JUDGMENT Chaudhuri, J. - The Plaintiff alleges that one Pundit Sobharam Sadhu who was also known as Sadhu Sudarsan Das was by caste a Brahmin and by faith and profession a religious mendicant, having renounced his family, relations and original home in Zillah Rohtak in the Punjab when he was only a boy 10 years old ; that Pundit Sobharam never married, and permanently resided in Calcutta and practised religious austerities, and down to the time of his death led the life of a religious Hindu mendicant ; that he died intestate at the age of 80 or thereabouts, on the 28th September 1910, leaving no issue of his body, no brothers, nephews or sister's son nor any blood relations either on his father's or mother's side. That inasmuch as he was a Sadhu, and had entered into the religious order of Bhikshus or mendicants, his relatives had no right to succeed to him ; that he had taken the Plaintiff as his religious disciple or chela when the Plaintiff was only 10 years old, and that the Sadhu thereafter performed the initiation ceremony of the said religious order upon the Plaintiff, who thus became the recognised chela or disciple of the said Sadhu, and that he alone is entitled to succeed to the estate and effects left by the said Sadhu, as his heir according to Hindu Law in preference to the Defendants who, the Plaintiff alleges, have falsely put forward a pretended relationship to the said Sadhu. The Plaintiff further alleged in his plaint that the Sadhu who used to be revered by a large number of people in the town of Calcutta and other places in India was the recepient of various donations of money from various persons in order that the said money might be spent by him in religious and charitable purposes according to his absolute discretion, and in this way the said Sadhu during the whole period of his life as such "Bhikshu or religious mendicant" as aforesaid came to have in his hands, from time to time, considerable sums of money wherewith after defraying the expenses of such religious and charitable works as he considered proper, he used to deposit the surplus for safe custody with several respectable Hindu firms in Calcutta in whom he could trust, such as the firm of Messrs. Juggernath Madan Gopal of No. 70, Cross Street, Calcutta, where he had deposited Rs. 3,000, and that of Messrs. Dhunraj Gunpat Rai of No. 42, Armenian Street, Calcutta, with whom he had deposited about Rs. 2,600. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants on coming to learn of the death of the said Sadhu in Calcutta and having discovered that he had left some money in deposit with certain Hindu firms in Calcutta, began to pretend as aforesaid to be the distant kinsmen of the deceased Sadhu, and surreptitiously and without any notice or intimation to the Plaintiff applied for and fraudulently obtained a certificate under the Succession Certificate Act from the Court of the District Judge of Rohtak to the estate of the said deceased, and on the strength of such certificate, were trying to realise and appropriate the said sums of money. He therefore prayed that it might be declared that the Plaintiff was the sole heir under Hindu Law of the said Sadhu and entitled to his estate and effects, and that the succession certificate should be annulled by this Court, for an enquiry for the ascertainment of the assets which the said deceased died possessed of, and for other relief. 2. The first question therefore is as to whether the deceased was a religious mendicant or a yati, and whether the Plaintiff as his chela was entitled to succeed to him. 3. There is no doubt about the law on this subject. According to the text in Yajnavalkya the heirs of a hermit, of an ascetic, and of a professed student, are in their order, the preceptor, the virtuous pupil, and the spiritual brother and associate in holiness. Yajnavalkya II, 138. 4. The commentary on the text is that the virtuous pupil, sat sishya, takes the property of a yati or asce ic. The virtuous pupil, again, is one who is assiduous in the study of theology, in retaining the holy science and in practising its ordinances. 5. The next question that I have to decide is, is the Plaintiff the sisya and sat-sisya of the deceased. The text quoted above is the only text relating to succession to the property of a yati and subsequent commentaries and works on Hindu Law have dealt with this text alone in dealing with the matter. Mayne in his Hindu Law, p. 816, 7th edition, para. The text quoted above is the only text relating to succession to the property of a yati and subsequent commentaries and works on Hindu Law have dealt with this text alone in dealing with the matter. Mayne in his Hindu Law, p. 816, 7th edition, para. 603, say this:-- One who has entered into an order of devotion is also excluded from inheritance, since he has of his own accord abandoned all earthly interests. The persons who are excluded on this ground come under three heads, viz., the Vanaprasatha, or hermit ; the sanyasi or yati, or ascetic ; and the Brahmachari, or perpetual religious student. In order to bring a person under these heads, it is necessary to show an absolute abandonment by them of all secular property, and a complete and final withdrawal from earthly affairs. 6. The Plaintiff alleges, as I have mentioned, that the Sadhu left his house when he was 10 years old, and, as it is stated, that he gave up his home and all his earthly connection with his family ; that he came without any money, but that he had left a fairly large sum of money in Calcutta, is not disputed. Then how did he make this money. If he brought it from his house it does not shew complete abandonment of all earthly interest. If he made it in Calcutta, how did he make it ? The Plaintiff alleges in the plaint that he received large sums of money from different parts of India, which were entrusted to him for charitable purposes, and this is the residue left over. There is absolutely no evidence that he ever received money in this way, and therefore I cannot but hold that he earned this money while in Calcutta. The Plaintiff gives no explanation how he made it. That he left Rohtak and lived in the very heart of a large commercial town, in Burra Bazar, shows that he had no mention of taking the sanyas and that he rather profitably employed his time, when he was living in Burra Bazar. It is ridiculous to ask me to hold that a person of this character satisfies the description of a "yati" as it is contained in the Hindu law books. The Plaintiff claims to succeed on an exceptional rule of succession, and he must shew that the requirements have been fulfilled. It is ridiculous to ask me to hold that a person of this character satisfies the description of a "yati" as it is contained in the Hindu law books. The Plaintiff claims to succeed on an exceptional rule of succession, and he must shew that the requirements have been fulfilled. It has been rather poetically and unconvincingly argued that in the old days people were "giants" and that the present generation is a generation of "pigmies" and therefore a modern yati need not satisfy the ancient standard. I am unable to hold that in interpreting this particular text of the Hindu Law the old standard should be lowered. It must be shewn that the person was a "yati" according to its accepted meaning. The text has been strictly construed in different Courts in India. The Madras Court has refused to hold that it applies to Sudras because a yati belongs to an asram to which only the twice-born class is admitted, Dharmapuram v. Virapandiyam I. L. R. 22 Mad. 302 (1888). 7. Witnesses have said that the deceased was a religious Brahmin ; that he was not a mendicant in the sense that he begged and lived upon what he obtained by begging; that he practised his religion in a small room in the 3rd story of Monohar Dass's Kotra, which is a very populous quarter inhabited by a large number of Marwari merchants. He is respectfully spoken of by some of the witnesses as a 'Mahatma," soma called him a "Babaji." He appears to have been a Brahmin, who lived in Burra Bazar and earned money as such, that is to say by performing, from the evidence that has been given although slender, "paths and poojas" in different places. 8. The Plaintiff admitted that the Sadhu had not given up his sacred thread, had not taken the danda, and did not wear sanayasi's clothes, as he said he was a Ramanuja Vaisnab, and according to the custom amongst Vaisnabs of this class it was not necessary to give up the sacred thread and take the danda, although they might become dandis. He wore leather shoes and dressed himself in the ordinary way, and did not dress himself in Gerooa or yellow clothes. 9. I am not satisfied, that there is any ground for holding that he was a yati. He wore leather shoes and dressed himself in the ordinary way, and did not dress himself in Gerooa or yellow clothes. 9. I am not satisfied, that there is any ground for holding that he was a yati. The plaint distinctly made him out to be a religious mendicant, which has not been proved. 10. The next question is has the Plaintiff shown that he is a sisya. He says he was taken as a chela when he was 10 years old. That he was taken as a sisya is nowhere stated in the plaint. It is merely stated therein that he was taken into the order, some time later, by which I understand he is referring to the order of a religious mendicant. Evidence has been given that he lives with his mother and brother. I entirely disbelieve the Plaintiff when he says that he has no connection with them, and does not live with them and does not even know where they live, although they live in Calcutta Persons in the employ of his landlord have produced books and have spoken to having realized rent from him personally for the rooms which they stated he occupied with his mother and brother. I accept their evidence as true. 11. About his initiation, he is the only witness with the exception of a person of the name of Sugan Chand and another, both of whom, I consider absolutely untrustworthy witnesses. I disbelieve Sugan Chand's statements altogether without any hesitation. He was asked about certain allegations, which he had made in an affidavit, and he said that he knew nothing about them. If those statements were untrue he knowingly made them to support the Plaintiff's case. If true his present statements are untrue. 12. It is impossible to place any reliance upon him. I considered his conduct so serious, that at one time I thought that proceedings ought to be taken against him. The other witness was a person of the name of Gobind Ram Sett who spoke to the Plaintiff being a sisya ; that he knew Sobharam Sadhu; he introduced himself as a jeweller who used to live in Monohar Dass's Kotra. I happened to know this man and I mentioned to learned Counsel on both sides what I knew about him. I happened to know this man and I mentioned to learned Counsel on both sides what I knew about him. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff then stated that he did no intend to rely on this man at all. Witnesses of this kind having been called shows that there are certain influences at work ; some persons more influential than the Plaintiff appear to have been assisting him in this case. It lends support to the suggestion that Kanhai Lall has been engineering the case of the Plaintiff. 13. I hold that there is no reliable evidence that this man was ever taken as a sisya by Sobharam. He describes himself as a chela in the plaint. There is clear distinction between a chela and a sisya. A chela is a personal attendant who may be raised to the rank of a sisya, but there is no evidence of any value that he was ever taken as a sisya. Evidence has been given that he earns his livelihood by selling powders and sherbet, how far that is a fact, I need not determine. He has failed to establish his status, and therefore his suit must fail. One of the persons called by the Plaintiff, Radha Kissen Kabani, is a respectable person. The only thing that he said about the Plaintiff was that he was always with the Sadhu since 14 or 15 years." "Sabharam was a Babaji" ; "he was a Sadhu." It has been argued that a yati does not necessarily mean a sanyasi, and a passage has been quoted to me which says that a person is a sanyasi and yati who does work (karma) without having any desire for the effect (falam) that the work would produce. He should not be niragin and he should not be akriya. That is not the definition of a yati in the text that I have quoted. "Yati" means a Bhikshu, a sanyasi--an ascetic or anchorite. Some reliance has also been placed on certain texts quoted from a work called the Vaisnab Dharma Ratnakar. It is a sectarian treatise in which Vaisnabs are described as asramis. I do not think it is a work of any authority and in fact, judging from certain quotations placed before me, I am not prepared to attach any weight to the work. It is a sectarian treatise in which Vaisnabs are described as asramis. I do not think it is a work of any authority and in fact, judging from certain quotations placed before me, I am not prepared to attach any weight to the work. One of the passages was that a Brahmin who gives up the Brahmanic religion by holding the danda, is sure to go to hell after death and a sanyasi who also gives up his sikha yagnopabit is equal to a Chandal when alive and goes to hell after death. I have gone through the book and found certain outrageous passages relating to the life of Sankaracharja of a most revolting character. It is only a sectarian work, of a controversial character meant to glorify the Ramnuj Vaisnabs. I hold that the Plaintiff's case fails in both respects. Sobharam was not a yati and the Plaintiff has not proved that he was his sisya or sat-sisya and it must be dismissed. The Defendants have proved that they are the legal heirs of the deceased and in my view they are entitled to his property. They have shown by producing a certified copy of a conveyance, that in 1878 some property was acquired in the District of Rohtak in the name of the Sadhu, and I accept the Defendant's evidence that the property was purchased by Sovaram, which shewed that he had not only not cut off his connection with his native village, but went there and acquired property of considerable value. There is also evidence that he attended the wedding ceremony of the Defendant Naidar Sing. This is uncorroborated by any other evidence, and I am not prepared to place much reliance upon it. 14. It is also clear from the evidence given on behalf of the Defendant that Sobharam kept money in different Marwari firms in Calcutta which carried interest ; that he kept his money with two different firms and transferred his deposit from one firm to another. The man seems to have been well known in Burra Bazar. He lived there for a number of years, and it is very curious that not a single Marwari merchant, a great many of whom live in and near Monohar Das's Kotra, has been called, nor any of the members of the firms or their gomastas with whom the money is now in deposit. He lived there for a number of years, and it is very curious that not a single Marwari merchant, a great many of whom live in and near Monohar Das's Kotra, has been called, nor any of the members of the firms or their gomastas with whom the money is now in deposit. Witnesses belonging to the old firm which kept his money have been called on behalf of the Defendant. One of them, a Marwari gomasta, said that he knew that Sobharam used to perform "paths" and was paid for them. 15. The suit must be dismissed and dismissed with costs. There is not the faintest chance of the Defendant realising any of the costs from the Plaintiff. I was asked to make Kanhai Lall responsible for these costs, but there is no evidence justifying it. Mr. Mullick, J. 16. The rule will be discharged with costs and we are also entitled to the costs incurred before the Registrar on giving security. Chaudhuri, J. Yes. Mr. Mullick, J. We have put in certain books of various firms. May we have them back on putting in copies of the entries. Chaudhuri, J. Yes.