Judgment : HARISH TANDON, J.: This revisional application is directed against an order no. 8376 dated July 26, 2007 passed by the District Judge, Hooghly in Title Suit no. 2 of 1930. One Guptipara math was established more than 600 years ago. Since its establishment the said math was administered by the sannyasis belonging to Dasnami Sampradaya. The said math has diverse properties and the income therefrom was being utilized for the performance of the rituals, seva puja of the deity and also spent towards imparting the theological learning. The litigation started as far back as in the year 1930 at the instance of the local people alleging mis-appropriation of fund and mismanagement and/or mal-administration by the then Mohant of the said math. The prayer in the said suit was also for framing a scheme so as to preserve and protect the property of the math. Several orders were passed from time to time in the said suit. By abolition of the jamindari and vesting of the properties belonging to the said math to the state, the religious and the administration matters were looked after by the then Mohant being the Dandi Swami of Dasnami Sampradaya. The scheme was framed as far back as in the year 1952. Till 2004 the said math was being administered by Dandiswami Mohant Maharaj Yogendrananda Ashram who died on July 3, 2004 without nominating his successor. In absence of a Mohant the said property was being mis-managed and the seva puja of the deity was being performed improperly. An application was taken out by 87 people, all residents of Guptipara, requesting the court to appoint a suitable person as Dandiswami Mohant of the estate and the temple of the deity Iswar Brindaban Chandra Jew for protection of the religious trust and proper seva puja of the said deity. By an order the Trial court directed for the publication of a general notice for inviting the claim of any person entitled to be appointed as Mohant in place of the said deceased Mohant. As no claim was registered and/or filed before the court in spite of such publication, the court by an order dated October 12, 2004 requested His Holiness Mohant Maharaj of Tarakeswar temple who belongs to ashram sect to furnish the name of a competent sannyasi to act as Mohant of the said math. As no claim was registered and/or filed before the court in spite of such publication, the court by an order dated October 12, 2004 requested His Holiness Mohant Maharaj of Tarakeswar temple who belongs to ashram sect to furnish the name of a competent sannyasi to act as Mohant of the said math. Pursuant to such request, His Holiness Mohant Maharaj of Tarakeswar temple nominated the name of one Brahmachari Kalyan Maharaj, the opposite party herein, being the competent person to be appointed as Mohant of the said math on 4.2.2005. In terms thereof the trial court by an order dated March 1, 2005 appointed the opposite party as administrator on temporary basis of the said math for running the estate and protecting, preserving and performing the religious rites as per the customs of the said math. The petitioner thereafter filed an application praying for his appointment as the Mohant of the said math. The ground on which the appointment was sought by the petitioner is that the opposite party is not Dasnami dandi sannyasi and as such not eligible to be appointed as Mohant of the said math. It is further alleged that the said appointment is not made in accordance with the scheme framed by the court. The said application was ultimately dismissed and has been assailed by the petitioner in the instant revisional application. Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained as the appointment of the opposite party as Mohant/administrator is made not in accordance with the custom and usage of the said math which provides that only the Dasnami dandiswami can be appointed as the Mohant of the said math. In support of such contention he cited various judgments reported in AIR 1980 SC 707 (Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir & Ors.), AIR 1954 SC 606 (Sital Das Vs. Sant Ram & Ors.) and AIR 1973 SC 268 (His Holiness Digya Darshan Rajendra Ram Doss Vs. Devendra Doss). The aforesaid contention is disputed by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party. It is contended that the opposite party belongs to Dasnami sanyasi sampradaya and as such the alleged contention of the petitioner is not tenable. From the aforesaid contention the point emerges for consideration is whether the opposite party is a sannyasi of Dasnami sannyasi sampradaya or not. It is contended that the opposite party belongs to Dasnami sanyasi sampradaya and as such the alleged contention of the petitioner is not tenable. From the aforesaid contention the point emerges for consideration is whether the opposite party is a sannyasi of Dasnami sannyasi sampradaya or not. His Holiness Sankaracharya established four maths at the four corners of India for vedic teachings. Each of such math so established was managed by one of His four principal deciples named padmapad, Hasthamalak, Sureswar and Trotaka. The aforesaid four disciples had disciples of their own and by passage of time ten orders or classes of monks and/or sannyasis were formed. These ten orders are popularly known as Dasnamis during the appellations or Tirtha, Asram, Ban, Aranya, Giri, Parvat, Sagar, Saraswati, Bharati and Puri. Only the twice born people can become the sannyasi of a Dasmami order. It further appears that the opposite party took diksha from Mahesh Ramkrishna Ashram and was renamed as Swami Gobindananda. The said Mahesh Ramkrishna Ashram belongs to Dasnami sannyasi sampradaya. Thus it cannot be said that the opposite party is not a Dasnami sannyasi and as such is not entitled to administer and manage the said math. The case reported in Krishna Singh (supra) the point involved therein was whether a Sudra was considered to be incapable of entering the order of Sannyasi or Yati. The Hon’ble apex court was pleased to hold that though according to the orthodox smriti writers a Sudra cannot legitimately enter into religious order but the existing practice all over the India is quite contrary to such orthodox view if the usage provides that a Sudra can enter into the religious order in the same way as in case of a twice-born classes such usage should be given effect to. I am afraid such is not the point involved herein. The petitioner has never alleged that the opposite party belongs to Sudra class and is not entitled to be appointed as the Mohant. Another judgment in Sital Das Vs. Sant Ram (supra) cited by the petitioner for the proposition that the succession to the Mohantship of the math is regulated by the custom or usage of the particular math except where a Rule of Succession is laid down by the founder himself who created such endowment. The said case is also of no help to the petitioner. Sant Ram (supra) cited by the petitioner for the proposition that the succession to the Mohantship of the math is regulated by the custom or usage of the particular math except where a Rule of Succession is laid down by the founder himself who created such endowment. The said case is also of no help to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner himself that the custom and usage prevalent to the said math is that a Mohant can only be a Dasnami sannyasi. Last but not the least the judgment cited by the petitioner reported in AIR 1973 SC 268 (His Holiness Digya Darshan Rajendra Ram Doss Vs. Devendra Doss) which does not laid down the ratio contrary to the ratio decided in Sital Das (supra). From the material on record the petition filed by the petitioner himself fails as the only challenge made by the petitioner is that the opposite party does not belong to Dasnami sannyasi sampradaya. Another aspect which is vital in deciding the instant revisional application is that the trial court has specifically recorded that one of the person who is swearing an affidavit in support of an appointment of the petitioner as Mohant of the said math is an accused in a case of theft of a property of the estate of the deity. There is also no case made out nor any material produced before the court that the opposite party is guilty of defalcation of funds and/or maladministration and/or administrating and mis-managing the said property belonging to the math. Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The revisional application is dismissed. Since both the petitioners and the opposite parties are the persons professing religion I do not intend to pass any order as to the costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties within a period of one week.