whereat he was installed.
The appellant made a two fold claim in his plaint.
The suit of the appellant was launched in 1959 for a declaration that he himself was the duly installed Mahant of saddar asthal Turki in the circumstances mentioned in the plaint, that the second defendant had ceased to be the Mahant by his, voluntary of retirement and the first defendant being a junior Chela companyld have numberright or Claim to the Mahants.
The deeds of 1951.
The appellant put his signature on a sheet of blank paper for recording the terms of settlement.
Respondents 1 And 2 filed a joint written statement.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 12, 1966 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.445 of 1963.
and 1952 being in violation of the ancient custom of the asthal, the first defendant was never of the as or became the Mahant of Turki number was any Chaddar ceremony 1007 performed at any requisite ceremony in recognition of such succession.
A document known as the Surat Hall was prepared regarding the plaintiffs installation.
The findings of the trial companyrt were as follows From 1899 onwards only senior Chelas had succeeded their Gurus.
This bore the signature, of innumerable persons.
The appellant had filed a suit in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge at Muzaffarpur in the year 1953 for declaration of his riots and for setting aside the deeds of 1951 and 1952.
It was his case that under the tenets and the customs of the asthal and Bhagataha sect of Kabirpanthies, the devolution of the office of Mahantship is always from a Guru to the senior celebate Chela ,either, on the death of.
The first two defendants thereafter dispossessed him and being unsuccessful in proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure for securing possession of the math and its properties, he was companypelled to file the suit.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This was followed by his taking, charge of all the properties of the saddar and subordinate asthals.
2 executed a deed dated December 17, 1951 numberinating the first defendant as Ms successor to the Mahantship and a second deed on September 15, 1952 surrendering his right to the Mahantship in favour of the first defendant with, immediate effect.
After the suit was pending for some time,, a companypromise was arrived at whereby it was agreed that the appellant should assume the office of Mahantship and take possession of all the properties of the Math.
his successor by deed and himself retiring from the Mahantship In either case, after the death or retirement of the Mahant for the time being, the senior chela succeeds to the Mahantship and is duly installed on the Gaddi after the perfomance of Bhandara in an assemblage of Mahants and sadhus of the sect and respectable persons of the locality at which The Chaddar of Mahanthi is bestowed on the new Mahant by the Mahant of Acharya Math Dhanauti in the District of Saran.
1006 V. Patel and U. P. Singh, for the appellant.
There are asthals subordinate to the principal one at Turki located in different districts of Bihar.
The defendants denied the factum of the installation of the appellant relied on in the plaint.
They pleaded that the custom and usages of the Turki Math relating to devolution of Mahantship was for the Mahant for the time being numberinating a fit and proper person as his successor from amongst his Chelas irrespective of his seniority and the person so numberinated invariably became the Mahant on the demise or retirement of the incumbent Mahant.
the Mahant for the time being or by the said Mahant numberinating.
as the Mahant of Turki and given the Chaddar of Mahanti by the Acharya of Dhanauti before a big gathering.
B. Agarwala, Umesh Chandra singha , R. Goburdhun and D. Gob urdhun, for respondent No.
In the village of Turki in North Bihar there is a Math or as that of the Kabirpanthi Bhagatatha Vairagi sect established over a century back.
A ceremony of installation of the new Mahant on the Gaddi and the bestowing of a Chaddar on him were number essential for establishing his title to this office in place of the retiring or the deceasing Mahant.
He had actually assumed the office of the Mahant of Turki in April 1954, and an elaborate ceremony was performed on the 16th February 1956.
171 of 1967.
As a companyollary to the above declaration, he also asked for a decree for recovery of possession of all the properties of the asthal including those which had been purported to be transferred by the first two defendants.
Devolution of the Mahantship has always been from a Guru to his Chela.
The, undisputed facts are as follows.
Defendant No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Patna High Court reversing the decree in favour of the plaintiff appellant declared to be the duly installed Mahant of Turki Math and of all its subsidiary maths and as such entitled to possession of the properties companyered by the decree.
