JUDGMENT 1. By The Court - The petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the assessment order dated January 25, 1961, the appellate order dated December 28, 1961 and the revisional order dated November 28, 1967 made by the respective authorities under the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act, 1957. 2. The petitioner was assessed to tax under the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act for the year 1363 F. by an order dated January 25, 1961. The claim of the assessee that the property was exempt from tax by reason of Rule 5 (2) of the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Rules was rejected following the view taken by the Revision Board in its order dated December 10, 1958 under the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1948 for the years 1355 to 1363 F. An appeal by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut on December 28, 1961. Thereafter a revision application was dismissed by the Board of Revenue by its order dated November 28, 1967. The Board of Revenue followed the decision of the Revision Board mentioned above. 3. Rule 5 (2) of the U.P. Large Land Holdings-Tax Rules provides : "Any land holding held under trust or other obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes recorded as such in the name of a waqf, trust or endowment, shall be exempt from the holding tax." It will be noticed that the language corresponds closely to that of Section 8 of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act which reads : "Any income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for religious or charitable purposes and, in the case of property so held in part only for such purposes, the income applied or finally set apart for application thereto, shall be exempt from liability to tax under this Act." The question whether the exemption conferred by Section 8 was available to the assessee has been considered by us in Shri Mahant Indresh Charan Das v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.T. Reference No. 337 of 1964 decided on 18.1.1971. and we have expressed the opinion that the question should be answered in favour of the assessee. and we have expressed the opinion that the question should be answered in favour of the assessee. The reference arose out of the order dated December 10, 1958 made by the Revision Board for the years 1355 to 1363 F. that was the very order on the basis of which the authorities under the Large Land Holdings Tax Act have proceeded. For the reasons contained in our judgment in that case, we are of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to exemption under Rule 5 (2) of the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Rules. 4. It is urged on behalf of the State that as the holding stands in the name of Mahant Indresh Charan Das it cannot be treated as the property of the Darbar Guru Ram Rai. The contention is without substance. Mahant Indresh Charan Das is Sajjada Nashin of the Darbar. In Babajirao v. Laxmandas, I.L.R. 28 Bombay 215, a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court observed : "A Math, like an idol, is in Hindu Law a judicial persona capable of acquiring, holding and vindicating legal rights, though of necessity it can only act in relation to those rights through the medium of some human agency. When the property is vested in the math, then litigation in respect of it has ordinarily to be conducted by, and in the name of, the manager, not because the legal property is in the manager, but because it is the established practise that the suit would be brought in that form .......... But, person in whose name a suit is thus brought has in relation to that suit a distinct capacity : he is therein a stranger to himself in his personal and private capacity in a Court of law." From the several cases to which that judgment refers the law seems well settled that legal proceedings on behalf of a Math are usually taken in the name of the Mahant. Therefore, if the property held by a Math is shown in the revenue records in the name of the Mahant, described as Sajjada Nashin of the Darbar, it merely follows accepted practice. 5. In our opinion the order made by the authorities under the U.P., Large Land holdings Tax Act are liable to be quashed. 6. The petition is allowed. Therefore, if the property held by a Math is shown in the revenue records in the name of the Mahant, described as Sajjada Nashin of the Darbar, it merely follows accepted practice. 5. In our opinion the order made by the authorities under the U.P., Large Land holdings Tax Act are liable to be quashed. 6. The petition is allowed. The assessment order dated January 25, 1961, the appellate order dated December 28, 1961 and the revisional order dated November 28, 1967 are quashed. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.