1925 (2) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Right to succeed to a mohantship.
2. Validity of the nomination made by Bharat in 1908.
3. Validity of the dispositions made by Bharat in 1918.
4. Effect of the mutual ekrarnamas executed in 1919.
5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from claiming the office of gadinashin mohant.
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to succeed as the senior chela.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Right to Succeed to a Mohantship:
The central issue revolves around the right to succeed to the mohantship and possession of the property belonging to the Nayaganj Bora Asthal muth. The plaintiff, Chhota Gobinda, contends that he was appointed as the chief chela and successor by Bharat in 1908. Conversely, the defendant argues that this nomination was revoked by Bharat's later deeds in 1918, which nominated Bara Gobinda as the gadinashin mohant.

2. Validity of the Nomination Made by Bharat in 1908:
The plaintiff asserts that the 1908 nomination could not be revoked and that he acquired the right of succession under this will. However, the court finds that the 1908 document was a will, capable of being revoked, and did not confer an unqualified right of succession to the plaintiff. The court concludes that the plaintiff failed to prove that the chief chela had an absolute right of succession.

3. Validity of the Dispositions Made by Bharat in 1918:
The court examines whether Bharat's 1918 dispositions were valid. It is determined that these dispositions were invalid as they attempted to partition the office of mohant and the property, which is contrary to Hindu Law. The court cites the case of Sethuramaswamiar v. Meraswamiar, stating, "The headship of a muth is not a matter of partition." Consequently, the 1918 dispositions are deemed ultra vires and void.

4. Effect of the Mutual Ekrarnamas Executed in 1919:
The court considers whether the mutual ekrarnamas executed in 1919 estop the plaintiff from claiming the office of gadinashin mohant. It concludes that the ekrarnamas do not estop the plaintiff because there is no evidence that Bara Gobinda altered his position based on these agreements. Additionally, if the 1918 dispositions were ultra vires, no amount of acquiescence could change their character.

5. Whether the Plaintiff is Estopped from Claiming the Office of Gadinashin Mohant:
The court finds that the plaintiff is not estopped from claiming the office of gadinashin mohant. The doctrine of acquiescence does not apply because the plaintiff consistently challenged the validity of the 1918 nominations, and there is no evidence that Bara Gobinda or the defendant altered their position to their detriment based on any representation by the plaintiff.

6. Whether the Plaintiff is Entitled to Succeed as the Senior Chela:
The court concludes that the plaintiff must succeed under the 1908 will, which was not effectively revoked by the invalid 1918 will. Even if the 1908 will were considered revoked, the plaintiff, as the senior chela, would be entitled to succeed to the office of mohant under the principles of Hindu law relating to a mourasi muth. The court finds that the plaintiff was regarded as the senior chela during Bharat's lifetime and performed duties consistent with that status.

Conclusion:
The appeal is allowed, and the suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiff. The court orders a decree to be drawn up in terms of the first four prayers in the plaint, with the defendant No. 1 liable for the costs of the plaintiff.