious institution such as a math is treated as a juristic entity with a legal personality capable of holding and acquiring property. It, therefore, follows that the suit instituted by the mahant for the time being, on its behalf, is properly constituted and cannot abate under the provisions of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the death of the mahant pending the decision of the suit or appeal, as the real party to the suit is the institution. The ownership is in the institution or the idol. From its very nature a math or an idol can act and assert its rights only through human agency known as a mahant, shebait or dharmakarta or sometimes known as trustee.84. Jenkins, C.J. in Babajirao v. Laxmandas ((1904) ILR 28 Bom 215 at 223) defines the true notion of a math in the following terms :A math, like an idol, is in Hindu law a judicial 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.It follows that merely because that mahant for the time being dies and is succeeded by another mahant, the suit does not abate.85. The correctness of the decision in Ramswarup Das v. Rameshwar Das ((1949) ILR 28 PAt 989 : AIR 1950 Pat 184 ) is thus open to question. It does not stand to reason that when a suit is brought for possession by a mahant of an asthal or math, or by a shebait of a debottar property, and the defendant is adjudged to be a trespasser, such a suit should abate with the death of the mahant or shebait. This would imply that after a long drawn litigation, as here, the new mahant or shebait has to be relegated to a separate suit. The definition of legal representative as contained in Section 2(11) of the Code reads :"Legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.86. The general rule is that all rights of action and all demands whatsoever, existing in favour of or against a person at the time of his death survive to or against his legal representative. In Muhammad Hussain v. Khushalo (1887) ILR 9 All 131 (FB)) Edge, C.J., while delivering the judgment of the Full Bench, observed :"I have always understood the law to be that in those cases in which an action would abate upon the death of the plaintiff before judgment, the action would not abate if final judgment had been obtained before the death of the plaintiff, in which case the benefit of the judgment would go to his legal representative.That, in our opinion, lays down the correct test."87. In the instant case, the appellant himself has, of curse, without prejudice to his right to challenge the right of the original plaintiff, Harsewanand, to bring the suit, substituted respondent 1, Harshankaranand, as his heir and legal representative, while disputing his claim that he had been appointed as the mahant, as he felt that the appeal could not proceed without substitution of his name. In this reply, respondent 1, Harshankaranand alleges that after the demise of mahant Harsewanand he was duly installed as the Mahant of Garwaghat Math by the Sant Mat fraternity. He further asserts that he was in possession and enjoyment of the math and its properties. The fact that he is in management and control of the math properties is not in dispute. The issue as to whether he was so installed or not or whether he has any right to the office of the mahant, cannot evidently be decided in the appeal, but nevertheless, he has a right to be substituted in place of the deceased mahant Harsewanand as he is a legal representative within the meaning Section 2(11), as he indubitably is intermeddling with the estate. He has, therefore, the right to come in and prosecute the appeal on behalf of the math.88.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]In the instant case, the evidence on record sufficiently establishes that a math came to be established at Garwaghat and the building known as Bangla Kuti and certain other buildings, including the house in suit constituted the endowment of the math itself.There is also aof the Puri division of the Dasnami sect. They have tenets much in common, based on the central idea that the Supreme Deity is incomprehensible or, as they say, unseeable. They denounce idolatry. This more or less conforms to the tenets of the Sant Mat sect. It is proved by the evidence on record that followers of this sect treat the Guru as the incarnation of God. They have no faith in inanimate idols installed in temples nor do they worship them in their cult. There are no caste restrictions and anyone can be admitted into the Sant Mat fraternity.We are clearly of the opinion that the appellant Sri Krishna Singh, impleaded as defendant 5, was precluded from contending that his father Baikunth Singh, who on his initiation by Swami Sarupanand was baptised as Swami Atmavivekanand, was not a Hindu sanyasi. On May 29, 1949 he along with his brother brought a suit for partition, being suit No. 389 of 1949 in the Court of Judicial Officer, Chandauli, against the other members of their family.It is argued that the nomination of a person as a mahant invests him with a status and, therefore, capacity to succeed to the office of mahant is an incident of that status. It is said that the claim to mahantship is, therefore, a personal right which does not survive the plaintiff; any suit claiming such a status must abate on the death of the plaintiff. Alternatively, the submission is that if the Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had sued in his capacity as a de facto mahant, it is obvious that the cause of action would be personal to him and would certainly not survive the plaintiff. In that event, the suit must of necessity abate as a right claimed on the basis of de facto ownership cannot survive the plaintiff. We are afraid, we cannot appreciate this line ofhave always understood the law to be that in those cases in which an action would abate upon the death of the plaintiff before judgment, the action would not abate if final judgment had been obtained before the death of the plaintiff, in which case the benefit of the judgment would go to his legal representative.That, in our opinion, lays down the correct test.In the instant case, the appellant himself has, of curse, without prejudice to his right to challenge the right of the original plaintiff, Harsewanand, to bring the suit, substituted respondent 1, Harshankaranand, as his heir and legal representative, while disputing his claim that he had been appointed as the mahant, as he felt that the appeal could not proceed without substitution of his name. In this reply, respondent 1, Harshankaranand alleges that after the demise of mahant Harsewanand he was duly installed as the Mahant of Garwaghat Math by the Sant Mat fraternity. He further asserts that he was in possession and enjoyment of the math and its properties. The fact that he is in management and control of the math properties is not in dispute. The issue as to whether he was so installed or not or whether he has any right to the office of the mahant, cannot evidently be decided in the appeal, but nevertheless, he has a right to be substituted in place of the deceased mahant Harsewanand as he is a legal representative within the meaning Section 2(11), as he indubitably is intermeddling with the estate. He has, therefore, the right to come in and prosecute the appeal on behalf of the math.