# tOOS MAHANTBHAGWANBHAGAT v. G. N. BHAGAT AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1972] 2 S.C.R. 1005
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-01-04
- **Bench:** J. M. Shelat, I. D. DuA, H. R. Khanna, G. K. Mitter
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/toos-mahantbhagwanbhagat-v-g-n-bhagat-and-ors-5499
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Crtstom-Mutt-Method of choice of successor to office of mohunt.
Three aspects have to be borne in mind in connection with tho question of succession to the office of a mobunt : (i) if the rounder or endower
bus laid down any particular rule of succession, that is to be given effect
to; (ii) in the absence of the above the usage of the partic_ular institution
is to be followed; and (iii) the party who lays claim to the office on the
strength of any suc-h usage must establish it affirmatively.
The fact that
the defendant is a trespasser would not entitle the plaintiff to succeed, unJes:; he suc~eeds in proving tb~ particular usage under which he claims.
!1009 E-G]
In a Mourasi mutt the office of the mohunt is hereditary and -~~volves.
upon a disciple of the existing mohunt who usually nominates him as the
successor.
Though generally the senior disciple succeeds, a junior disci·
ple ·may succeed if he is found more capable and if he is selected by thelast mohunt as his successor.
Th~ appointment or nomination is done by
the r~igning mohLmt during his life time or shortly before his death and
it is pos~ible for the mohunt to make over the endowment during his lifetime to the mcccssor. [1010 B·D, F]
J n the present case, the mutt was a Mourasi mutt and the second respondent was its mohunt.
He nominated the first respondent as his successor by a deed, and by a second deed, surrendered to him his right to
the office of mohunt. The appellant claimed the office as the senior disciple on the contention that the devolution to the office was to the senior
disciple according to the tenets and customs of the sect which established
the mutt.
The trial court decreed the suit but the High Court set aside the
decree
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : The appellant had not discha:rged the onus which lay on him
to substantiate the custom pleaded by him. The documentary evidence,
which was ante Jitern motam did not support the appellant's case that invarinbly only the senior disciple was selected.
On
the contrary,
the
entire evidence in the case led to the conclusion that in the matter
of
nomination of a suCC1!Ssor to the offi~e of mohunt seniority was not thedecisive factor, but that ability and ~fficiency in management coupled with
a good moral character, adherence to the religious rites practised at the
mutt and a spirit of service to the sadhus etc. entered into consideration
in the selection of a successOl'. [11)12 A-D]
CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 171 ot
1967.
.
Appeal lrom the judgm6nt and decree dated April 12. 1966
of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.
445 of 1963.
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 s.c.R.
D. V. Patel and U. P. Singh, for the appellant.
A
C. B. Agarwala, Umesfz Chandra Sinha, R. Goburdhun and
D. Goburdhun, for·respondtmt No. 1.

## Text

•
A
c
D
F
G
H
tOOS
MAHANTBHAGWANBHAGAT
v.
G. N. BHAGAT AND ORS.
January 4, 1972
[J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DuA, H. R. KHANNA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.)
Crtstom-Mutt-Method of choice of successor to office of mohunt.
Three aspects have to be borne in mind in connection with tho question of succession to the office of a mobunt : (i) if the rounder or endower
bus laid down any particular rule of succession, that is to be given effect
to; (ii) in the absence of the above the usage of the partic_ular institution
is to be followed; and (iii) the party who lays claim to the office on the
strength of any suc-h usage must establish it affirmatively.
The fact that
the defendant is a trespasser would not entitle the plaintiff to succeed, unJes:; he suc~eeds in proving tb~ particular usage under which he claims.
!1009 E-G]
In a Mourasi mutt the office of the mohunt is hereditary and -~~volves.
upon a disciple of the existing mohunt who usually nominates him as the
successor.
Though generally the senior disciple succeeds, a junior disci·
ple ·may succeed if he is found more capable and if he is selected by thelast mohunt as his successor.
Th~ appointment or nomination is done by
the r~igning mohLmt during his life time or shortly before his death and
it is pos~ible for the mohunt to make over the endowment during his lifetime to the mcccssor. [1010 B·D, F]
J n the present case, the mutt was a Mourasi mutt and the second respondent was its mohunt.
He nominated the first respondent as his successor by a deed, and by a second deed, surrendered to him his right to
the office of mohunt. The appellant claimed the office as the senior disciple on the contention that the devolution to the office was to the senior
disciple according to the tenets and customs of the sect which established
the mutt.
The trial court decreed the suit but the High Court set aside the
decree
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : The appellant had not discha:rged the onus which lay on him
to substantiate the custom pleaded by him. The documentary evidence,
which was ante Jitern motam did not support the appellant's case that invarinbly only the senior disciple was selected.
On
the contrary,
the
entire evidence in the case led to the conclusion that in the matter
of
nomination of a suCC1!Ssor to the offi~e of mohunt seniority was not thedecisive factor, but that ability and ~fficiency in management coupled with
a good moral character, adherence to the religious rites practised at the
mutt and a spirit of service to the sadhus etc. entered into consideration
in the selection of a successOl'. [11)12 A-D]
CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 171 ot
1967.
.
Appeal lrom the judgm6nt and decree dated April 12. 1966
of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.
445 of 1963.
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 s.c.R.
D. V. Patel and U. P. Singh, for the appellant.
A
C. B. Agarwala, Umesfz Chandra Sinha, R. Goburdhun and
D. Goburdhun, for·respondtmt No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Mitter, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Patna
B
High Coui't reversing the decree in favour of the plain1iff-appellant
declared to be the duly installed Mahant of Turki Math and of
all its subsidiary maths and as such entitJed to possession of the
properties covered by the. decree.
The undispu1ed facts are as follows.
In the village of Turki
in Not1th Bihar there is a Math or asthal of the Kabirpanthi
Bhagatatha Vairagi sect established over a century back. There
are asthals subordinate to the principal one at ·Turki located in
.different districts of Bihar. Devolution of the Mahantship has
always been from a Guru 1to his Chela.
Defendant No. 2 executed a deed dated December 17, 1951 nominatin·g the first defendant as his 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.
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, lthat 1he second defendant
bad ceased to be the Mahant by his voluntary of retirement and
the first defi~ndant being a junior Chela could h3ve no right or
claim 1o the Mahan'tship.
As a coro1lary 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.
The appellant made a two-fold claim in his plaint.
I1 was
11is case that under the te.nets and the customs of the asthal and
Bhagataha sect of Kabirpanthies, the devolution of the office of
Mahantship is always trom a Guru to the senior celebate Chela
either on the death of the Mahant for the time .being or by the
said Mahani nominating his successor by deed and himseJf retiring from the Mahantship.
In either case, after the dea~h or
retirement of the Mahant for the time being, the s·~nior chela suc-
<::eeds to the Mahantship and is duly installed on the Gaddi after
·the performance of Bhandara in an assemblage of Mahants and
sadhus of the sec't and respectable persons of the Jocality at which
1he Chaddar of Mahanthi is bestowed on the new Mahant bv
-the Mahfint of Acharya Math Dhanauti in the. District of Saran.
!he ~qs of 1951 anp 1952 bei1ng in violation of the anaient
custom of the asthal, the first defendant was never recogpised
·as or became the Mahant of Turki nor was any Chaddar ceremony
c
D
E
G
H
(
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
M. B. BHAGAT V. G. N. BHAGAT (Miner, J.)
1007
performed at any requisite ceremony in recognition of such succession.
The appellant had filed a suit in the court of the
Subordinate Judge at Muzaffarpur in the year 1953 for declaration of his rights and for setting aside the deeds of 1951 and
1952. · After the suit was pending for some time, a compromise
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.
The appellant put his signature on a
sheet of blank paper for recording the tenus cf settlement.
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 wh.:.;reat he was installed as the Mahant of Turki
and given the Chaddar of Mabanti by 'the Acharya of Dhanauti
be{ore a big gathering.
A document known as the Surat Hall
was prepared regarding the plaintiff's installation. This bore the
signature of innumerable persons.
This was followed by his taking charge of all the properties of the saddar and subordinate
asthals.
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 com{)elled to file the suit.
Respondenrts 1 and 2 filed a ioint written statement.
They
pleaded that the custom and usage of the Turki Math relating
to devolution of Mahantship was for the Mahant for the time
being nominating a fit and . proper person as his successor from
amongst his Chelas irrespective of his seniority and the person
so nominated invariably became the Mahan't on the demise or
retirement of the inc_umbent Mahant. A ceremony of installation of the new Mahant on the Gaddi and the bestowing of a
Chaddar on him were nat essential for es'tablishing his title to
this office in place of the retiring or the deceasing Mahant.
The
defendants denied the factum of the installation of the appellant
relied on in the plain't.
According to rthem the appellant had .at
all times knowledge of the nomination of the first defendant bv
the deed of December 17. 1951 and his appointment with imme--
diate effect by the deed of SeP'tember 1 5, 1952. It was on realisa!tion of the weakness of his case that he had approached the
defendants for a compromise agreeing to given up his claim in
the suit of 1953. He had appended his signature to the peti·tion
of compromise in that suit being fully conversant with the terms
thereof.
The two :rn!lin issues framed by the trial court and relevant
for the disposal of this appeal bear on the custom governing the
succession to the MahantshiP of the Turki Math and the right of
the incu~bent M~h"-nt to .nominate a junior Chela in preference
to a semor Chela. Issues were al&o fr~m~ by the trial court as
to whether an installation o::remony was an e'isential pre-requisite
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 s.c.R.
to a Mahant's lawfully functioning as such and whether the plaintiff had factually been installed as a Mahant of the Turki Math.
The findings of the trial court were as follows :-
1. From 1899 onwards only senior Chelas had succeeded
their Gurus.
1. According to the custom of the Muth the Mahant had the
right to nom.itnate his successor and the choice rested upon the
senior Chela unless he suffered from any disqualification or was
found to be unfit for the office.
The right of nomination was not
ab89lute but was subject to the approval of others.
3. An installation ceremony was not essential to complete the
title of the Mahant. Such a ceremony had been performed in
the case of the plaintiff in 1956 and he became the Maham: of
Turki although not in possession of the properties thereof at the
1time of the suit.
The High Court rejected the custom as to succession set up
by the plaintiff. . It found1. Since the time of the founder, Chaturbhuj Gosala, six
Mahants had occupied the office of whom three were descdbed
as junior Chelas by some of the wrtnesses on the defendant's side.
The evidence did not establish that there was an invariable custom
of the senior Chela being nominated by the outgoing Mahant.
2. The Mahant in office had an undoubted right to nominate
his successor and ordinarily 1the right of appointment was exercised in favour of the senior Chela but the choice was exercised
in favour of a celeba1e chela taking into account his all round
ability and character.
The second defendant had as a matter of
fact nominated one Ganesh Bhagat as his successor even before
the deed of nomination of 1951 in favour of 'the first defendant.
This nomination of Ganesh Bhagat was cancelled as he was found
to be unfit.
Compared to the plaintiff, the. first defendant was
decid•.!dly sup~rior in learning, ability and conduct : as the main
function of the Mahan't was to propagate the Kabirpanthi cult
and the maintenance of a peaceful and hannonious atmosphere in
the mutt where people were expected to congregate for religious
discussion and discourses and other benevolent functions the
choice of the first defendant by the second defendant in preference
to the plaintiff was not undeserved and must be taken as fm.al.
3. The High Court did not examine the question as to whether
an installation ceremony was necessary to perfect the tWe cf
Mahantship in view of the concession by counsel for the plaintiff.
Differing from the finding of the trial court, the High Court held
that no ceremony of installation of 1he plaintiff had been performed in 1956 as alleged in the plaint.
'
A
B
H
.
II'\
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
M. B. BHAGAT V. G. N. BHAGAT (MlUer, J.)
1009
4. The deeds of nomination and surr:~nder in 1951 and 1952
by the first defendant were valid and binding.
The general law as to succession to Mahantship is now well
settled by innwnerable decisions of 1the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council and some decisions of this Court. It will be enough
to quote some passages from Mukharii's book on the Hindu Law
of Religious and Charitable Trusts. The learned author states
(third edition, p. 257):
"Once a Mutt is established, succession to headship
takes place within the spiritual family according to the
usages that grow up in " particular institution."
"The primary purpose of a Mutt ...... js to encourage and foster spiritual learning by maintenance of
a competent line of teachers who impart religious instructions to the disciples and followers of the Mutt and
try to strengthen tthe doctrines of the particular school
or order of which they profess to be adherents."
At page 269 :
"In a Muott. . . . it is the custom or practice of a
particular institu1tion which determines as to how a
successor is to be appointed."
Three aspects have to be borne in mind in connection with the
question of succession to the office of a Mahant ( p. 269) :
"The first is that if rthe grantor has laid down any
particular rule of succession, that is to be given effect
to. Secondly, in the absence of any grant the usage of
the particular institution is 1to be followed; and in the
third place, the party who lays claim to the office of a
Mohunt on the strength of any such usage must establish i't affirmatively by proper legal evidence. The fact
that the defendant is a trespasser would not entitle the
plaintiff to succeed even though he be a disciple of the
last Mohunt, unless he succeeds in proving the particular usage under which succession talres place in the
particular institution."
At p. 270:
"Generally speaking, the Mutts are divided inlo
three classes aGcording to the different ways in which
the heads or superiors are appointed. These three descriptions of Mutts are Mourasi, Panchayati and Hakimi.
In the first, the office of the Mohunt is hereditary and
devolves upon the chief disciple of 1the existing Mohunt
1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
p. 972] 2 s.c.R.
who moreover usually nominates him as his successor;
in the second, the office is elective, the presiding Mohunt
,being selected by an assembly of Mohunts. In the third,
. !the . appointment of the presiding Mohunt is vested in
.the ..ruling power or in the party who
has
endowed
the temple ..... .
. ,
In a Mourasi Mutt the chela or disciple of the last
. Mohunt succeeds 'to the office ...... when there are more
. chelas than one, the eldest generally succeeds, but a junior
. -chela may succeed if he is found more capable and if he
is selected by the laslMohunt as his successor ....... .
~: - ~
•
~ .:
• '
~ -
; • ,; ~ ~
••
... •• J ··· -·-· . .......
• :
•
~
,j. ~i ~- -· ' .
!
~:; i. }~!J.n~v~tiQP,s Jnstituti9J?.S tlw c~$tp,m~j~ th~t~~A:~pr9;er ,to
;.(}lltHlei..J4 cl:Jela.. to s:uc~y~d, he :must be .appomted 9r
... rioiiiinated by the reigning Mohunt during his life. time
, or . .shortly:.before his death and this may be don~ either
.:by a .written declaration or some sort of testamentary
document. ln other cases again, the nominee is formally
installed in the office and some sort of recognition is
accorded to him by the members of the particular sect
either . during the life time of the last Mohunt or when
the funeral ceremonies of the latter are performed."
At p. 273 :
..
_,. .• .. , .
. "When the Moht.mt has the right to appoint his
successor, he may exercise the right by an act inter vivos
or by will.''
At p. 274 :
' ~ i -~ ' .
.'
.~'ln a. Mourashi. Mutt it is possible for the Mohunt
, ,,tQ; make .over the endowment during his life time to his
chela whom he appoints as a successor."
. At p, 275 :
.
"In many cases. wh·~n a successor is appointed by
Mohunt, he is installed in office wirth certain' ceremonies.
This cannot be deemed to be essential."
Admittedly Turki was a Mourasi Mutt. The evidence as to
· · custom adduced in the case is both documentary and oral. The oral
evidence which will be noted hereafter is discrepant and mostly
of persons who were not disinto~rested. The documentary evidence
undoubtedly furnishes more reliable testimony being ante litem
,;.motam and:brought into existence at a time w.hen .t\le pla.intiff was
not on the scene and when no dispute as to suCcession to Mahantship was raging.
A
B
c
D
i
E
F
G
1 i
(
A
B
M. B. BHAGAT v, G. N. BHAGAT (Ml'tter, J.)
lOU
The earliest document exhibited in this case is that of 1899
execU'ted by Mahant Lal Bahadur Bhagat in favour of Ram
Bhagat describing him as the senior- chela, able, clever, literate
and by all means fit for the Mahantship. Mahant Ram Bhagat in
his turn nominated Mahadeo Bhagat as his successor by a deed
of November. 1910. Like the document of 1899 this deed also
describes dw nominee as able, clever and. fit 1o discharge the duties
of the Mahant. Mahadeo Bhagat however is not described as the
senior Chela but only as a disciple of the executant. By a deed
of August 1937 Mahant Mahadeo Bhagat nominated Narsingh
Bhagat, defendant No. 2 as his successor describing the laNer as
h!s only disciple worthy, clever and fit in all respects for the
{ c
Oaddi. Bv a document of June 1947 Narsingh Bhagat nominated
'·one Ganesh· Bhagat as his suc-.;essor to the Gaddi. This nomiira~
tion. was cancelled by Narsingh Bhagat on the ground of unfi'tness
of the nominee for the office but mention is made in this document of 1947 ohhe practice and custom relating to the succession
to the office of the Mahant. This document goes against the con-
•
I
tention of the plaintiff that by custom the ~enior Chela was eligible
to the office in preference to all others. It recites :
"It has been the practice in the Asthal from the
time of my predecessors that the Gadinashin leads a life
of Brahmacharya and he does not marry. One Mahanth
Gadinashin appoints and nominates his able Bralunachari disciple as Gadinashin and future successor during
his life1ime.
After the death of his Guru, the rightful
disciple becomes heir and Gadinashin of the Asthal of
the Sadar Nath at Turki. I the executant thought it
proper to make over the management of the property ..
under a will, according to previous cus'l:om and appoint
Ganesh Bhagat as my successor."
r .
This was followed by a description of the nominee as literate, able
.and efficient. The document of December 1951 by N arsingh
Bhagai in favour of Giriia Nandan Bhagat, the first defendant,
G
H
. describes the nominee as fit and qualified in all respects to be lfhe
Mahant and recites the custom as in 1the case of Ganesh Bhagat.
The trial Judge's view that the nominations if 1899, 1910 and
1937. being invariably in favour of the senior disciple went a long
way 1o establish the custom relied on by the plaintiff was nlYt acc~pted by the High Court. Apparently the trial Judge was of the
vtew that Mahadeo Bhagat who became the Mahant in 1910 was
the only disciple of Ram Bhagat and it was· · therefore not feH
necessary to mention him as the senior chela.
Quite a number
of defendants' witnesses made statements to the effect ~hat 'Ram
Bhagat h'ad a number of Chelas. The trial Judge obviously overlooked the statement of the plaintiff in his cross-examination 1hat
101:!
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 S.C.R.
Ram Gossai had 5 or 6 Chelas and he himself had seen all of
them. A fairly larp;e number of witnesses stated tha~ the .qualifi·
cations for a person's nomination
t~ :be Mahantship
dt~ not
depend only on seniority but on dbdtty to. manage! cehbacy,
adherence to religious principles and a habtt of serv10g sadhus,
fakirs and visitors besides a good moral character.
Some even
sugges~d that it was the ablest Chela who was made the Mabant.
Making due allowance for the witness-;:s who c~me to support. the
case of the party examining them, the oral test~on:y unque3tlOn·
ably leads us to hold that in the matter of nommatton ci a successor to the Mahantship seniority was not the decisive factor but
that ability and efficiency in management coupled wi'th a ,~::ood
moral character a.nd adherence to the religious rites practised at
the mutt and a spirit of servico;: to sadhus etc. all entered into con·
sideration in the selection of a successor by a Mahant. This con·
I
elusion is fortified by the documents exhibited.
As already noted
they do nat support the plaintiffs version that invariably the
senior Chela was selecred. In our view the document executed by
Narsingh Bhagat in favour of Ganesh Bhagat sets out the custom
as to succession fairly accurately.
TI1e argumerrt :~dvano!d on behalf of the appellant that the
plaintiff was installed as the Mahant of Turki in 1956 before a
wide ~athering of sadhus and respectable persons at which the
Chaddar ceremony was performed does not m~rit any elaborate
or serious consideration.
As noted already, the tdat court did
not take the view that the performance of the Chaddar ceremony
was an essential pre-requisite to a person becoming a Mahant and
before the Hi:!h Court counsel for the plaintiff expressly gave up
that point.
Althou~ the trial court found in favour of the plaintift
that such a ~eremony had ~ctually been performed, the High Court
came ~on different conclus~on .. One of the reasons which prompted
~he HtJ!h Court to take tlus Vh!W was that the document evidencin~r the installation ceremony l'>tyled the Surat Hall had not ~en
produced in any court or law before the institution of the suit of
1959 although liti,11.ation in respect of the properties of the mutt
and the plaintiffs riJilit to possession were being canvassed before
courts of Jaw.
Th~: Jlieh Court also relied on the f:~ct that a respectable :1nd reliable witness like the Mahant of <he Ach:uya
Mutt dl!nied havin,l! siJ,!ned thi~ document Ex. 1 and no attempt
wns mad.e o!' bch:~lf or the P)~intiff to controvert the said denio!
hv ex:Jmm::rtton .or a hand·wntmg expert. Relinnce was
3tso
pla~~d by the Htgh Court on th>! fact that the plaintiff who filed n
pe!lho~ under ss. 107 and 145 Cr. P.C. against the first defendant
and 1- other' on 8th December. 1956 de!>cribed himself as the
!"fohant of <;hanwa. Math and made no reference in the ctition
tt~elf to the.tnstallahon ceremony nt Turki. The Hi,l!..h Co~rt :~ls<'
did nnt 1-ehevc the plaintiff's version thnt he had si~ned a blnnk
B
c .
0
E
f
G
H
:i i
f
j
I
. ~
' t
·M. B. BHAGAT v. G. N. BHAGAT (Mit.ter, J.)
1013
sh\!et of paper to be used as a compromise petition in the earlier
suit filed by him and nothin.2 has been shown to us as to why w.:!
should take a different view.
In the result we hold that the phintifT was unable to discharge
the onus Mti.ch lay on him to substantiate the custom as to suc<:esB
sion pleaded in his plaint He also failed t-o establish 1hat he had
in fact been installed as the Mahant of the said Ma'lh. The appenl
fails and is dismissed with costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed
c
17-736 Sup CJ172