Judgement Two Appeals from two decrees of the above Court (Aug. 9, 1900, and Sept. 21, 1900) reversing decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Sitapur (Oct. 30, 1899). The question decided in the appeals was as to the title to sue upon two mortgage bonds which had been executed in favour of Mahant Gopal Das, deceased, to secure moneys advanced by him out of the income of endowed property of which he was at the date of the advances trustee and manager, in which capacity he was succeeded by the plaintiff according to the provisions of the deed of endowment. The Subordinate Judge decided this question in the affirma tive. The Court of Appeal held that the oral evidence adduced by the appellant did not prove that the money advanced was derived from the income of the endowed property, nor did it prove that Mahant Gopal Das by his declarations had constituted himself trustee of the money on behalf of the idol Sri Raghu Nathji. They allowed that if the mortgagees interest in the mortgage were the property of Sri Raghu Nathji, the appellant was entitled to it, but said that it cannot be inferred from the reference to Mahant Gopal Das in the mortgage deed as the trustee and manager of Sri Raghu Nathji that the money lent on the mortgage was the money of the latter. They also held that " unless a Hindu is a hermit or an Law. Rep. 32 Ind. App. 172 ( 1904- 1905) Mahant Bishambhar Das V. Thakur Drigbijai Singh 64 ascetic the property which he leaves undisposed of, which was his own absolutely, will devolve upon his secular heirs notwithstanding that he may have severed his connection with his kindred and entered a religious order, and has become a guru or spiritual guide, and has chelas or disciples. I think, therefore, that although the plaintiff was Gopal Das chela, he is not entitled to succeed to the property of Gopal Das, Gopal Das not being a hermit or ascetic’ As Gopal Das successor to the office of mahant the plaintiff can only succeed to the property which Gopal Das held as mahant. The mortgagees interest in the mortgage not being the property of the idol was not so held. The mortgagees interest in the mortgage not being the property of the idol was not so held. The plaintiff consequently is not entitled to the mortgagees interest in the mortgage as heir or successor of Gopal Das." W. C. Bonnerjee and K. W. Bonnerjee, for the appellant, contended that the Subordinate Judge was right. It was clear on the evidence and on the face of the two mortgages that the money advanced was the money of the idol, repayable to its trustee and sabarakhar. Succession to the property of persons in the position of Gopal Das is regulated by custom. According to that custom the appellant, as disciple and successor in his office, is entitled as heir to all the property of which Gopal Das died possessed, whether endowed or belonging to him personally. The custom was recorded in the wajibalurz. The disciple is also entitled to a certificate to recover his debts. Reference was made to Shamachurns Vyavastha Darpana ( 1867), p. 327; Mahant Sheoprokash Doss v. Mohunt Joyram Doss (( 1866) 5 Suth. W. R. Misc. 57.); Genda Puri v. Chhatar Puri (( 1886) L. R. 13 Ind. Ap. 100,105.); Mohunt Bhagaban Ramanuj Das v. Mohunt Roghunundun. (( 1895) L. R. 22 Ind, Ap. 94.) The respondents did not appear. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by Sir Andrew Scoble. In the suits upon which these appeals are founded the plaintiff (who is now the appellant) sues as "disciple and successor of Mahant Gopal Das, trustee and manager of Sri Raghu Nathji, of the Raj Gopal temple at Ajodhia," in the district of Fyzabad, in the province of Oudh, to recover from the respondent Thakur Drigbijai Singh the amount due under two mortgages executed by him. The first of these mortgages is dated January 7, 1890, and relates to a sum of Rs. 20,000, whereof Rs. 15,000 was borrowed from Gopal Das and Rs. 5000 from another person, whose interest the plaintiff subsequently acquired. The second bears date January 10, 1890, and relates to a further sum of Rs. 4000 borrowed from Gopal Das. The first of these mortgages is dated January 7, 1890, and relates to a sum of Rs. 20,000, whereof Rs. 15,000 was borrowed from Gopal Das and Rs. 5000 from another person, whose interest the plaintiff subsequently acquired. The second bears date January 10, 1890, and relates to a further sum of Rs. 4000 borrowed from Gopal Das. In both documents the lender is described, in practically the same language, as " Mahant Gopal Das, trustee and manager of the Raj Gopal temple of Sri Raghu Nathji at Ajodhia, and zemindar of taluqa Agar Buzurg." The respondent Thakur Drigbijai Singh, who is the first defendant upon the record, does not deny the execution of the mortgages, or his liability under them, but he disputes the plaintiffs title to sue upon them. The Subordinate Judge passed decrees in both suits in favour of the plaintiff, but they were reversed on appeal by the Judicial Commissioners. The facts are simple, and of a character not unusual in India. Gopal Das, as both Courts below have concurred in finding, was the mahant of an order of Bairagis, or religious mendicants, and in that capacity was trustee and manager of certain temples at Ajodhia, dedicated to the worship of Vishnu, under the name of Sri Raghu Nathji. He appears to have been a man of considerable property, a zemindar and a money-lender, and had built one of these temples, called the Raj Gopal temple, at his own expense. The plaintiff was one of his chelas or disciples, and, as a matter of fact, succeeded him as mahant; but it is unnecessary for their Lordships to determine what rights of property he thereby acquired, as Gopal Das before his death executed a tamliknama, or deed of endowment, by which he not merely designated his successor in the mahantship, but also provided for the management of certain property which he dedicated to the service of the temples and the worship of the idol. By this deed, dated February 13, 1889, Gopal Das, after reciting that he had retired from the world and was leading a life of celibacy, always engaged in the worship of Sri Raghu Nathji, Law. Rep. 32 Ind. App. By this deed, dated February 13, 1889, Gopal Das, after reciting that he had retired from the world and was leading a life of celibacy, always engaged in the worship of Sri Raghu Nathji, Law. Rep. 32 Ind. App. 172 ( 1904- 1905) Mahant Bishambhar Das V. Thakur Drigbijai Singh 65 and spending all he earned by labour in good and charitable works, and after setting out particulars of the temples under his management and trusteeship, went on to say— " Now, it is my heartfelt and sincere desire that after my death the good and charitable work be continued in future by means of my property; that all the property granted by Sri Raghu Nathji be after me employed, as usual, in the worship of Sri Raghu Nathji, and other charitable works .... therefore, cancelling my former will .... I do hereby execute a tamliknama" (or deed of endowment) "of my entire ilaka .... called Agar Buzurg, and valued at Rs. 74,000 .... and which is my own self-acquired property, owned and occupied by me without the intervention of any other person, as follows— " 1, I make a waqf of all these villages in the name of Sri Raghu Nathji of the Raj Gopal temple situate at Ajodhia .... “ 2. During my life I shall myself manage and deal with all these villages as a trustee and manager, the income and profits being appropriated in the worship of Sri Raghu Nathji as detailed below. . . . “ 8. After my death one Bishambhar Das, my disciple, shall be the trustee and manager, provided that I may not have during my lifetime made any change by nominating any other person. . . ." Gopal Das died on October 20, 1892, without having nominated any other trustee in the place of the plaintiff. . . . “ 8. After my death one Bishambhar Das, my disciple, shall be the trustee and manager, provided that I may not have during my lifetime made any change by nominating any other person. . . ." Gopal Das died on October 20, 1892, without having nominated any other trustee in the place of the plaintiff. After some litigation the plaintiff was installed as his successor in the mahantship, and on March 10, 1893, on the application of the plaintiff, the Agar Buzurg estate was recorded in the Revenue register as the property of Sri Raghu Nathji, under the management and trusteeship of the plaintiff " in the same capacity in which the deceased (Gopal Das) was in possession." The learned Judicial Commissioners held, and their Lord-ships are disposed to agree with them, that " there is nothing in the deed of endowment to indicate that Gopal Das created a trust in respect of any property except the Agar Buzurg estate." There is evidence that it was the intention of Gopal Das to dedicate all his property to the service of the deity; but it is not necessary to refer to this, as their Lord-ships consider that the evidence shews that the money lent to the first defendant was part of the profits of the Agar Buzurg estate, which had undoubtedly been so dedicated. Madari Lal and Bhim Sen both appear to be trustworthy witnesses, who had means of knowledge of these transactions, and whose testimony is not in any way impeached or contradicted. Their Lordships agree with the Subordinate Judge in holding that it has been proved " that the money advanced to the defendant 1 belonged to Sri Thakurji as receipts from the endowed ilaka." And as the appellant was appointed by Gopal Das to succeed, and did in fact succeed, him as trustee and manager of the temple property under the deed of endowment above referred to, their Lordships consider that, as such trustee and manager, he is entitled to maintain these suits and to recover the moneys due by the defendant Thakur Drigbijai Singh to the trust estate under the mortgages. The respondents were not represented before their Lordships at the hearing of these appeals, but in the Subordinate Court it was one of the grounds of the first defendants appeal that he ought not to have been charged with interest at the rate of 2 per cent, per month, and that this rate was penal and unconscionable. The Subordinate Judge held that this rate was chargeable in the event of possession not being given to the mortgagee as stipulated in the bond, and that the mortgagor not only failed to give possession, but on October 8, 1891, wrote a letter to Gopal Das in which he said " I shall not deliver possession to you, but will repay the money advanced by you according to the terms of this deed." In fact, the first defendant appears to have been all along in possession of the mortgaged property, and in receipt of the profits and produce thereof, and their Lordships see no reason to interfere with the Subordinate Judges decrees on this point. Law. Rep. 32 Ind. App. 172 ( 1904- 1905) Mahant Bishambhar Das V. Thakur Drigbijai Singh 66 Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeals in both cases ought to be allowed, and that the decrees of the Judicial Commissioners ought to be set aside with costs and the decrees of the Subordinate Judge restored. The respondent Thakur Drigbijai Singh must pay the costs of these appeals, including the costs of the appellants interlocutory petition for addition of parties and consolidation.