Case: Shri Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir and Others

3. The facts of the case are set forth with utmost particularly in the judgment of the High Court. It will, therefore, not be inconvenient to deal with them as briefly as possible. The history of the Garwaghat Math is as follows : In 1925, Swami Sarupanand Paramhans, disciple of Swami Advaitanand, a Hindu ascetic belonging to theSant Mat sect, came from theProvinces, and took his abode at Garwaghat, Mouza Ramna Malhija, in the vicinity of Varanasi city. He was a religious preceptor of great learning and from his hermitage preached the tenets and precepts of the Sant Mat and soon had a large following. He was treated with great veneration and some of his devotees by a registered gift deed dated March 18, 1935 endowed the land and building, which he named as Bangla Kuti. Subsequently the said Bangla Kuti and other lands and buildings appurtenant and adjacent thereto became to be known as the Garwaghat Math of which Swami Sarupanand was initially the mahant. He paid a visit to village Khuruhja for a couple of days and Baikunth Singh, father of defendant 5, Sri Krishna Singh, the appellant, was greatly influenced by his preachings and left for Varanasi for good. In due course, Baikunth Singh was initiated as a chela by Swami Sarupanand who named him as Atmavivekanand. Swami Atmavivekanand Paramhans was the chief disciple of Swami Sarupanand and was given full rights of initiation and bhesh by his Guru. Swami Sarupanand took his Samadhi at Meerut in 1936 and after his death, according to his wishes, his bhesh and Sampradaya gave Swami Atmavivekanand Chadar Mahanti of Garwaghat Math and made him the mahant. Swami Atmavivekanand also had a large following and his Sant Mat fraternity which comprised of thousands of grihastha and virakta disciples made large offerings and gifted extensive properties to him as their religious or spiritual leader.4. In 1937, Swami Atmavivekanand initiated the plaintiff Mathura Ahir as his chela and named him as Harsewanand according to the custom and usage of the Sant Mat sect. During his lifetime, he purchased the two properties viz., house No.situate in Mohalla Jagatganj and house No.situate in Mohalla Sarai Gobardhan in the city of Varanasi by registered sale deeds dated December 3, and December 22, 1942 from out of the income of the math i.e., the offerings (bhent) made by the devotees and formed the properties of the math. Swami Atmavivekanand died at Varanasi on August 23, 1949. A bhandara was held on October 3, 1949 and according to the wishes of Swami Atmavivekanand, the mahants and sanyasis of the bhesh and Sampradaya gave the Chadar Mahanti to the plaintiff and installed him as the mahant of the math in place of Swami Atmavivekanand on October 4, 1949 in accordance with the custom and usage of the Sampradaya. The mahants and sanyasis of theSant Mat Bhesh who had assembled for the bhandara also executed a document to that effect acknowledging him to be the mahant. The plaintiff having been installed as the mahant, the entire property of the Garwaghat Math along with two houses in the city of Varanasi, devolved upon him as successor to Swami Atmavivekanand.5. On August 21, 1951 the plaintiff respondent 1, Harsewanand, brought the suit, out of which this appeal arises in the court of City Munsif, Varanasi for ejectment of respondents 2 to 5 from house No.situate in Mohalla Jagatganj, Varanasi. It was pleaded that respondent 2, Avadesh Narain, defendant 1, had taken the house on rent from Swami Atmavivekanand, the late Mahant. It was alleged that he had unlawfullythe premises to the respondents 3 to 5, who were defendants 2 to 4. The suit was contested by these respondents who denied the tenancy and inter alia pleaded that they were in occupation of the house as chelas of Swami Atmavivekanand in their own right by virtue of the licence granted to them by him. They denied the plaintiffs title as well as right to sue alleging that he was neither a chela of Swami Atmavivekanand nor his successor. It was also alleged that the house in suit was the personal property of Swami Atmavivekanand and, therefore, on his death his natural son and disciple, Sri Krishna Singh, the appellant became the owner thereof. The suit which was originally framed by the1, Harsewanand, as a suit between a landlord and tenant had, therefore, to be converted into a suit for possession based on title by impleading the appellant, Sri Krishna Singh as defendant 5.6. It is not necessary to mention in detail the other averments in the plaint, nor is it necessary to mention the various pleas raised in the written statement, filed by the defendants. It will be sufficient, however, to mention that the appellant Sri Krishna Singh in his written statement denied the existence of the math as pleaded by the plaintiff and asserted that the house in it, in any case, was not math property. He further pleaded that the plaintiff Mathura Ahir being a Sudra, was legally incompetent to become a sanyasi, and that the plaintiff was not the Mahant of the Garwaghat Math. He further claimed that after the death of Swami Atmavivekanand, he became the owner of the house in suit by inheritance, as also of the properties alleged by the plaintiff to belong to Garwaghat Math. All these properties, according to the appellant, were secular and personal properties of his father Baikunth Singh, who was also known as Swami Atmavivekanand.7. In the trial, the issues, as finally framed by the learned Munsif were seventeen in number. Of these, the following are relevantWhether 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 grihasth ?(13) Is the plaintiff a Sudra and notentitled to become sanyasi according to Hindu law ?(14) Is the 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 propertyIt appears that the case came up for hearing before the learned Munsif on October 5, 1953 when the plaintiffs counsel accompanied by his parocar made oral pleadings under Order 10, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the effect :The Sant Mat Sampradaya is one of the Dasnami sanyasi founded by the great Sankaracharya, and is governed by Naranjini Math Akhara.9. The learned Munsif found each and every of these issues in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly decreed the suit.On appeal the Third Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi by his judgment dated January 14, 1964 reversed some of the aforesaid findings while maintaining the rest.From the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge, the appellant alone preferred an appeal to the High Court which by its judgment dated November 2, 1971 on a careful marshalling of the entire evidence, in the light ofprinciples, agreeing with the learned Munsif, set aside the findings of the learned Civil Judge and decreed the plaintiffs suit in its entirety.A learned Single Judge, Kirty, J., in the course of his judgment observed that the evidence on record sufficiently established that there had come into existence a math at Garwaghat, of which Swami Atmavivekanand was the mahant. He referred to the overwhelming evidence led by the plaintiff showing that the building known as Shanti Kuti, and certain other buildings constituted an endowment to the math itself, which was a monastic institution presided over by the mahant. He further held that the house in dispute was not the personal property of Swami Atmavivekanand but formed an accretion to the math as it had been acquired by him from out of the offerings (bhent) made by the disciples to him as their religious or spiritual leader for the purpose of the spiritual order of the fraternity and, therefore, the natural heirs of Swami Atmavivekanand could have no claim to the property, which must descend to the plaintiff as a successor to him.On the question whether the plaintiff and his two predecessors. Swami Atmavivekanand and Swami Sarupanand were not legally competent to hold office of the mahant of the math in question, the learned Single Judge observedfinding of the court below on this point is in appellants favour, the reason given therefor being that the plaintiff failed to prove that he or his predecessors had performed Atma Sradh and uttered Pravesh Mantra as mandatorily prescribed by Hindu law. The factual part of the finding, viz., the performance of the Sradh and the utterance of the Mantra, is binding in second appeal, but the conclusion drawn therefrom is one ofreferring to the authorities on the subject, he observesreading of the judgments in the above noted cases will show that the various observations therein in regard to performance of Atma Sradh and other rites (Prajapathiyesthi, Viraja Homam, etc.) and the utterance of Pravesh Mantra etc. were made with reference to particular sects or categories of sanyasis claiming to belong to a particular religious order or class of such order, or with reference to "Sanatan", i.e., orthodox, Hindu Dharma. It is true that on cursory reading it would appear as if the observations formulate indispensable legal requirements of the Hindu law universally applicable to every (Hindu) ordained sanyasi, but, upon a careful analysis I have found that is not so. The law as stated therein in generally or usually, but not invariably,conclusion, he observesthe absence of any proof that the followers of Sant Mat or the tenets of that Mat required of its Mahant that he must necessarily belong to theclass of Hindus and be a sanyasi in accordance with all the rites and ceremonies mentioned in the aforesaid cases, I am not prepared to hold that Swami Sarupanand and Swami Atmavivekanand were legally incompetent to be mahants of the math or that the plaintiff is a person disqualified from assuming and holding that office.He accordingly held that the plaintiff and his predecessors, Swami Sarupanand and Swami Atmavivekanand were not legally incompetent to be the mahants of the math. They did not inflict themselves on the religious fraternity of Sant Mat Sampradaya nor had they been foisted into the office of mahant against the will or in spite of the disapproval of the religious fraternity. In any event, even if the plaintiff was disqualified being a Sudra, he was entitled to sue as the de facto mahant.During the pendency of the appeal, theMahant Harsewanand having died, respondent 1, Mahant Harshankranand was brought on record as an heir and legal representative.17. It would be convenient, at the outset, to deal with the view expressed by the High Court that the strict rule enjoined by the Smriti writers as a result of which Sudras were considered to be incapable of entering the order of yati or sanyasi, has ceased to be valid because of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. In our opinion, the learned Judge failed to appreciate that Part III of the Constitution does not touch upon the personal laws of the parties. In applying the personal laws of the parties, he could not introduce his own concepts of modern times but should have enforced the law as derived from recognised and authoritative sources of Hindu law, i.e., Smritis and commentaries referred to, as interpreted in the judgments of various High Courts, except, where such law is altered by any usage or custom or is modified or abrogated by statute.18. On the main, in agreement with High Court, we are inclined to take the view that though according to the orthodox Smriti writers a Sudra cannot legitimately enter into a religious order and although the strict view does not sanction or tolerate ascetic life of the Sudras, it cannot be denied that the existing practice all over India is quite contrary to such orthodox view. In cases, therefore, where the usage is established, according to which a Sudra can enter into a religious order in the same way as in the case of theclasses, such usage should be given effect to.

Reasoning: 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.