HIS HOLINESS DIGYA DARSHAN RAJENDRA RAM DOSS versus DEVENDRA DOSS

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 911 · Decided: 06-11-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. GROVER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HIS HOLINESS DfGYA DARSHAN RAJENDRA RAM DOSS; 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
DEVENDRA DOSS 
November 6, 1972 
[A. N. GROVER, K. K. MATHEW AND A. K. 
MUKHERJEA, JJ-1 
Tirupati Mutt-Succession to office of Mohunt-Succ'1sor must be 
North-Indian Brahmin and serrior-most disciple of last Mohunt-Agree-
ment acknowledging R as 
North-Indian . Brahmifl,-A.greement cannot· 
mpport plea of estoppel when both parties adduce evidence before the 
Court-If there is a break in line of succession the custom mu.st · be 
re-establi•hed as from death of last reigning mohunt. 
Succession to the office of Mohunt of the Mutt at Tirupati in Andbra 
Pradesh is regulated by custom which provides that upon the death of 
a Mohunt his senior disciple becomes next mohunt. 
This is, however, 
subject to the condition that the senior disciple must be a North-Indian 
Brahrnin. 
Jn 1947 P was the Mohunt of the Mutt. 
Upon his death 
in 1947 the succession was disputed 'between N and C. The dispute WM 
resolved under the terms of the compromise recorded in. Ex. B-8. Under 
the compromise N became the Mohunt, and :ffter him the office was to 
devolve on C and after C on a senior disciple of N. 
Upon the death. 
of N in 1958 there was again a dispute as to succession. 
C claimed to 
he the mohunt under the terms of Ex. B-8, while R the present appel-
li>nt claimed the office by virtue of his status as a senior disciple of N. 
The dispute was settled in terms of a document Ex. B-1 whereby C was. 
to succeed N and after C the office was to go to R. 
Very soon after 
this on 18 March, 1962 C died. 
Dispute again arose about succession 
R claimed the office in terms of Ex. B-8 and Ex. B-1 and also by virtue. 
or bis being the only surviving disciple of N. The other claimant was. 
D, the respondent in this appeal, who put up claim to the office by virtue 
of his position as senior disciple of the last reigning Mohunt. As D was. 
a nainor, a suit was filed on his behalf by his next 'friend. In that suit 
he claimed for a declaration 'df his title to tl\e office of mohunt with all 
the properties e.ttached to the office as well as an injunction against R 
restraining ·him from interfering with affairs of the Mutt. 
The subordi-
nate Judge held that R was a North-Indian Brahmin and. was entitled to 
succeed as the senior disciple of N and the period of rnohuntship of C 
was to be treated as a break in the practice of the customary rule that 
only the seniormost disciple succeeds 
upon the death of the reigning· 
mohurt.. In the appeal the High Court found that N was not a North-
lndian Brahmin and therefore not entitled to succeed. The High Court 
further held that since D was a senior disciple of C he should· by th0> 
rule of custom succeed to the office of the mohunt upon the death of 
C. 
R a.ppealed to this Court with certificates. 
HELD : ( 1) The High Court was right in its findings that the plain-. 
tiff was a North-Indian Brahmin while the defendant was a South-Indian 
l yen gar. 
It was true that there was a recital in Ex. B-1 that R was a 
North-Indian Brahmin. 
Apart 'from the solitary evidence, the entire. 
evidence on record went to show that R was not North-Indian Brahmin. 
[915 CJ 
Even though a clear plea of estoppel arose from the recital in 
Ex. B-1 the defendant did not rely on this plea and entered into an issu0> 
on the fact so that :he whole matter became open for the decision of th0> 
learned subordinate Judge. R not only failed to invoke the doctrine of· 
estoppel before the learned Subordinate Judge but joined issue with the· 
911 
·912 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973] 2 S.C;R, 
ylaintiff upon the qqfstion whether the defendaJt was not a North-Indian 
Jlrahmin and accordingly an issue was raised and evidence adduced on 
this· question R could not therefore rely on the doctrine of estoppel to 
prevent the plaintiff from proving that ·R was in fact not a North-Indian 
Brahmin. 
ln the light of the foregoing considerations there was no 
.reason to discard the finding of 'fact recorded by the High Court to the 
.di'ect that D was North-Indian Brahmin and R was not 1,916 C; 
E & 
'917 Al 
Young .and Anr. v. Raincock, 18 L.J.C.P. 193 and Greer v. Kettle 
Re Parent Trust & Finance Co. Ltd., [1937) 4 All. E.R. 397, referred 
to. 
(2) It was not possible to make R the mohunt for the simple reason 
.that he was not a North-Indian Brahmin. 
The rule of custom should 
prevail in all cases and if any aberrations have to be corrected such cor-
rection 

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