JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - The appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the Mohatmim (Mahant) of Mandir Thakardwara Dharam Arth in Abadi of Village Lassara, Tehsil Phillaur, on the basis of Will dated 16.3.1971, Ex. P-1, executed by the deceased Ragho Dass and on the basis of nomination by the followers of the sect (Bhek). 2. Case of the plaintiff is that the suit property was being managed by Ragho Dass. He was appointed as his chela by Ragho Dass, who died on 21.12.1971. A Bhek assembled on 2.4.1972 and ratified appointment of the plaintiff. Defendant who was also son of Ragho Dass threatened to dispossess the plaintiff. 3. The defendant contested the suit, claiming that as per custom of the Dera, eldest son became the Manager of the Thakardawara. Defendant was the eldest son. He had a right to succeed to Ragho Dass. 4. The trial Court dismissed the suit. It was held that defendant being the eldest son was entitled to inherit the office of the Mahant and the property attached, as per custom, which was proved by documentary instances of inheritance. As regards the Will, it was observed that Ragho Dass had no right to make a Will. Appointment of the plaintiff as chela by Ragho Dass, was not proved. No Bhek was proved to have assembled. Reference was made to para 418 of Mullas Principles of Hindu Law. It was, inter alia, observed:- "So far as the evidence of confirming the plaintiff as successor of Ragho Dass by the Bekh and followers concerned, from the evidence of the PWs, it is proved that no sadh of the Bekh was present in the alleged ceremony for the appointment of plaintiff as Mohatmim. There is not even a single Baragi Sadh in the writing Ex. P-2 present. It is admitted that the office of Mohatmim at Phillaur is the head of the office of Mohatmim in dispute. But even the Mohatmim of Phillaur was not summoned at the time of alleged ceremony of Pagri. Kishan Chand PW-2 who also belongs to the same sect and has inherited the office of Mohatmim being eldest son of Behari Dass Mohatmim of Shabiat in the same village of Lassara was also not invited in the ceremony. But even the Mohatmim of Phillaur was not summoned at the time of alleged ceremony of Pagri. Kishan Chand PW-2 who also belongs to the same sect and has inherited the office of Mohatmim being eldest son of Behari Dass Mohatmim of Shabiat in the same village of Lassara was also not invited in the ceremony. Similarly, Gouri Shankar DW-5, Baragi Sadh of the same sect and Mohatmim of Bakhlaur Shabiat was also not invited. Therefore, it is proved that no Baragi Sadh of the sect was invited on the alleged ceremony of appointing the plaintiff as successor of Ragho Dass..... Moreover, from the Will Ex. P-1, it is not proved that plaintiff was appointed chela son of Ragho Dass according to custom where the Mohatmim can be appointed by way of Will by the late Mohatmim. Since the plaintiff was not made chela by Ragho Dass his appointment as Mohatmim could not be approved by the Bekh." 5. On appeal, findings of the trial Court have been affirmed. Reference has also been made to para 84 of the Rattigans Digest with regard to succession to religious institutions and judgment of the Apex Court in Sital Dass v. Sant Ram and others, AIR 1954 SC 606. It was also observed :- "Mr. Bhag Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant did not assail the findings of learned Sub-Judge on Issue No. 3. Rather he fairly conceded that Ragho Dass, deceased, was incompetent to execute a Will in respect of the property in dispute as the property in dispute was not the personal property of said Ragho Dass, rather the same belonged to thakardwara." Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that defendant was never appointed a chela which was an inherent condition for succession as a Mohatmim and the Courts below erred in ignoring the Will and ratification of appointment of the plaintiff by the Bhek. It was also submitted that in any case, a new Bhek should be required to assemble to decide the issue. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that both the Courts below clearly held that the Will executed by Ragho Dass in favour of the plaintiff could not be relied upon to prove appointment of the plaintiff and ratification by the Bhek was not proved. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that both the Courts below clearly held that the Will executed by Ragho Dass in favour of the plaintiff could not be relied upon to prove appointment of the plaintiff and ratification by the Bhek was not proved. He further submitted that defendant had right to succeed as Mohatmim by virtue of custom being eldest son of Ragho Dass, as rightly held by both the Courts below. 8. Following substantial questions of law arise for consideration :- (i) Whether claim of the appellant for declaration that he had been appointed as Mahant by a Will, as confirmed by the Bhek, can be upheld ? (ii) Whether the finding of the Courts below that the respondent was entitled to succeed as Mahant solely on account of being eldest son irrespective of his being disciple or his appointment by the previous Mahant or by the Bhek, can be upheld ? 9. Before the said questions can be answered, it is necessary to notice the law on the point. In Mullas Principles of Hindu Law, Sixteenth Edition, Para 418 is as under :- "Devolution of office of mohunt : Nomination - (1) The succession to the office of mohunt depends on the usage of each particular math. As observed by their Lordships of the Privy Council, "the only law as to mohunts and their office, functions and duties is to be found in custom and practice, which is to be proved by testimony." The custom that prevails in the majority of cases is that the mohunt nominates his successor by appointment during his life-time or by will. Where there is no such custom, or where no nomination has been made, the usage of some institutions is to have a successor appointed by a system of election by all the mohunts of the sect in the neighbourhood. In some cases the succession depends upon election by the disciples and followers of the math (u). In the undermentioned case the Supreme Court has noticed the position about appointment or nomination of a successor by the reigning mohunt (u1). Reference may also be made to the undermentioned decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Garvaghat Math of the Satmat Sampradaya (u2). The appointment as a general rule is to be made from among the disciples of the deceased mahant and failing disciples from among his spiritual kindred (v). Reference may also be made to the undermentioned decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Garvaghat Math of the Satmat Sampradaya (u2). The appointment as a general rule is to be made from among the disciples of the deceased mahant and failing disciples from among his spiritual kindred (v). Where mohant has the power to appoint his own successor, he cannot delegate or transfer that power to a mohunt of a neighbouring math or to any other person (w)." 10. Reference in the above para is made inter alia to decisions of the Apex Court in Amar Parkash and others v. Prakasha Nand and others, AIR 1979 SC 845 and Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir and others, AIR 1980 SC 707. 11. The above passage, thus, is the basic law on the subject. In para 85 of the Rattigans Customary Law, Fifteenth Edition, it is laid down :- "The office of Mahant is usually elective and not hereditary. But a Mahant may nominate a successor subject to confirmation by his fraternity." 12. The Apex Court in Brahma Nand Puri v. Neki Puri since deceased represented by Mathra Puri and another, AIR 1965 SC 1506, after referring to the above passage, observed :- "Any one who lays claims to the office on the basis of a hereditary title resting on chelaship simpliciter or Gurbhaiship simpliciter must establish it." 13. In Sital Das (supra), it was observed that usage in Ram Kabir sect of Hindu Bairagis in District Jalandhar, requires an appointment by fraternity (Bhek) before a person could become Mahant. 14. In view of concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below that the Bhek did not assemble to confirm the appointment of the appellant and further finding that the Will did not record that the appellant was appointed as a chela, rejection of the claim of the appellant by the Courts below cannot be held to be erroneous. 15. Coming now to the question whether the respondent could be held to have become Mahant merely by the rule of primogeniture, it is seen that only evidence led by the respondent is that Bishan Dass appointed Mohar Dass and Mohar Dass was appointed by Ragho Dass and the Collector upheld appointment of Ram Chand on the death of Behari Dass in an adjoining dera. This evidence is not enough to over-turn the general custom recognised by the Apex Court in Sital Dass (supra) and also noticed by Mulla and Rattigan that for appointment of a Mohunt to be valid, the same could be proved to have been confirmed by the Bhek and the claimant must be spiritual disciple directly or indirectly. 16. Answer to the first question has to be against the appellant and answer to the second question has to be against the respondent. However, suit of the appellant being for declaration that he was the Mahant and he could not be dispossessed, could not be decreed. The question as to whether the defendant could be allowed to continue is left open to be gone into in any appropriate proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.