1972 (1) TMI 120 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Custom governing succession to Mahantship of Turki Math.
2. Right of the incumbent Mahant to nominate a junior Chela over a senior Chela.
3. Necessity of an installation ceremony for Mahantship.
4. Validity of the deeds of nomination and surrender.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Custom Governing Succession to Mahantship of Turki Math:

The appellant claimed that the custom of the asthal and Bhagataha sect of Kabirpanthies dictated that the Mahantship devolved from a Guru to the senior celibate Chela either upon the death of the Mahant or by the Mahant nominating his successor and retiring. The trial court found that from 1899 onwards, only senior Chelas had succeeded their Gurus, and the Mahant had the right to nominate his successor, usually the senior Chela unless disqualified. However, the High Court rejected this custom, finding that the evidence did not establish an invariable custom of nominating the senior Chela. It was noted that the Mahant in office had the right to nominate a successor based on ability and character, not just seniority. The High Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to substantiate the custom as pleaded.

2. Right of the Incumbent Mahant to Nominate a Junior Chela Over a Senior Chela:

The trial court acknowledged that the Mahant had the right to nominate his successor, generally the senior Chela unless found unfit. However, the High Court found that the nomination was based on the nominee's ability, character, and adherence to religious principles, not solely on seniority. The documentary evidence, including past deeds of nomination, supported the view that the Mahant's choice considered multiple factors. The High Court held that the nomination of the first defendant by the second defendant was valid and justified based on the first defendant's superior qualifications.

3. Necessity of an Installation Ceremony for Mahantship:

The trial court found that an installation ceremony was not essential to complete the title of the Mahant, although it had been performed for the plaintiff in 1956. The High Court did not examine this question in detail due to the plaintiff's counsel's concession. The High Court differed from the trial court, holding that no installation ceremony had been performed for the plaintiff in 1956. The court noted the absence of the Surat Hall document in earlier litigations and the denial of its authenticity by a key witness.

4. Validity of the Deeds of Nomination and Surrender:

The High Court upheld the validity of the deeds of nomination and surrender executed in 1951 and 1952, finding them binding. The court noted that the nomination of the first defendant was consistent with the custom and practice of the Math, as described in the documentary evidence.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the custom of succession as pleaded and did not establish that he had been installed as the Mahant. The appeal was dismissed with costs.