MAHANT BHAGWAN BHAGAT versus G. N. BHAGAT AND ORS.

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 1005 · Decided: 04-01-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
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 ques-
tion 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, un-
Jes:; 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 the-
last 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 life-
time to the mcccssor. [1010 B·D, F] 
J n the present case, the mutt was a Mourasi mutt and the second res-
pondent was its mohunt. 
He nominated the first respondent as his suc-
cessor 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 dis-
ciple 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 in-
varinbly 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 the-
decisive 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 exe-
cuted a deed dated December 17, 1951 nominatin·g the first de-
fendant 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 him-
self 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 declara-
tion, he also asked-for a decree for recovery of possession of 

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