Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 2131 (ALL)

DEVI PRASAD v. MAHANT GOSWAMI TRIBHUWANPURI

2003-09-15

JANARDAN SAHAI

body2003
JANARDAN SAHAI, J. ( 1 ) IN Varanasi, the City of temples and maths there is in Vishwanath Gali a Ram Mandir, which is undisputedly a temple and adjoining it a temple of Annapurna Devi, which according to tribhuwanpuri, the respondent in these revisions, is a math. Disputes about management of Ram mandir arose about half a century ago giving birth to a suit in the year 1958 by Jagdish Prasad the predecessor of the applicants in these revisions against Vishwanath Puri the predecessor of tribhuwanpuri the respondent herein. The suit travelled its way upto the Supreme Court. Both, the High Court in the first appeal and the Supreme Court in the appeal against the High Courts judgment settled the dispute about the character of Ram Mandir and held that it is a public temple. Neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court, however, decided the question even then agitated by the defendant that the shebaitship of the Ram Mandir vested in the mahant of math annapurna Devi. The Supreme Court rather chose to dispose of the litigation by a direction to the District Judge to frame a scheme giving equal rights in the management to the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and the defendant jointly and in case they were unable to co-operate each other, by exclusive management rights for specified periods, turn by turn. The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered on 23. 11. 1987. ( 2 ) THE District Judge gave effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court and framed a scheme in which one of the terms was that the applicants in these revisions and the respondent would exercise shebaiti rights for a period of one year each in rotation. The scheme itself appears to have been framed not without contest. Although originally prepared in the year 1988 it was confirmed by the trial court after objections and was finally affirmed with minor changes by the high Court in revision on 30. 8. 1996. ( 3 ) IT appears that after the scheme was framed the parties exercised their rights accordingly, turn by turn and it seemed that they had buried the hatchet. But the respite was short lived. Hardly had the new year 2001 opened its account that on 6. 1. 2001 the applicants launched a fresh attack. 8. 1996. ( 3 ) IT appears that after the scheme was framed the parties exercised their rights accordingly, turn by turn and it seemed that they had buried the hatchet. But the respite was short lived. Hardly had the new year 2001 opened its account that on 6. 1. 2001 the applicants launched a fresh attack. An application was filed by them raising several issues with which we are here not concerned but one of them has become the central point of dispute in these revisions and, therefore, requires focus. It was alleged that the respondent had been substituted in the appeal before the High Court as a chela of Vishwanath Puri the previous shebait and was also so arrayed in the appeal before the Supreme Court and the capacity in which he was given the right under the scheme to manage the debutter was as a chela of Vishwanath Puri but in the revision, which arose out of the order of District Judge framing the scheme, he represented himself to be the chela of Kapil Muni and in that position as the chela of Kapil Muni, he was not entitled to hold the office of shebait of the Ram Mandir. An application raising the same issue was then filed by applicants on 16. 8. 2001. The District Judge by his order dated 27. 8. 2001 turned down the contentions of the applicants raised before him that the respondent was not entitled for reasons in their application. I have Just referred to, to take charge of his turn, which was then to commence from 1. 9. 2001. This order has given rise to Revision No. 588 of 2001. It appears that the turn of the respondent in question in this revision had in the meanwhile run out and the applicants had started to exercise the management rights in their turn, which too has now come to an end on 31,8. 2003. A fresh objection dated 22. 8. 2003 was, therefore, made by the applicants disputing the claim of the respondent to take charge of his fresh turn from 1. 9. 2003 setting out the same case as was set out in the earlier application. The District Judge by order dated 28. 8,2003, has rejected the contention of the applicants once again. This order is under challenge in the other civil revision. 9. 2003 setting out the same case as was set out in the earlier application. The District Judge by order dated 28. 8,2003, has rejected the contention of the applicants once again. This order is under challenge in the other civil revision. ( 4 ) I have heard Sri R. K. Jain, learned senior counsel for the applicants and Sri Arvind Shukla and Sri Satish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. ( 5 ) BEFORE me the same contention was pressed by the applicants that was raised by them before the District Judge that the right to manage the Ram Mandir was given to the respondent as the chela of Vishwanath Puri and not as the chela of Kapil Muni in which capacity he asserts his claim and he has no right at all to take over the management of the Ram Mandir. Even though the turn of the respondent which was in question in Revision No. 588 of 2001 has run out but as the question involved would recur each time a fresh turn of the respondent begins as it has now arisen in these revisions, I propose to decide the question on merits and the Revision No. 588 of 2001 is not being dismissed as infructuous and I shall approach the issue raised in these revisions in its different facets. ( 6 ) THE question involved in these revisions requires for its answer the statement of the basic principles that govern the devolution of shebaiti rights. The law upon the point has been elaborately dealt with in B. K. Mukherjees Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Endowments and the source of the material in this order is mostly that book. It has long since been settled that shebaitship, though a managerial position, is not a mere office but a property right, the inheritance to which is governed by the ordinary law of inheritance to secular property. This is in contrast to the law of inheritance of a mahantship of a math where a different mode of devolution applies. Succession to mahantship takes place within the spiritual family according to the custom and usage of the foundation. Thus, where the office of a mahant is hereditary, it is a chela of mahant who ordinarily succeeds him in most of the foundations in a panchayati math, succession is governed by election. Succession to mahantship takes place within the spiritual family according to the custom and usage of the foundation. Thus, where the office of a mahant is hereditary, it is a chela of mahant who ordinarily succeeds him in most of the foundations in a panchayati math, succession is governed by election. But in all cases barring a few exceptions where by custom the personal heir of the mahant succeeds, the succession takes place within the spiritual family. The reason is not far to see. When a chela is inducted into a religious order, he renounces the secular world. This renunciation is evidenced by certain ceremonies which need not be here recounted and which differ in the various religious orders of the Hindu pantheon. But the transformation is brought about by fiction of a civil death. One of the ceremonies which is common to many of the religious orders is the performance of his own shradh by the entrant. It is evidence of civil death and disconnection with the natural family of the entrant. As the person who has joined a religious order has severed his connection with the secular world, it would be in keeping with the fiction of his birth in the new spiritual family that his succession is within the new family itself. Even so a person who has become a chela can acquire property but succession to such property would ordinarily be within the spiritual family itself. Thus, although a debutter is a Hindu religious endowment just like a math is, but succession to shebaiti rights follows the ordinary law of inheritance to secular property. For generally, unless custom otherwise ordains, there is amongst the Hindus no requirement that the holder of the office of shebait must severe his connection with the secular world. It has been held by the Judicial Committee in Goswamee girdhariji v. Roman Laljee, 16 IA 137, that when a debutter is established, the shebaitship is held to be vested in the heirs of the founder unless he has disposed of it otherwise or there has been some usage or dealing to show a different mode of devolution. If, therefore, succession to shebaiti rights is governed by the ordinary law of inheritance, it would devolve upon personal heirs irrespective even of the fact whether the successor is or is not the chela of the previous shebait. If, therefore, succession to shebaiti rights is governed by the ordinary law of inheritance, it would devolve upon personal heirs irrespective even of the fact whether the successor is or is not the chela of the previous shebait. Therefore, even a person who has converted into another religion and has, therefore ceased, to be a Hindu, may yet inherit the shebaiti rights unless it is against the directions of the founder or the custom of the endowment. In Ishwar Radhakanta Jiu and Ors. v. Kshetra Ghosh and Ors. , AIR 1949 Cal 253, it was held that an Arya Samajist who does not believe in idol worship may yet be a shebait of a debutter where seva puja of the deity is a necessary rite. The inconsistency between the belief of the shebait and the duty expected is resolved by appointing a pujari to do the seva puja. It has, therefore, to be held on the ideological plane that a shebait need not be the chela of the previous shebait nor be a member of any religious order. Indeed he can hold the office of shebait even though he is a chela of a different guru or is a member of a religious order different from the one of which the previous shebait was. The personal belief of a successor to the office of a shebait is immaterial to his right to inherit the office. There is in law, therefore, no inconsistency in Tribhuwanpuri asserting himself to be the chela of Kapil Muni and laying claim to the shebaitship of Ram Mandir even though he may not have been the chela of vishwanathpuri, the previous shebait. ( 7 ) FROM this statement of the law governing succession to the office of shebait, it is clear that it would be possible to say that Tribhuwanpuri succeeded Vishwanath Puri the pervious shebait as his chela only if there were directions of the founder that the chela of the existing shebait would succeed him or if there is custom in the foundation that the shebaitship would devolve upon the chela of the previous shebait because under the law of inheritance, which is the only other mode of devolution, it is the personal heir and not a chela who would succeed. There is no material on the record nor it is the case of either party that the founder had given any directions. There is no material on the record nor it is the case of either party that the founder had given any directions. By a process of exclusion, we are, therefore, left to custom and we shall presently see that the applicants have not pleaded any custom that the office of shebait of the Ram Mandir is succeeded to by the chela of the previous shebait. ( 8 ) THE entire case of the applicants that Tribhuwanpuri succeeded to the office of shebait as the chela of Vishwanathpuri is based upon the order of substation in the first appeal in the High court and the description of his name in the decree of the Supreme Court and in the array of parties in the Memorandum of the Miscellaneous Case in which the scheme was framed by the district Judge. Sri Arvind Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent placed before me the decree of the High Court in the appeal and it is clear that Tribhuwanpuri was substituted as the heir of Vishwanath Puri and there is nothing therein to shows that he was described as a chela. That apart, the description of Tribhuwanpuri in the decree or in the array of parties in the memorandum as a chela of Vishwanathpuri or even assuming that it was so in an order of substitution, is not sufficient evidence by itself to hold that the capacity in which he was given the office was as a chela of Vishwanathpuri. The appeal in the Supreme Court was filed by the applicants. If the applicants described the respondent as chela of Vishwanathpuri in the memorandum of appeal, it is expected that, that would be the description which would appear in the decree of the Supreme Court, a description given by the applicants themselves and cannot be relied upon as proof of the fact that Tribhuwan Puri was the chela of Vishwanath Puri and was given the office of shebaitship on that basis. The applicants have not alleged the existence of any usage or custom that the shebaitship would devolve upon the chela of the previous shebait of the ram Mandir. The applicants themselves appear to have been substituted as heirs and legal representatives of Jagdish Prasad, the son of the founder. The applicants have not alleged the existence of any usage or custom that the shebaitship would devolve upon the chela of the previous shebait of the ram Mandir. The applicants themselves appear to have been substituted as heirs and legal representatives of Jagdish Prasad, the son of the founder. In the absence of any case of the existence of a custom in the foundation that the shebaitship would devolve upon the chela of the previous shebait, there is no reason to believe that the respondent succeeded to Vishwanath Puri in the capacity of his chela. The applicants themselves had, it appears, rather got Tribhuwanpuri substituted as heir of Vishwanath Puri in the appeal. On the other hand, nothing on the record has been referred to on behalf of the applicants to show that Tribhuwanpuri the respondent had ever set up a case that he was the chela of Vishwanath Puri. The respondents case rather is that he is the chela of Kapil Muni and that according to custom, the mahant of the math Annapurna devi holds the office of shebait of Ram Mandir. From the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal filed by Jadgdish Prasad, it is clear that even then a claim had been set up by the defendant Vishwanath Puri the previous shebait that the office of shebait of Ram Mandir vests in the mahant of math Annapurna Devi. The Supreme Court did not choose to decide that question and allowed participation of the defendant in the management of the debutter in the scheme to be framed. It is virtually the same case that is being set up now by Tribhuwanpuri the respondent. ( 9 ) IT is clear from the record that the substitution of the applicants was made in the first appeal way back in the year 1966 and that of the respondent in the year 1971. The applicants are interested in the affairs of the temple since. The applicants were parties in the proceedings in which the scheme was prepared by the District Judge in the year 1988 and it was after contest that the scheme was confirmed by the District Judge. In the revision against that order, the respondent had described himself as chela of Kapil Muni. Even after the scheme was framed, the applicant as well as the respondent have been exercising shebaiti rights in turns. In the revision against that order, the respondent had described himself as chela of Kapil Muni. Even after the scheme was framed, the applicant as well as the respondent have been exercising shebaiti rights in turns. The respondent has been given a share in the management under the scheme. It is difficult to believe that the applicants who were so intimately connected with the affairs of the mandir and who were parties in the Supreme Court did not know about the status of the respondent but had allowed him a share in the management when the scheme was framed under any confusion about his real position. The conduct of the applicants over the past so many years in not raising their little finger and in allowing Tribhuwanpuri to continue in the management is evidence of acquiescence and goes against them in asserting today that the respondent has no right to hold the office of shebait as the chela of Kapil Muni. ( 10 ) IN the circumstances, the applicants have no right to restrain the respondent from exercising the shebaiti right in his own turn. Both the revisions filed by the applicants have no merits and are dismissed. The District Judge may ensure that the charge of management of Ram Mandir is handed over to the respondent without any delay. One aspect still requires to be dealt with. It appears that the applicants have continued to exercise the shebaiti right beyond the term of their turn, which came to an end on 31. 8. 2003. It is, therefore, just and proper and it Is directed that the respondent be compensated by extending his term of management for the current year 2003-2004 by a proportionate curtailment of the period of management of the applicants in the next year 2004-2005. The District Judge may ensure this. ( 11 ) WITH these directions, the revisions are dismissed. .