GURCHARAN PRASAD & ORS. versus P. KRISHNANAND GIRI & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 600 · Decided: 13-12-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

600 
GURCHARAN PRASAD & ORS. 
v. 
P. KRISHNANAND GIRi & ANR. ETC. 
December 13, 1967 
[R. S. BAtHAWAT AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
Hindu Law--£ndowment-Mchanti of 
math 
carrying on ntOMY-
lending business, acquiring and disposing of properties-Properties how far 
personal-Religious head wheat her can own personal property. 
The successive Mahants of Uttar Giri Math in Benaras acquired pro-
perties and made dispositions of properties to their disciples who succeed-
ed them. The incumbent of the office of Mahant in 1904 entered into a mar-
riage against the custom of the brotherhood. 
One of his collatcrab th~ 
upon filed a suit in wh.ich be claimed to be put in possession of the pro-
perties of the Math, also challenging some of the dispositions of pro-
perly made by the Mahall!. 1lle defendants contended that all the pro-
perties in question did nvt belong to the Math and that the properties lra1':>· 
ferred were the personal properties of the Mahan!. Toe trial Coun held 
that the transferred propcnies were the personal prope1 lies of the Mahan! 
and his predecessors and that only 12 items of property were endowed 
properties. 
In appeal the High Court held that all the i:ems of property 
were personal property. 
In further appeal this O:>urt held that the build-
ing in which the brotherhood resided was certainly Math property; as to 
other properties the case was remanded to the High Court fOr detcrmin-
iog whether they were personal properties or endowment properties. 'The 
High Court, noting this Court's view that at least some properties mwt 
belong to the Math, observed : 
"Jn view of this finding of the Supreme 
Cour the fact that the evidence on the record docs not expressly indi-
cate which property belonged to the Math and which did not. should lead 
to the conclusion that all the property belongs to the Math. 
Proper!y 
acquired by a Mahan! personally but blended with the Math property will 
it.<elf become Math property." 
On this view the High Court dismWed 
the appeal. The defendants c..me to this Court. 
HELD : The High Court fell into an error in holding that the obsttva-
tions of this Court in the earlier appeal led to the conclusion that all the pro-
perty belonged to the M:r.h becaUSe the evidence on record did not ex-
pressly indicate which P"'perty belonged to the Math and which did not. 
If such had beep the intention of the learned Judges bearing the appeal 
they would have clearly said so. (607 G-H] 
On the facts of the case it was not possible to hold that the Mahants 
blended their self-acquired and personal property with Math property •o 
as to make the '-'"·hole partake of the charac!cr of the latter class of pro· 
peny. The Mahants had systematically pursued a money-lending busi-
ness, had tran-;fcrred properties to others in recognition of the claims of 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
• 
G 
II 
B 
c 
D 
E 
GURCHARAN v. KRISHNANAND (Mitter, J.) 
601 
the disciples or voluntarily for lawful consideration and were describing 
themselves in the Tamliknamas as the absolute owners of the property. 
[607 H; 609 GH] 
On an examination of the evidence only 15 items of property including 
the main building in which the Math was situated were Math property. 
About the res: of the property it could not be said that it was not the 
pcraonal property of the Mahan!. The transfers of such property by the 
latter could not therefore be challenged. [608 OC; 609 HJ 
The fact that the successive Mahant.s had renounced the world and 
became sanyasis and had almost uniformly nominated the person who was 
IO succeed them from out of the disciples or disciples of disciples does 
not le.ct to the conclusion that the properties must be treated as Math 
properties. [608 CJ 
Parama Nand v. 
Nihal Chand, 65 I.A. 252 and Raghbir Laia v. 
Mohammad Said, A.LR. 1943 P.C. 7, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 212 to 
216 of 1965. 
Appeals by certificates/special leave from the judgment and 
decree dated September 3, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in 
First Appeals Nos. 523 of 1933, and 557 of 1930. 
R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, An/I Kumar Gupra, Shiv 
Pujmi 
Singh and K. M. K. Nair, for the appellants (In C.A. No. >!12 
of 1965). 
Yogeshwar Prasad, E. C. Agrawa/a and P. C. Agrawala, for 
the appellants (In C.As. Nos. 213 and 214 of 1965). 
(T. · N. Kunzru, B.P. Singh and R. R Datar, for the appellant 
F 
(In C. A. No. 215 of 1965), for the respondent (In C.As. Nos, 
, 212, '213 and 214 of 1965 and for the respondent

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.