MATH SAUNA AND ORS. versus KEDAR NATH @ UMA SHANKAR & ORS.

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 659 · Decided: 04-09-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

659 
A 
MATH SAUNA AND ORS. 
v. 
KEDAR NATH@ UMA SHANKAR & ORS. 
B 
September 4, 1981 
[R.S. PATHAK AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Hindu Law-Sannyasi-Whether could acquire personal property-Property 
C 
acquired by application ofnucelus-Tests for deciding. 
The plaintiffs in their suit claimed that the properties in dispute belonged 
to the Math Sauna temple and that one of the plaintiffs Mahant Sadashiva Yati 
on the death of his predecessor was elected as Mahant of the temple and that 
therefore as Sarbarakar he was entitled to all the properties recorded in the name 
of the deity or his predecessor. 
The defendant claimed that by virtue of a will executed by Mahant Shiv .. 
shankar Yati, the predecessor Mahant, the properties in dispute which were his 
personal properties devolved on him. 
The Civil Judge decreed the plaintiffs" suit with a finding that Mahant 
D 
Sadashiv Yati was not the Sarbarakar. 
E 
Upholding the respondenfs claim, the High Court in appeal, held that the 
properties did [not belong either to the Math or the deity but were the personal 
and separate properties of Mahant Shivshankar Yati. 
In appeal to this Court the appellants impugned the correctness of the High 
Court's view. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : The properties in dispute did not form part of the properties of 
Math Sauna or of the deity but were the personal properties of the respondent. 
(664 D-E) 
It is well accepted that certain sects of Sanyasis (such as Dashnami Sanyasis 
in this case) could acquire personal property of their own and that the pronamis 
given to a Mahant are generally his personal property. The mere fact that a 
Mahant is an ascetic does not raise any presumption that the property in his 
possession is not hie. personal property. There is no presumption either way. 
In each case the burden is upon the plaintiff to establish that the properties in 
respect of which he is asking for possession are properties to which he is 
entitled. (662 F-GJ 
G 
H 
A 
B 
-
660 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1982] 1 S.C.R, 
In the instant case the three earlier Mahants before they took to sanyasa 
had been grahasthas. They were entitled to possess, enjoy and acquire personal 
property. Mahant Shivpher Yati, one of the predecessor Mahants, whose repu-
tation as a man of learning and personal attainments was high, received personal 
bhents from many of his affluent cheJas. 
In addition, on the death of his 
predecessor Mahant Shivbaran Yati. Mahant Shivpher Yati inherited his personal 
property, all of which devolved on Shivshankar Yati. A succession certificate 
in respect of these properties was granted in the name of Shivshankar Yati. The 
revenue records also showed him as the owner of the properties and not the 
Math or the deity. 
None of the transfers of small parce]s of these properties 
made by Mahant Shivshankar Yati from time to time was challenged by the 
plaintiffs at any time. [663 A-El 
Whether a property was acquired by the application of the nuc]eus could 
C 
only be determined after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances 
of a case and on a balancing of the entire evidence. The burden of proof rests 
on the party making the claim. [663 F-G] 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
In the present case there is no material on record to show whether the 
total income from the properties belonging to the Math and the deity, left any 
appreciable surplus after meeting the expenditure on bhog and other ceremonies. 
The High Court rightly held that the fund from which the properties were 
acquired constituted the personal property of Mahant Shivpher Yati on whose 
death Shivshankar Ya ti employed it for the purchase of the properties and by 
virtue of his will the properLies devolved on the respondent. [663 H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil 
Appeal No. 196 
of 1970. 
From the judgment and decree dated April 21, 1969 of the 
Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 80 of 1964. 
S.T. 
Desai, 
A.T.M. Sampath, Jfuku/ Mudga/ and Raju 
Ramachandran for the Appellants. 
R.K. Garg, Mrs. Urmila Sirur and Shiv Pujan Singh, for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATHAK, J: This appeal arises on a certificate under sub-cl. (b) 
of clause (l) of Article 133 of the Constitution granted by the 
Allahabad High Court against its judgment and decree dated April 21, 
1969 disposing of appeals out of a suit for declaration and 
possession. 
The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming that the property in dispute 
belon

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