ORDER This is a revision petition filed under Section 17 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act against the order dated 17-7-1981 of the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra whereby the appeal of the present petitioners was rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that S/Shri Sajjan Singh, Mahant Hardyal Singh and Gijrnam Singh purchased 56-1 bighas of land, in equal shares, vide Registered deed dated 16-1-1967 from one Shri Ram Chand in Phati Dyar, Tphsil and Distt. Kulu. Shri Sajjan Singh who was a Sadh (ascetic) and follower (Chela) of Mahant Jiwan Singh died on 16-6-1967. A mutation bearing No. 1763 was entered in the Register of mutation on 1-8-1969 and the A. C. II Grade vide his orders dated 27-9-1969 referred the case to the A. C. I Grade, Kulu for decision as the mutation was a contested one. The A. C. I Grade after hearing both the parties sanctioned the mutation in favour of Smt. Kesar Kaur, the mother of the deceased Sajjan Singh on 1642-1969. The plea of the present respondent that the property belonged to the religious institution did not find favour with the Mutation Officer and it was held by him that since the property was in the personal name of Shri Sajjan Singh, it was to be inherited by his natural heirs. Aggrieved by these orders, Mahant Hardyal Singh filed an appeal before the Distt. Collector, Kulu alleging therein that the mutation should have been sanctioned in his name being Gur-Bhai of the deceased as the property was purchased from the funds of Dera Thakran, Amritsar which is a religious institution and it had been acquired for that Gaddi. The Collector, Kulu accepted the appeal vide Orders dated 8-6-1975 and quashed the orders passed by the A. C. I Grade and held that the property was purchased out of the funds of the institution as Shri Sajjan Singh had no source of income except the funds of the institution. Aggrieved by these orders, the present petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner, who rejected the same and held that Shri Sajjan Singh was a celibate having become the Chela of Mahant Jiwan Singh in 1946 and thus the property acquired by him could not be his personal property rather it belonged to the institution. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed in this court. 3. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed in this court. 3. The revision petition has been preferred on the ground that this property was acquired by late Sh. Sajjan Singh jointly with S/Shri Gurnam Singh and Hardyal Singh in equal shares. S/Sh. Gurnam Singh and Hardyal Singh transferred their shares in favour of S/Sh. Kuldip Singh and Randhir Singh respectively, which establishes that the property was not acquired out of the funds of the religious institution and was self-acquired one. It has, therefore, been contended that the inheritance to the property is governed by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and not by the Customary Law of Punjab as held by the learned Divisional Commissioner. 4. I have heard the learned Counsels for both the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to the sale deed, which shows that the payment of the entire amount was made by Shri Sajjan Singh. Out of the total amount of Rs. 41,000/- an amount of Rs. 10,000/- had been paid by Shri Sajjan Singh earlier. He also pointed out that S/Shri Gurnam Singh and Hardyal Singh transferred their shares to S/Sh. Kuldip Singh and Randhir Singh. He thus sought to establish that the property was self-acquired and not acquired out of the funds of the religious institution. In support of his contention he referred to the following case law : — 1. AIR 1941 Privy Council 56.—"Held that there is no general rule in the Punjab that all property acquired by individual members of a religious fraternity belongs to the religious institution to which they are attached." 2. AIR 1923 Lahore 544.- "The property of a Sadhu cannot necessarily be presumed to be devoted to religious purposes for the reason that it descended from Guru to Chela. A secular property even if acquired by a Sadhu, does not change its character unless dedicated for a special purpose—religious, charitable, etc." 3. AIR (33) 1946 Lahore 31.—"The mere fact that the person acquiring property in dispute is an ascetic does not establish that he acquired the property for religious purposes, though it is a circumstance that ought to be taken into consideration in determining whether it is religious or secular.” 4. AIR 1957 Orissa 86.—"A Mahant can have property designated as his personal property apart from the property belonging to the Muth." 5. AIR 1957 Orissa 86.—"A Mahant can have property designated as his personal property apart from the property belonging to the Muth." 5. AIR 1968-SC-1032.—"Where it is found that the Mahants of a Math had systematically pursued a money lending business, that there was little nucleus of any endowed property and during the course of a century and a half the proved endowments were hardly of any importance, that the Mahants were transferring properties to others in recognition of the claims of the disciples or voluntarily for lawful consideration and were describing themselves in the Tamliknamas as the absolute owners of the property, it must be held that the properties in their charge were their personal properties unless it be established that any particular item of properly was the subject matter of an endowment or a gift for a particular charitable purpose." 6. AIR (55) 1948 East Punjab 41.—"From the mere fact that for a period of about one hundred years the property had been descending from guru to chela no presumption could be raised that it belonged to the institution of which the last incumbent was in charge as a mahant having no personal interest in it, when all the previous incumbents were bairagis and there was nothing to show that any of them had natural heirs and that there was any conflict between the latter and the chelas. The very idea of a chela succeding the Mahant is that he represents the institution; but when the property is divided between two chelas and each of them succeeds to half the share, the inference is that the property did not belong to the institution." 7. AIR -1943 Patna 135.—By mere acquisition by a mahant, a property does not lose its secular character and assume a religious character. The descent of property from guru to a chela does not warrant the presumption that it is religious property." 8. AIR 1928 Allahabad 257.—"Fact that succession to property is in spiritual line for several generations does not prove property to be trust property. 9. Punjab Records-1919Civil Judgement No. 109.—"No authority was cited in support of the proposition that the custodian of a shrine such as Ram Singh cannot acquire private property of his own." 5. The learned counsel for the respondent admitted that S/Sh. Gurnam Singh and Hardyal Singh had transferred their shares of property. 9. Punjab Records-1919Civil Judgement No. 109.—"No authority was cited in support of the proposition that the custodian of a shrine such as Ram Singh cannot acquire private property of his own." 5. The learned counsel for the respondent admitted that S/Sh. Gurnam Singh and Hardyal Singh had transferred their shares of property. He also did not dispute that the property was self-acquired. His contention was that at the time of his death, Sh. Sajjan Singh was an ascetic and, as such, Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act was not applicable. In support of his case he referred to Para-5S-of the Principles of Hindu Law by D.F. Mulla 11th Edition, which lays down the line of inheritance to the property of a Hermit. According to this "the heir to the property of a hemrit (Vauaprastha) is his spiritual brother belonging to the same hermitage, to that of an ascetic (Sanyasi) a virtuous pupil. He also quoted Para 111 of the same book, which lays down that "where a person enters into a religious order renouncing all wordly affairs, his action is tantamount to civil death, and it excludes him a together from inheritance and from a share on partition." 6. In support of his contention, the counsel for the respondent also referred to the following case law:— (i) AIR 1938 Privy Council 1958 when a person enters the Udasi order, he severs his connexion with the members of his natural family. It follows that neither he nor his natural relative can succeed to the property held by the other. There is, however, no reason for holdiag that an Udasi cannot acquire private property with his own money or by his own exertions. If he does acquire private property it cannot be inherited by his natural relatives, but passes on his death to his spiritual heir including his chela who is recognised as his spiritual son." (ii) AIR 1933 Lahore 252 "where a property develoves from a guru to his chela, the presumption is that the property has ceased to be secular." 7. The counsel for the respondent also referred to the decision of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1980. CLJ 1981 (Civil) 262, to rebut the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sh. Hardyal Singh had ceased to be a Mahant. The counsel for the respondent also referred to the decision of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1980. CLJ 1981 (Civil) 262, to rebut the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sh. Hardyal Singh had ceased to be a Mahant. He also referred to far a 89 of A Digest of Customary Law for Punjab complied by W.H. Rattigan which reads as follows:— "All pioperty acquired by individual members of a religious fraternity belongs, as a general rule, to the religious institutions to which they are attached." 8. I have carefully considered and weighed the arguments advanced and the case law cited by the learned counsels for both the parties. It is not disputed that late Sh. Sajjan Singh was Chela of Mahant Jiwan Singh and the property was acquired by him after becoming ascetic. It is a common knowledge that when a person becomes an ascetic, he severes all his family relations. In some orders even the name of the person adopting the new order is changed, which is in accordance with para 111 of the book principles of Hindu Law by D.F. Mulla (11th Edition) that a person attains a civil death on renouncing the world. Once a person has severed his family relations, the question of his natural heirs succeeding him hardly arises. This is also supported by provisions contained in para 58 of the book referred to above. Para 89 of the Customary Law for the Punjab is also relevant in this case. It lays down that all property acquired by individual members of a religious fraternity becomes a reilgious property and belong to the religious trust. 9. After taking into consideration all the above facts I hold that once a person has become an ascetic, irrespective of the fact whether the property was acquired out of the funds of the religious trust or by ones own funds, Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act will not apply and the succession will be governed according to the customs of the religious order to which ascetic belongs. The revision is accordingly rejected. Revision dismissed.