N.C. SHARMA, J.—Facts leading to the filing of this Second Appeal are as follows :— 2. On January 23, 1961, Dev Kishan, Mangi Lal and Poonam Chand instituted Civil Original Suit No,. 14/1961 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Nagaur with the averments that there is a "bagichi" just adjacent to Pratap Sagar at Nagaur well-known as "Ramcharan Dasji Ki Bagichi" with a temple of the deity of Shri Sita Ramji in it. This temple is visited by the public of Nagaur for "sewa pooja" and "darashan". About hundred or hundred twenty-five years before there had been a learned saint Shri Ram Charan Dasji and in his life time, his followers had got constructed this "bagichi" for him. On the death of Shri Ram Charan Dasji, his chela remained pujari of the deity of Shri Sita Ramji. The last chela (disciple) was Saint Premdas who expired in miti Mah Budi 8 Samvat 1999. Mahant Premdas had neither appointed any chela as his successor and nor he had left any will in that respect to enable the public to appoint a chela and pujari or mahant of this "bagichi". 3. On the death of Mahant Premdas, one Bhure Khan made an applica-tion to the authorities in Nagaur regarding this "Bagichi" whereupon some escheat proceedings were initiated and the "bagichi" was taken over into possession by the State. The Executive Officer Shri Roshan Lal, on the applica-tion moved by the public, created a trust for the management of this "bagichi" and plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, Gopikishan, Nanu Ram Soni, Mohan Lal Rathi, Asha Ram Bhati and Hargovind Chander were appointed as trustees of the "bagichi" and they were entrusted with the duty to look after and manage the movable and immovable properties of the "Bagichi" and also of the perfor-mance of "sewa pooja". Since then the "bagichi" remained under the management of these trustees. Mohan Lal Rathi, Gopi Kishan, Nanu Ram Soni and Asha Ram have expired and on the date of the institution of the suit, plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant No.6 (Har Govird) are the "prabandhaks" of the bagichi. For the performance of "sewa pooja" in the temple of Shri Sita Rarnji located inside the bagichi", the trustees, from time to time, appointed pujari on payment of salary. 1 and 2 and defendant No.6 (Har Govird) are the "prabandhaks" of the bagichi. For the performance of "sewa pooja" in the temple of Shri Sita Rarnji located inside the bagichi", the trustees, from time to time, appointed pujari on payment of salary. Following persons remained Pujari during different periods, namely:- (a) Ram Kishan Shrimalee from miti Mah Budi 12 to Phalgun Budi 15 Samvat 1999; (b) Baba Jai Siya Ram of Ratan Sagar from Phalgun Budi 1 to Phalgun Budi 15 Samvat 1999; (c) Modi Sad of Nagaur from Chait Budi 1 to Chait Sudi 15 Samvat 1999; (d) Laldas Sad from Baisakh Budi 1 to Mah Budi 15 Samvat 2000; and (e) Nanak Das Sad (father of defendant No. 1) of village Ral from miti Mah Sudi 1 Samvat 2000 to Phalgun Budi 15 Samvat 2007. 4. On request being made by Laxmi Narain (defendant No. 1) and under an oral agreement, he was appointed as pujari to perform "sewa pooja" of the deity of Shri Sita Ramji with effect, from miti Phalgun Sudi 1 Samvat 2007 corresponding to March 8, 1951 on a monthly salary of Rs. 12/- which was accepted by the defendant No. 1. At the time of appointment of the defendant No. 1 as pujari the ornaments of the deity and utensils kept in the "bagichi" for the purpose of picnics held by public as detailed and described in the Schedule annexed to the plaint were entrusted to the defendant No. 1.. The trustees paid monthly salary of Rs. 12/- and other expenses incurred in perfor-mance of "utsavas" in the "bagichi" and the amounts paid were entered in regularly maintained account books. The defendant No. 1 also gave receipts in this regard. 5. The plaintiffs alleged that the trustees were unhappy with the defen-dant No. 1 for the following causes, namely:- "(a) The defendant No. 1 does not perform "sewa pooja" of the deity of Shri Sita Ramji regularly and properly; (b) the doors of the temple are not opened for "darashan" in time and "tulcha amrit" and "prashad" is also not distributed. Utsavas are not celeb-rated as before. Utsavas are not celeb-rated as before. The defendant No. 1 is a Government employee and also takes tuitions and as such is not able to devote time for sewa pooja"; (c) the defendant No. 1 has started a workshop for manufacturing toys and painting them; (d) defendant No. 1 was married and lives with his wife and children in the "bagichi" which affects the sanctity and purity of the temple and in "darshan" of the deity and in the holding of picnics in the "bagichi"; (e) defendant No. 1 quarrels with the tenants of the "bagichi" which results in financial loss; and (f) defendant No. 1 does not properly utilise the utensils entrusted to him to enable the public to hold picnics in the "bagichi". For above reasons, the trustees, on receiving public complaint, removed the defendant So. 1 from pujariship on November 9, 1960 and he was telegraphically informed about it. The defendant No. 1 was required by a notice dated Novem-ber 28, I960 to hand over back the ornaments and utensils specified in the Schedule to the plaint to the trustees. The defendant No. 1 has, however, not handed over charge of the "bagichi" and of ornaments and utensils to the trustees. On November 13, 1960, the defendant No. 1 made a showy performance of wrapping on his body the "chela" of mahant Premdasji and began to assert his proprietry right in relation to the "bagichi". Plaintiff No. 3 and defendants Nos. 2 to 5 are heirs of Gopi Kishan, Nanoo Ram and Asha Ram trustees but except plaintiff No. 3, the other heirs do not take any active interest in the "bagichi" and, therefore, they have been impleaded as proforma defendants. The plaintiffs prayed in the suit that a decree for ejectment of the defendant No. 1 and his family members from the bagichi and the temple may be passed and the management of the "bagichi" and the temple may be entrusted to the plaintiffs as managers. They have further prayed for restoration of the ornaments and utensils specified in the Schedule to them. 6. The defendant No. 1 Laxmi Narain did not dispute the existence of the "bagichi" and the temple of Sri Sita Ramji. He is ignorant as to who had constructed the "bagichi". It was not disputed that the last disciple Prem Das died in Samvat 1999. 6. The defendant No. 1 Laxmi Narain did not dispute the existence of the "bagichi" and the temple of Sri Sita Ramji. He is ignorant as to who had constructed the "bagichi". It was not disputed that the last disciple Prem Das died in Samvat 1999. It was, however, denied that Prem Das had died without nominating any disciple. The defendant No. 1 pleaded that he had been appoint-ed disciple by Prem Das during his life time. At that time the defendant No. 1 was a minor. He was sent by Prem Das to Mathura, Vrindaban and Kashi for further studies. After the death of Prem Das, Nanak Das, father of the defendant No. 1 started managing the "bagichi" which he did upto Samvat 2007. The defendant No. 1 heard of his fathers death in Samvat 2007 upon which he came to Nagaur. He took possession and management of "bagichi" in his hands as disciple of mahant Prem Das on November 13, 1960. He was installed Mahant of the "bagichi" by leading mahants of the "Sampradaya" and since then he was in possession and management of the "bagichi". It was denied by the defendant No. 1 that he was appointed Pujari by the trustees. As regards the appointment of trustees, his case was that due to the absence of the appellant and owing to his minority, certain persons of the public approached the Hakim and the Hakim appointed some trustees. The appointment of trustees by the Hakim was pleaded to be illegal. 7. Following issues were framed by the trial Court:— 1. Whether the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 6 and Nanu Ram, Mohan Lal, Gopi Kishan and Asha Ram were appointed the trustees of the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiffs have the right to file this suit? 3. Whether the plaintiffs alongwith other trustees appointed defendant No. 1 as pujari of the temple on Rs. 12/- per month on 8.3.1951? 4. Whether the plaintiffs for reasons mentioned in para No. 4 of the plaint are entitled to remove the defendant No. 1 from the post of the Pujari? 5. Whether the articles mentioned in the Schedule attached to the plaint were entrusted by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 at the time of his appointment and the plaintiffs are entitled to receive them back? 6. 5. Whether the articles mentioned in the Schedule attached to the plaint were entrusted by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 at the time of his appointment and the plaintiffs are entitled to receive them back? 6. Whether the plaintiffs should have paid the Court fees on the full value of the suit property? 7. Whether the suit property is of the value of Rs. 15000/- and the suit is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court? 8. Whether the defendant No. 1 was in possession of the suit property as the recognised chela of mahant Prem Das since Samvat 2007? 9. Whether on 13, 11. 1960 the defendant No. 1 was appointed the mahant by the important mahants of his sect as per custom? 10. Whether the Executive Hakim, Nagaur had the right to appoint the plaintiffs and other persons as trustees? 11. Relief? 8. The trial court held that after the death of mahant Prem Das, one Bhure Khan had made an application on January 31, 1943 to the Executive Hakim that Prem Das had died issueless and, therefore, proper arrangement might be made of the suit "bagichi". Har Dayal P. W. 17 was the Executive Hakim, Nagaur during the relevant period and on March 31, 1943, he appointed plaintiff Mangi Lal and some other persons as trustees of the suit property. The trustees were in effective management of the "bagichi". How the trial court held that the Executive Hakim of the erstwhile State of Mewar had no legal authority to appoint trustees to manage the properties of a religious or charitable institutions. The trial court held under issue No.2 that the plaintiffs be de facto managers or trustees, had the right to file the suit for the recovery of the math properties from the possession of the defendant No. 1 in case the defendant No. 1 had no right, title or interest in the suit property. The trial court further found the defendant No. 1 was appointed a pujari of the temple on March 8, 1951 on a monthly pay of Rs. 12/- only by the trustees. On issue No. 4, the trial court held that a master has inherent right to dismiss his servant. The trial court further found the defendant No. 1 was appointed a pujari of the temple on March 8, 1951 on a monthly pay of Rs. 12/- only by the trustees. On issue No. 4, the trial court held that a master has inherent right to dismiss his servant. The defendant No. 1 had started setting up an adverse title to the trust property as against the trustees and that was a good ground for the trustees to remove him from pujariship. On issue No. 5, it was held that there was no evidence from the side of the plaintiffs that the articles mentioned in Schedule attached to the plaint were entrusted by the plaintiffs to the defendant No. 1 and this issue was, therefore, decided against the plaintiffs. While deciding issue No. 9, the trial court held that in the circumstances of the case, the adoption of defendant No. 1 as a chela by Mahant Ram Das was extremely improbable. It held that the defendant No. 1 was never adopted as a chela by Mahant Prem Das. Dealing with the custom regarding succession to this math, the trial court held that the custom as to succession in "bagichi" of Ramcharan Dasji was that a chela succeeded to his guru. The trial court held that there was no doubt (that it was amply proved that the defendant No. 1 was installed as a mahant on miti Mangsar Budi 10 Samvat 2017. The trial court, however, observed that the custom in the math in suit was that only unmarried person could be made a mahant. It concluded:- "Since I have decided that defendant No. 1 was never adopted as a chela to Mahant Prem Das, he could not succeed to him. Otherwise also because he was a grahasti he could not succeed to Mahant Prem Das." It also held that the defendant No. 1 had failed to prove that he was de jure trustee and, therefore, the plaintiffs as de facto trustees could sue the former. The suit of the plaintiffs for ejectment of the defendant No. 1 from the "bagichi" was decreed. However, the suit relating to restoration of ornaments and utensil mentioned in the schedule to the plaint was dismissed. 9. Laxmi Narain (defendant No. 1) filed Civil First Appeal No. 108 of 1968 before the District Judge, Merta. The suit of the plaintiffs for ejectment of the defendant No. 1 from the "bagichi" was decreed. However, the suit relating to restoration of ornaments and utensil mentioned in the schedule to the plaint was dismissed. 9. Laxmi Narain (defendant No. 1) filed Civil First Appeal No. 108 of 1968 before the District Judge, Merta. The District Judge, by his judgment and decree dated August 23, 1974, allowed the appeal of the defendant No. 1 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The District Judge, in disagreement with the trial court, held that the defendant No. 1, had been in fact nominated chela of Mahant Premdas. The District Judge, however, agreed with the trial court that the defendant No. 1 was appointed pujari of the temple and as such, he was managing the "bagichi" under the general impression of the trustees. The fact that he was chela of Mahant Premdas did not confer any right upon him in the year 1951 because, even according to the defendant No. 1, he was appointed mahant in the year 1961 and not in March, 1951. The District Judge was of the opinion that the facts that the defendant No. 1 was chela of mahant Premdas and was appointed as a Pujari by trustees were computable with each other and were not mutually destructive. It was further held by the District Judge that the defendant No. 1 was installed as mahant by the leading rnahants of the religious fraternity. He observed that once it was held that the defendant No. 1 was installed as mahant, it was difficult to see how defacto managers like plaintiffs, whose appointment was invalid, could eject the defendant No. 1, with regard to the finding of the trial court that a married person could not be installed as mahant, the District Judge stated that this point was not at issue between the parties and there were no pleadings to that effect. He was of the view that the trial court should have refrained from considering the stray and casual admission of the defendant No, 1 and his witnesses. It was held that the trial court was not right in holding that a married person could not be installed as mahant. He was of the view that the trial court should have refrained from considering the stray and casual admission of the defendant No, 1 and his witnesses. It was held that the trial court was not right in holding that a married person could not be installed as mahant. On the basis of these findings, the District Judge reversed the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Nagaur and dismissed the plaintiffs suit holding that the plaintiffs, though de facto managers of bagichi were not entitled to eject the defendant No. ! who was initially their servant, but by change of circumstances had been validly installed as mahant of the "bagichi". The legal representatives of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3, defendants Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 have come up in second appeal to this court against the appellate decree of the District Judge, Merta dated August 23, 1974. 10. Mr. Murli Manohar Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that both the courts below have concurrently held that Laxmi Narain (defendant No. 1) was appointed Pujari by the trustees after the former pujari Nanakdas (his own father) had expired. Services of the defendant No. 1 were terminated on November 9, 1960 and from that date he became a tresspasser. On November 13, 1960, the defendant No. 1 assembled some other mahants and declared himself mahant and refused to vacate the bagichi and the temple. It was urged that a person who has come into possession under a licence or permission of another cannot deny the right of that person to grant licence or permission. The rule that a tenant cannot deny his landlords title, it was argued, extends also to the case of a person coming in by permission as a mere lodger, a servant or under a license. It was contended that Section 116 of the Evidence Act does not contain the whole law of estoppel. When the defendant No. 1 had been handed over possession of the bagichi and the temple as pujari, then without openly surrendering back the possession to the de facto trustees, he cannot assert in him any other title. The next contention of Mr. Vyas was that this "Asthan" was always a "naga gaddi", Only celebrates could be mahant in Ramcharan Das-ji-ki-Bagichi, Since the defendant was a married person, he could not be installed its mahant. The next contention of Mr. Vyas was that this "Asthan" was always a "naga gaddi", Only celebrates could be mahant in Ramcharan Das-ji-ki-Bagichi, Since the defendant was a married person, he could not be installed its mahant. It was pointed out that the defendant No. 1 has admitted that all mahants before him were celibates. Apart from that, the trial court after thoroughly considering various circumstances had held that Laxmi Narain was not adopted as chela of Prem Das. The defendant No. 1 has also been describing himself as son of Nanu Ram and not as chela of Ram Das. The plaintiffs had proved several documents including Ex. 75./PW 16 wherein the defendant No. 1 had described himself as son of Nanu Ram and it was for the latter to explain his admissions. It was urged that the trial court had exhaustively enumerated the conduct of the defendant No. 1 and his father Nanu Ram which was inconsistent with the defendant No. 1 being chela of mahant Prem Das. Apart from that, it was neither pleaded nor proved that in the case of Ramcharandas-ji-ki-Bagichi there was a custom that the mahant was installed by the fraternity. Even the bhandara" ceremony takes place on the 17th day of the death of the mahant, It was The nomination by the previous mahant which gave the right and not merely the installation by the fraternity. On the basis of the above arguments, Mr. Murli Manohar Vyas urged that the District Judge, Merta was wrong in reversing the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Nagaur. 11. As against this, Mr. Lekh Raj Mehta appearing for the defendant No. 1 urged that during the minority of the defendant No. 1, the Executive Hakim had entrusted ornaments etc. to the certain "mukhiyas". The defendant No. 1 was chela of mahant Premdas and he was not a pujari of the temple. The entries of account books produced by the plaintiffs were not in regularly kept books. When the defendant No. 1 was a minor, he was out of Nagaur and any temporary arrangement made during his absence was not binding on him. The plaintiffs were not legal trustees of the bagichi and the temple. The defendant No. 1 was duly installed as mahant and there was no custom that only celebrates could succeed as mahant. When the defendant No. 1 was a minor, he was out of Nagaur and any temporary arrangement made during his absence was not binding on him. The plaintiffs were not legal trustees of the bagichi and the temple. The defendant No. 1 was duly installed as mahant and there was no custom that only celebrates could succeed as mahant. The fathers name of the defend-ant No. 1 had been recorded as Nanu Ram from his child-hood and that was why it continued later also. From this, no adverse conclusion could be drawn against the defendant No. 1. It was also urged that deity was a necessary party to the suit. Lastly, it was ur)ged that no question of estoppel arises in the case. 12. It was not in dispute between the parties that there is a Bagichi just adjacent to Pratap Sagar at Nagaur well known as Ram Charan Dasji-ki-Bagichi and that there is a temple in this Bagichi in which the deity of Shri Sitaramji is consecrated. This temple was visited by the public of Nagaur for Seva Pooja and Darshan. It is also not in dispute that Ram Charan Das, whose name is attached to this Bagichi was a learned saint. Further it is not in dispute that Mahant Premdas was the last Mahant of this Bagichi. Mahant Premdas died on Miti Maha Budi 8, Samvat 1999 corresponding to the year 1942, A.D. The Gaddi of the Bagichi belonged to Ramanuj Beragi Sampradaya. Some shops and Kotha were also attached to this Bagichi. 13. According to the plaintiffs, Mahant Prem Das did not leave any Chela (disciple) behind him and he neither nominated any disciple by will and nor enabled the public to appoint any person as Chela of Mahant Prem Das and Mahant of the Bagichi. On the death of Mahant Premdas, one Bhurekhan son of Mehrab Khan made a report on January 30, 1943 (Ex. 73) to the Executive Hakim, Nagaur stating that Premdas had died issue less and without leaving any disciple. It was prayed that proper and adequate arrangement may be made regarding the management of the Bagichi and its property. One Gangadas filed objections Ex. 69 stating that he was a collateral of Mahant Premdas and he had a right to succeed to his Gaddi. It was prayed that proper and adequate arrangement may be made regarding the management of the Bagichi and its property. One Gangadas filed objections Ex. 69 stating that he was a collateral of Mahant Premdas and he had a right to succeed to his Gaddi. However, it appears from the evidence of Hardayal P.W. 17, who was Executive Hakim, Nagaur in the year 1943, that he, on an application filed by plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, Gopi Kishan, father of plaintiff No. 3, Nanu Ram Soni and Mohanlal Rathi (Ex.70) that they were prepared to act as trustees of the Bagichi, Hardayal Executive Hakim passed an order that the property of the. Bagichi may be handed over to the trustees. By a receipt Ex. 71, the trustees acknowledged the receipt by them of the ornaments of the deity and utensils, Ex. 74 contains the details of the ornaments and the utensils handed over to the trustees. Thereafter these trustees were managing the Bagichi and the properties annexed to it. 14. The findings given by the trial court and by the District Judge in appeal on various issues framed in the suit have already been stated above. The District Judge held that the defendant No. 1 Laxminarain had been in fact nominated Chela by Mahant Prem Das. However, the District Judge agreed with the trial court that the defendant No. 1 was appointed poojari of the temple and as such, he was managing the Bagichi under the general supervision of the trustees appointed by the Executive Hakim. The District Judge stated "The fact that he was chela of Mahant Premdas did not confer any right upon him in the year 1951 because, even according to the defendant No. 1, he was appointed Mahant in the year 1961 and not in March 1951. The facts that the defendant No. 1 was chela of Mahant Premdas and was appointed poojari" by trustees were compatible with each other and were not mutually destructive." The District Judge further held that the defendant No. 1 was installed as Mahant by the leading Mahants of religious fraternity and once he was install- ed as Mahant. it was difficult to see how defacto Managers like plaintiffs whose appointment was invalid, could eject the defendant No. 1. it was difficult to see how defacto Managers like plaintiffs whose appointment was invalid, could eject the defendant No. 1. The trial court, on the other hand, had held that the adoption of defendant No, 1 as a disciple by Mahant Prerndas was extremely improbable and that the defendant No. 1 was never adopted as a Chela by Mahant Prerndas. However, the trial court held that it was amply proved that the defendant No. 1 was installed as a Mahant on Miti Migsar Budi 10, Samvat 2017. However, it was held that since it had been decided by him that defendant No. 1 was never adopted as a Chela to Mahant Prerndas, he could not succeed to him because the custom regarding succession to this Math was that a Chela succeeded to his Guru and also for the reason that the defendant No. 1 was "grahasti" and not a celibate. The District Judge in appeal held that a question whether a married person could be installed as a Mahant or not was not an issue between the parties and there were no pleadings to that effect and, therefore, the trial court should have refrained from considering the stray and casual admission of the defendant No. 1 and his witnesses. The trial court was accordingly held to be wrong by the District Judge in holding that a married person could not be installed as Mahant of this Bagichi. 15. Dr. Bijan Kumar Mukherjee in Tagore Law Lectures on Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust TV Edition at page 321 succinctly stated:— "Math in ordinary language signifies an abode or the residence of ascetics. In legal parlance it connotes a monastic institution presided over by a superior and established for the use or benefit of ascetics belonging to a particular order who generally are disciples or co-disciples of the superior." 16. It is well settled that the property belongs to a Math is in fact attached to the office of the Mahant and passed by inheritence to no one who does not fill the office. It is well settled that the property belongs to a Math is in fact attached to the office of the Mahant and passed by inheritence to no one who does not fill the office. The head of a Math as such, is not a trustee in the sense in which that property is generally vested but in legal contemplation, he has an estate for life in its permanent endowment and an absolute property in the income derived from the offerings of his followers subject only to the burden of maintaining the institution. He is bound to spend a large part of the income derived from the offerings of his followers on charitable or religious objects. The words "the burden of maintaining the institution" must be understood to include the maintenance of the Math, the support of its head and his disciples and the purpose of religious and other chanties in connection with it in accordance with usage (See Krishna Singh Vs.. Mathura Ahir (1). 17. The law is equally well laid down that succession to Mahantship of a Math or religious institution must be governed and regulated by custom or usage of the particular Mahantee (See Greedharee Dass Vs Nand Kishore Dass, Mahant-. (2), Ramalingam Pillai Vs. Vythilingam Pillai (3), Gendapuri Vs. Chhatar Puri (4), Ram Prakash Das Vs Ananddas(5), Sitaldas Vs. Sant Ram (6), Satnam Singh Vs. Bawan Bhagwan Singh (7), Mahant Bhagwan Bhagat Vs. Girjanandan Bhagat (8) and Krishan Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir (supra). 18. As observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Krishna Singh vs. Mathura Ahir (supra), about the 8th Century A.D, Sankara-Charya, the greatest Hindu Scholar and philosopher of modern India, defeated the Buddhist in arguments and re-established Hinduism as the dominant religion in India. Sankara was an ascetic and founded schools of ascetics. He established four Maths or Seats of religion at four ends of India-Sringeri Math on the Sringeri hills in the south, the Sharda Math of Dwarka in the West, the Jyotir Math at Badrikashram in the north and the Goverdhan Math at Puri in the east. The monks ordained by Sankara and his disciples were called Sanyasis, Kabir and Nanak also established monasteries on the lines of Sankara. Chaitanya, the pure, the subtle mystic of Nadia, the greatest exponent and example of Bhagati, originally belonged to one of Sankara orders viz. The monks ordained by Sankara and his disciples were called Sanyasis, Kabir and Nanak also established monasteries on the lines of Sankara. Chaitanya, the pure, the subtle mystic of Nadia, the greatest exponent and example of Bhagati, originally belonged to one of Sankara orders viz. Bharati though he voluntarily repudiated Sankaras pantheism, and his followers founded the class of ascetics known as Byragis who too have three establishments. In imitation of the Maths of Sankara, the followers of Ramanuja also founded Maths preaching the Vshisnt-Adwaita system in various parts of India. The followers of Madhwacharya, the chief exponent of Dwaita system, also founded Maths the chief among whom are the well known 8 Maths at Udipi Of Saiva mendicants and ascetics orders, Dandis or staff-bearers, occupied a place of pre-eminence. They worship Lord Shiva in the form of Bahirava and profess to more Nirguna and Niranjana, the deity devoid of attribute or passion. 19. Yajriavalkya states a special rule of succession in regard to|the wealth of ascetics and the like: "The heirs who take wealth of a Vanaprastha (a hermit) of a Yati (an ascetics) and a Brahmchari (a student) are in their order, the preceptor, the virtuous pupil, and one who is supposed brother and belonging to the same order." The Mitakshara explains thus: "A spiritual brother belonging to the same hermitage (Dharma-Dhratra-ka-tirthi) takes the goods of the hermit. A virtuous pupil takes the property of a Yati. The preceptor is heir of the Brahmchari but on failure of these, any one belonging to the same order or hermitage takes the property even though sons and other natural heirs exist." 20. One who enters into a religious order Sevres his connections with the members of his natural family. He is accordingly excluded from inheritance. Entrance to a religious order is tantamount to civil death so as to cause a complete severance of his connections with his relations as well as with his property. Neither he nor his natural relative can succeed to each others properties. Be that all as it may succession to the office of Mahant is to be regulated by the custom or usage of the particular institution. Even where the Mahant has the power to appoint his successor, it is a custom in the various Maths that such appointments should be confirmed or recognised by the members of the religious fraternity to which the deceased belonged. Even where the Mahant has the power to appoint his successor, it is a custom in the various Maths that such appointments should be confirmed or recognised by the members of the religious fraternity to which the deceased belonged. There are instances of Maths in which the mahant-ship descends from Guru to Chela i.e. the existing Mahant alone appoints his successor. But the genera! rule is that the Maths of the same sect in a District, or Maths having a common ordain are associated together the Mahant of these acknowledging one of their members as a head who is for some reason pre-eminent and on the occasion of the death of one, the others assemble to elect a successor out of the chelas or disciples of the deceased if possible or if there be none of them qualified then from the Chela of another Mahant. 21. The customs relating to the appointment of Mahants vary greatly from each other in different institutions and it is not possible to enumerate them exhaustively. Generally speaking the Maths are divided into three classes according to different ways in which the head or the superiors are appointed. These three descriptions of the Maths are Mourasi, Panchayati and Hakimi. In the first, the office of the Mahant is hereditary and devolves on the chief disciple of the existing Mahant who more-over usually nominates him as successor, in the second, the office is elected, the succeeding Mahant being selected by an assembly of Mahants. In the third, the appointment of the Presiding Mahant is vested in the ruling power or in the party who has endowed to the temple. 22. As has already been stated above, the trial court had held that the defendant No. 1 Laxminarain was not adopted as Chela by Mahant Premdas. However, the first appellate court has reversed this finding of fact given by the trial court. Mr. Murli Manohar Vyas appearing for the appellants strenuously con-tended that the District Judge has reversed the finding of the trial court without considering all the circumstances on which the finding was based and, therefore, the finding of the District Judge is not binding on this Court and should be set aide and that of the trial Court restored. As observed in Sri Sinna Ramanuja Jeer Vs. As observed in Sri Sinna Ramanuja Jeer Vs. Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer (9), it is well settled that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact, however, gross the error might seem to be. In that case, their Lordships held that the High Court was in error in reversing the finding of the District Judge, which was one of fact that the Emberumanar temple was neither subordinate to nor part of the Athinathalwar temple and no office holder of the former could, therefore, become office bearer of the latter. Thus, howsoever erroneous the finding of fact on the question whether Mahant Premdas adopted Laxminarain defendant No. 1 as his Chela might be, this Court in second appeal has no jurisdiction to interfere in that finding of fact I, therefore, refuse to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the District Judge that the defendant No. 1 was Chela of Mahant Premdas. 23. I may next examine the question about the custom or usage in this religious institution about succession on the death of Mahant. The defendant No. 1 in his written statement, after pleading that he was adopted as Chela by Mahant Premdas. did not assert that only by virtue of that, he became Mahant of this religious institution on the death of Mahant Premdas. On the other hand, in para 15 of the written statement he pleaded that on hearing about the death of his father in Samvat 2007 he came back to Nagaur from out-site and took over the management of the Bagichi as the disciple of Mahant Premdas. On November 13, 1960, the other Mahants of the religious fraternity customarily and lawfully installed him on the gaddi of Mahant by covering his body with the "Chadar" of deceased Mahant Premdas and since then he has all the rights of the Mahant in respect of the Bagichi. Thus the case of the defendant No. 1 was that the assembly of Mahants of the same religious fraternity elected and installed him as Mahant of the Bagichi because he was disciple of late Mahant Premdas. Thus the case of the defendant No. 1 was that the assembly of Mahants of the same religious fraternity elected and installed him as Mahant of the Bagichi because he was disciple of late Mahant Premdas. In other words, what the defendant No. 1 pleaded was that although a disciple of the Mahant succeeds him as Mahant but a ceremony of installation by the community of Mahants of the same religious fraternity is required to make him the Mahant of the Math. As has been observed in Krishna Singhs case (supra), there are instances of maths in which the Mahantship descends from Guru to Chela but the general rule is that the maths of the same sect in a district or Maths having a common origin are associated together - the mahant of these acknowledging one of their members as a head who for some reason is pre-eminent; and on the occasion of the death of one, the others assemble to elect a successor out of the disciples of the deceased, if possible or if there be none of them qualified them from the chelas of another Mahant. 24. From the side of the plaintiffs, there was no definite evidence about any different custom. Mangilal P.W. 1 stated that he does not know how a Chela is adopted. He also stated that no one can become a Mahant unless he is adopted as Chela. He showed ignorance about the custom or usage as to how a Mahant was installed in this institution. All that he said was that in Samvat 2017, the defendant No. 1 nakedly played a drama of becoming Mahant. Poonamchand P.W. 2 deposed that what a disciple becames Mahant, the Chadar of the deceased Mahant is wrapped around him. This ceremony is performed by other Mahants. Other witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs threw no further light on the matter. So far as defendant No. 1 him-self is concerned, he stated in his cross-examination that all the previous Mahant of this Gaddi were celibates Previous by no "Grahasti" become Mahant of this Gaddi. He was the only person who has been married by his real father after the death of Mahant Premdas and before his being installed as Mahant by the other Mahants of the same fraternity. He also stated in his evidence that the Gaddi of this Bagichi is of Ramanuj Beragi cult. He was the only person who has been married by his real father after the death of Mahant Premdas and before his being installed as Mahant by the other Mahants of the same fraternity. He also stated in his evidence that the Gaddi of this Bagichi is of Ramanuj Beragi cult. He also deposed that there are 10 other Gaddies of Ramanuj cult in the area. Before a Mahant is installed, the Mahant of other Gaddies are summoned. They are taken into a procession. Next day Bhandara takes place and the Mahants, after shaving the head of the disciple, install him as a Mahant of the institution. The defendant No. 1 has examined Premdas D.W. 2, Shiv Ramji D.W. 3, Shamdas D,W 4, Kishore Das P.W.5 Asha Ram D.W. 6 and some other witnesses to support his version that the Mahants of same cult assembled and installed him as Mahant and successor of late Mahant Premdas on Miti Magsar Budi 10, Samvat 2017 corresponding to the year 1960 i.e. about 18 years after the death of Mahant Premdas. 25. The trial court, while dealing with issue No. 9 observed as under:- "It was with difficulty that custom pleaded by defendant No. 1 in his written statement could be extracted. The relevant paras in the written statement are para 8 and para 13. From these paras it appears that the custom which defendant No. 1 wanted to set up was that a recognised Chela of the deceased is installed as a Mahant by the prominent Mahants of his sect by placing a "Chaddar" over such Chela, .............. Curious feature of the case is that the plaintiffs chose not to file any rejoinder or lead evidence to rebut this issue......... Normally this evidence which has not been specifically rebutted by the plaintiffs should be enough to prove that the defendant No. 1 was adopted as Chela of Mahant Premdas. But............... I hold that defendant No 1 was never adopted as a Chela of Mahant Premdas............... If Laxminarain was a Chela of Mahant Premdas normally he should succeed to him.............I hold that the custom as to succession in Bagichi of Ramcharandasji was that a Chela was succeeding to his Guru ............ I would say that it has been proved that the defendant No. 1 was installed as a mahant............... If Laxminarain was a Chela of Mahant Premdas normally he should succeed to him.............I hold that the custom as to succession in Bagichi of Ramcharandasji was that a Chela was succeeding to his Guru ............ I would say that it has been proved that the defendant No. 1 was installed as a mahant............... The custom in the Math in dispute was that only unmarried person could be made a Mahant as would be clear from the evidence of defendant............ It appears that this Math was of celibates and only celibate would become a Mahant............... Since I have decided that defendant No. 1 was never adopted as a Chela to Mahant Pramdas he could not succeed to him. Otherwise also because he was a Grahasti he could not succeed to Mahant Premdas." 26. So far as the District Judge is concerned he stated as under: "It appears that the appellant was appointed Poojari of the temple and as such he was managing Bagichi under the general supervision of the trustees. The fact that he was Chela of Mahant Premdas did not confer any right upon him in the year 1951. According to the appellant himself, he was appointed Mahant in the year 1961 and not in March 1951. In my opinion, the facts that the appellant was Chela of Mahant Premdas and was appointed as a Poojari by the trustees are computable with each other and as not mutually destructive. I therefore, in agreement with the learned court below hold that the appellant was infact appointed Poojari by the trustees. This was not with standing the fact that the appellant was also a Chela of Mahant Premdas. .......... .......... .......... .......... I have gone through the statements of these witnesses. They amply prove that the appellant was installed as Mahant by the leading Mahants of the religious fraternity ......... Once it is held that the appellant was installed as Mahant it is difficult to say how defacto manager, namely, plaintiffs, whose appointment was invalid could eject him. .......... .......... .......... .......... I have gone through the statements of these witnesses. They amply prove that the appellant was installed as Mahant by the leading Mahants of the religious fraternity ......... Once it is held that the appellant was installed as Mahant it is difficult to say how defacto manager, namely, plaintiffs, whose appointment was invalid could eject him. I, therefore, hold that the decree of ejectment against the appellant who was duly installed as Mahant cannot be sustained." It would appear from the above findings of the courts below that both of them have found it a fact that Laxminarain defendant No. 1 was appointed a Poojari of the temple of Shri Sitaramji in the Bagichi by the trustees appointed by Executive Hakim on a monthly pay of Rs. 12/-. It has also been found by them that in Samwat 2017 i.e. 1960 A.D. the defendant No. 1 had been installed as Mahant of this Bagichi by an assembly of Mahants of the same sect. Both these findings are findings of fact and cannot be interfered in the second appeal. 27. With regard to the findings of the trial court that the custom in the Math in question was that only unmarried persons could be made a Mahant, the District Judge stated that he had carefully gone through the plaint filed by the plaintiff and he did not find any averment, to the effect that a married person was ineligible from becoming Mahant of the community. It was further stated by the District Judge that if the plaintiffs wanted to say that a married person could not be installed as a Mahant, they should have said so specifically. No rejoinder was filed by the plaintiffs to the written statement to say that a married person could not be installed as a Mahant and no issue was framed on the point. On account of this fact, the District Judge held that the trial court was not right in holding that a married person could not be installed as Mahant. 28. The Judicial Committee laid down in Genda Purs Vs. On account of this fact, the District Judge held that the trial court was not right in holding that a married person could not be installed as Mahant. 28. The Judicial Committee laid down in Genda Purs Vs. Chhatar Puri (supra) that in determining who is entitled to succeed as Mahant, the only law to be observed is to be found in the custom and practice, which must be proved by testimony, and the claimant must show that he is entitled, according to the custom to recover the office and the land and property belonging to it. Mere infirmity of the title of the defendant who is in possession will not help the plaintiff." The same view was reiterated by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Ramlingam Pillai Vs. Vythilingam Pillai (supra). It was for the defendant No. 1 in the instant case to allege and prove the custom about succession as Mahant in this religious institution and not for the plaintiffs. So far as defendant No. 1 is concerned, he has clearly admitted that this Gaddi of the Bagichi was of Ramanuj Bairagi cult. He also unequivocally admitted that prior to him no Grahasti became Mahant of this Bagichi, It is important to note that this religious institution was established about 100 years or 125 years before the institution of the suit. Marriage by itself is not a disqualification, but the initiation of a married man must be preceded by the entire and permanent separation from his wife and by the giving up of all wordily ties. This is the rule in all ascetic foundations where the members have to take the view of celibacy. In my view, the trial court was right that the defendant No. 1 being married and having not separated from his wife and having not renounced the worldly order, was not qualified to become Mahant of this Bagichi in which only celibates have all along been the Mahants since it is founded. I do not agree with the conclusions arrived at by the District Judge. 29. There is one more important aspect in the case which has to be given due consideration. As already stated, both the trial courts and the District Judge have found that the plaintiffs and other trustees have appointed Laxmi-narain and a Poojari of the temple on the monthly pay of Rs. 29. There is one more important aspect in the case which has to be given due consideration. As already stated, both the trial courts and the District Judge have found that the plaintiffs and other trustees have appointed Laxmi-narain and a Poojari of the temple on the monthly pay of Rs. 12/- on March 8, 51.It has also been found that the Executive Hakim had appointed the plaintiffs and others as trustees and that they were defacto trustees. The trustees having appointed the defacto trustees No. 1 Laxminarain as a Poojari on a monthly pay of Rs. 12/- were entitled to remove him. The service of defendant No. 1 was terminated by the trustees on Nov. 9, 1960. by a notice. It was on November 13, 1960 that the defendant No. 1 called Mahants of the same sect and got him himself installed as Mahant. Reference may be made to section 116 of Evidence Act, which estops a tenant and a licensee from denying the title of his land-lord or as the case may be, of the person granting the licence. It has been stated in Salisburys Laws of England (IV edition) page 1097-para 1627 as follows:- "There is no distinction, so far as concerns the law of estoppel, between a licensee and a tenant; and a licensee who had obtained possession by aid of the licence before he can show that his licensor had no title or that his licensors title has determined must first surrender possession of the premises. Same thing has been said in relation to a tenant in para 1626 that if the tenant came into possession under the lessor, the better opinion would seen to be that he must surrender possession or must have been evicted by a person having a title Paramount before he disputes the lessors title." In a case where the defendant No. 1 claimed his own right as a Mahant over the "Bagichi", he has to first surrender possession of the premises to the defacto trustees and then vindicate his right by a separate suit. 30. In Mst. Bilaskanwar vs. Desh Raj Ranjeet Singh (l0) it was laid down that a tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his land-lords title, however defective it may be so long as he has not openly restored possession by surrender to his land-lord. In Mujujibur Rehman Vs. 30. In Mst. Bilaskanwar vs. Desh Raj Ranjeet Singh (l0) it was laid down that a tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his land-lords title, however defective it may be so long as he has not openly restored possession by surrender to his land-lord. In Mujujibur Rehman Vs. Isub Surati (11) a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court stated that section 116, Evidence Act does not contain the whole law of estoppel and that the tenants estoppel upholds even after the determination of the tenancy. The Privy Council also said in Chandrika Prasad Vs. Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway Company(12) that tenant cannot dispute his lessors title so long as he remains in possession under an agreement which be had made with them. 31. In Ajitullah vs. Bilatibibi (13) a single Judge of the Calcutta High Court stated that sections 115 to 117 of the Evidence Act are not exhaustive and the principle of estoppel contained in these sections be applied by analogy to the parties not mentioned therein. The whole basis of the doctrine being the telling into possession. It can be applied to the case of a licensee or an agent let into possession. To the same effect is the decision reported in case (14). 32. As to the competence of the plaintiffs to file the suit even on the footing that they were not dejure trustees but only defacto trustees, it may be stated that it is well-settled that the ordinary rule that the persons without title and who were mere intermeddlers cannot sue as of right is clear. But where public trusts are concerned, courts have a duty to see that their interest and the interests of those for whose benefit they existed are safeguarded. The courts must possess the power to sustain proper proceeding by them in appropriate case and grant the relief in the interest of and for ,the express benefit of the trust imposing such conditions as may be called for. Therefore, a person who has been in defacto possession and management of a Math and its properties for a long time claiming to be its trustee under the decree of the Court, valid or invalid, has sufficient interest, to maintain proceedings for the warding off a cloud-cast by the defendants action gained the interest of the Math (See Vikarmadas Mahant vs. Daula Ram Asthana (15). Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee also in Mahadeo Prasad Singh vs. Karia Bharti (10)) held that as K. was in actual possession of the Math, he could maintain the suit for its benefit. That was a suit by defacto Mahant. Their Lordships relied upon the decision in Ramcharandas vs Naurangilal (17). The plaintiffs, being defacto trustees, can therefore, file this suit for ejectment of the Poojari. The trustees were admittedly realising rent of the properties attached to the Bagichi. 33. I may refer to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Peria Swami vs. Sundaresa Ayyar (18). A suit was filed by the trustees of a temple for possession of the temple lands on the basis of the title of the temple. The relief claimed was the eviction of Archaka and their alienees from the suit land on the ground that they had no title to remain in possession. The Archaka raised the plea that the title of the deity was confined only to meevaram in the plaint-schedule lands and that they had no title to the Kudivaram. Both the courts confirmed the title to the deity to both the interests and negatived the title of the defendant Archakas. The High Court further held that the Archakas were entitled to for a portion of the lands allotted to them towards their remuneration for service to temple, though there was no pleading or issue or contention to that effect. Subbarao J., speaking for the Court, held that the. High Court went wrong in making an allocation of lands between the trustees and the Archakas in a suit for ejectment. The High Court had no option but to deliver possession to the plaintiffs who had established their title to the suit properties. In a suit for framing scheme for a temple, a court may, in an appropriate case, put the Archaka in possession of a portion of the temple lands towards his remuneration for service to the temple, but that was not a suit for framing a scheme. His Lordships relied upon the decision in B. Satyanaraina vs. K.A. Venkatapayya (19) Poojari was undoubtedly a servant of the defacto trustees. 34. His Lordships relied upon the decision in B. Satyanaraina vs. K.A. Venkatapayya (19) Poojari was undoubtedly a servant of the defacto trustees. 34. I agree with the findings of the trial court that the Executive Hakim Nagaur of former Marwar State had no right or authority to appoint trustees to manage the properties of a religious or charitable institution, but as already stated above, the plaintiffs as defacto trustees had a right to file the suit for ejectment of defendant No. 1 who was admitted by them as Poojari on monthly pay of Rs. 12/- on March 8, 1951. The District Judge, Merta was wrong in holding that the plaintiffs, though defacto Managers of the Bagichi, were not entitled to eject Laxminarain defendant No. 1. I have already stated that Laxmi-rjarain was admitted by the defacto trustees as a Poojari in the year 1951 and he is estopped from denying the title of the defacto trustees until he first surrendered the possession of the Bagichi and the temple therein to the defacto trustees. It has further been found by me that only celibates could be Mahant of the Bagichi in the suit. 35. Before parting with this judgment I would like to observe that the plaintiffs-appellants and other trustees were not validly appointed by the Executive Hakim as he had no power to appoint them to manage the properties of this religious institution. The trustees are Maheshwaries by caste and they cannot be said at all to be worthy to manage this Math. V Mahant should and is nece-ssary to be appointed in respect of this Bagichi and the properties and the tem-ple attached thereto. These inter-meddlers should not be allowed any more to reap the fruits of the properties attached to the temple. The Math was founded by believers of Ramanuj sect and its Mahant should be installed in accordance with the custom and usage of this Math as held in this judgment. I, therefore, order that a copy of this judgment be sent to Advocate General Rajasthan and Devasthan Commissioner Rajasthan immediately for appropriate action. 36. With the above directions, this second appeal is allowed, the decree of the District Judge, Merta dated August 23, 1974 is set aside and the decree of the Civil Judge, Nagaur is restored. I, therefore, order that a copy of this judgment be sent to Advocate General Rajasthan and Devasthan Commissioner Rajasthan immediately for appropriate action. 36. With the above directions, this second appeal is allowed, the decree of the District Judge, Merta dated August 23, 1974 is set aside and the decree of the Civil Judge, Nagaur is restored. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs throughout.