- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Math Sauna And Others v. Kedar Nath Alias Uma Shankar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking a declaration that the disputed Amauli properties belonged to Math Sauna or to the installed deity Sri Thakur Gokarneshwar Mahadeo Ji, and that Mahant Sadashiva Yati was in possession as Mahant and Sarbarakar. Should Sadashiva Yati be found out of possession, a decree for possession was also sought.
Sadashiva Yati contended that, upon the death of Mahant Shivshanker Yati, he had been elected Mahant and therefore held the Amauli properties on behalf of the math/deity. The first defendant, Kedar Nath Chaubey alias Umashankar Yati, resisted the claim, alleging the Amauli properties were the personal assets of Mahant Shivshanker Yati and had devolved upon him (the defendant) under a 1956 Will.
The learned Civil Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs but recorded that Sadashiva Yati was not a regularly constituted Mahant. Two first appeals followed in the Allahabad High Court. On 21 April 1969 the High Court allowed both appeals, holding that the Amauli properties were the personal and separate property of Mahant Shivshanker Yati and therefore passed to Umashankar Yati under the Will. The plaintiffs obtained a certificate under Article 133(1)(b) of the Constitution, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the fund of Rs 40,000 left by Mahant Shivpher Yati constituted his personal property.
- If so, whether the Amauli properties purchased with that fund in 1921 devolved as personal property upon Mahant Shivshanker Yati and, thereafter, upon Umashankar Yati under the 1956 Will, or whether they belonged to Math Sauna/the deity.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants (Plaintiffs)
- Asserted that a nucleus of dedicated property already existed; consequently, later acquisitions—including the Amauli properties—should be presumed to belong to the math/deity.
- Emphasised that properties standing in the name of a mahant after dedication are normally impressed with trust character unless proved otherwise.
Respondent (Umashankar Yati)
- Maintained that Mahant Shivpher Yati, and later Mahant Shivshanker Yati, possessed personal funds derived from private gifts (bhents/pranamis), inherited wealth, and bank deposits.
- Relied on revenue records and unchallenged alienations by Mahant Shivshanker Yati to demonstrate personal ownership of the Amauli properties.
- Invoked the 1956 Will under which the Amauli properties specifically devolved upon him.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Susil Chandra Sen v. Gobind Chandra Das, AIR 1934 Pat 431 | Dashnami Sanyasis participate in trade and may accumulate personal property. | Used to establish that members of the sect to which the mahants belonged could lawfully own private assets. |
| Gurcharan Prasad v. P. Krishnanand Giri, AIR 1968 SC 1032; (1968) 2 SCR 600 | Nihang Dashnami Sanyasis may conduct money-lending business and hold absolute personal property. | Affirmed the general proposition that even ascetic mahants are not legally precluded from owning personal property. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Justice R.S. Pathak began by observing that mahants of the Dashnami Sanyasi sect could, as a matter of law and custom, own personal property. The Court relied on both jurisprudence and scholarly authority (Dr B.K. Mukherjee) to negate any presumption that property held by a mahant is necessarily trust property.
Evaluating the evidence, the Court found:
- Mahant Shivpher Yati was highly regarded, received substantial personal bhents, and amassed private wealth including cash, sovereigns, gold and two bank deposits of Rs 45,000.
- Upon Shivpher Yati’s death (1917), this personal estate lawfully devolved to Mahant Shivshanker Yati, who obtained a succession certificate.
- The Amauli properties were purchased in 1921 with Rs 40,000 from that estate; revenue records named Mahant Shivshanker Yati personally, not the math or deity.
- Subsequent partial alienations of the Amauli lands by Mahant Shivshanker Yati were never challenged by the plaintiffs, reinforcing the inference of personal ownership.
- The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that income from dedicated properties produced any surplus capable of funding the purchases; hence the “nucleus” theory did not apply.
- The assertion in agricultural income-tax proceedings that the properties belonged to the math was found to be a tax-avoidance stance, rejected by the taxing authority and the High Court.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court concurred with the High Court that the fund was personal, and the Amauli properties never formed part of the trust estate.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed with Costs. The Amauli properties are confirmed as the personal assets of Umashankar Yati and do not belong to Math Sauna or the deity Sri Thakur Gokarneshwar Mahadeo Ji.
Implications: The decision resolves the title dispute in favour of the respondent without creating new doctrinal precedent; it principally re-affirms that, in the absence of proof, no presumption attaches trust character to property held by a mahant of the Dashnami Sanyasi sect.
R.S Pathak, J.— This appeal arises on a certificate under sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution granted by the Allahabad High Court against its judgment and decree dated April 21, 1969 disposing of appeals out of a suit for declaration and possession.
2. The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming that the property in dispute belonged to the Math Sauna or the deity Sri Thakur Gokarneshwar Mahadeo Ji installed in the Math Sauna temple, and that Mahant Sadashiva Yati was in possession as Mahant and Sarbarakar. It was claimed that in the event of Mahant Sadashiva Yati being found out of possession a decree for possession should be made. Sadashiva Yati pleaded that on the death of Mahant Shivshanker Yati he was elected Mahant of Math Sauna and was, therefore, entitled as Sarbarakar to all the properties recorded in the name of the deity Mahadeo Ji or in the name of Mahant Shivshanker Yati. These properties included properties in village Amauli. He asserted that Shivshanker Yati possessed no personal property. The suit was contested by the first defendant, Kedar Nath Chaubey, also referred to as Uma Shanker Yati. He alleged that Mahant Shivshanker Yati owned personal properties which included the properties in village Amauli, that he was the chela of Mahant Shivshanker Yati and the Amauli properties had passed to him under a Will executed by the mahant. We are concerned in this appeal solely with the Amauli properties.
3. Math Sauna is an old math situated in the village of that name in Tahsil Saidpur in the district of Ghazipur. One of the earliest mahants of the math Mahant Gokaran Yati, raised a temple in the premises of the math and installed a deity acclaimed by the name of “Gokarneshwar Mahadeo”. On his death he was succeeded by Mahant Shivbaran Yati, who executed a waqf deed on November 12, 1892 dedicating various properties to the deity with the intent that arrangements for bhog, deepdan and other expenses be met from them. The surplus, the deed directed, was to be employed for acquiring further property in the name of the deity and was not to be applied by the Sarbarakar to his personal use.
4. The learned Civil Judge decreed the suit but included a finding in his judgment that Sadashiva Yati was not a regularly constituted Mahant of Math Sauna and Sarbarakar of the deity. Two appeals were filed in the High Court. First Appeal No. 80 of 1964 was filed by Kedar Nath Chaubey alias Uma Shanker Yati against the declaration that the Amauli properties were owned by Math Sauna or the deity and that Sadashiva Yati was in possession thereof as Mahant and Sarbarakar. The other appeal, First Appeal No. 270 of 1965 was filed by the plaintiffs for the relief that Sadashiva Yati was a properly constituted Mahant of Math Sauna and Sarbarakar of the deity. The High Court allowed both the appeals by its judgment and decree dated April 21, 1969. It held that the Amauli properties had been purchased by Shivshanker Yati in 1921 from the personal and separate funds inherited by him from his predecessor Shivpher Yati, and that the Amauli properties must, therefore, be regarded as his personal and separate properties and they did not belong to the math or the deity. The present appeal is directed against that part of the judgment and decree of the High Court.
5. It is admitted between the parties that the Amauli properties were purchased by Mahant Shivshanker Yati for Rs 40,000 forming part of a fund left behind by his predecessor Mahant Shivpher Yati. The point for decision is whether the fund was the personal property of Mahant Shivpher Yati, and if so, whether it devolved on Mahant Shivshanker Yati.
6. The mahants and members of Math Sauna belonged to the Dashnami Sanyasi sect. The material on the record establishes that they could own and possess personal property. They included sanyasis who had formerly been married men and householders, men who had passed through the grihastha ashram. Some of them continued to possess and even to acquire personal property after taking sanyas. It was observed in Susil Chandra Sen v. Gobind Chandra Das AIR 1934 Pat 431 that Dashnami sanyasis mixed freely in the business world and carried on trade and often accumulated property. This Court in Gurcharan Prasad v. P. Krishnanand Giri AIR 1968 SC 1032, (1968) 2 SCR 600 affirmed that Nihang Dashnami sanyasis could pursue money-lending business and could own property as absolute owners, and enjoy them as their personal property. That certain sects of sanyasis could acquire personal property was accepted by that eminent Judge, Dr B.K Mukherjee, in his Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts where he says:
“A Mohunt, and for the matter of that, any other Sanyasi can acquire personal property of his own.... The Pronamis given to a Mohunt are generally his personal property.... The mere fact that a Mohunt is an ascetic does not raise any presumption that a property in his possession is not his personal property. Strictly speaking, there is no presumption either one way or the other, and in each case the burden is upon the plaintiff to establish that the properties in respect of which he is asking for possession are properties to the possession of which he is entitled in the right in which he sues.”
7. There is reason to believe that Mahant Shivbaran Yati, Mahant Shivpher Yati and Mahant Shivshanker Yati were not celibates and had been grihasthas, and were entitled to possess, enjoy and acquire personal property. The evidence discloses that Mahant Shivpher Yati was held inhigh regard on account of his personal learning and attainments, and had a large number of chelas including many affluent persons from whom he received personal bhents or pranamis of large amounts of money. His personal property, on his death, included cash, sovereigns and gold besides two fixed deposits with the Bank of Bengal of Rs 45,000. He had also inherited the personal property of Mahant Shivbaran Yati, who owned three private properties in village Shiv Dass in the district of Banaras. On his death in 1917, all those properties and wealth devolved on Mahant Shivshanker Yati. He was granted a succession certificate by the District Judge, Ghazipur in respect of the two fixed deposits made by Mahant Shivpher Yati in the Bank of Bengal. Mahant Shivshanker Yati employed the inherited money in the purchase of two properties in village Amauli in 1921 paying Rs 30,000 for a full interest in one property and Rs 10,000 for a moiety share in the other. In respect of both properties, the revenue records mentioned the name of Mahant Shivshanker Yati and not that of the math or the deity. Small parcels of these properties were transferred by Mahant Shivshanker Yati from time to time, and none of those transfers was challenged by the plaintiffs in the present suit.
8. It is urged for the appellants that where a nucleus of dedicated property exists, the acquisition of additional property should be attributed to the application of the nucleus and must, therefore, be regarded as property belonging to the math or the deity. As has been observed, there can be no presumption either way. All the facts and circumstances must be taken into consideration and on a balancing of the entire evidence it has to be determined whether the property can be said to belong to the math or deity or is the personal property of the mahant, the burden of proof resting on the party who makes the claim. In the present case, it is difficult to conclude from the material before us that the total income from the properties belonging to the math and the deity left any appreciable surplus after meeting the expenditure on account of bhog, arpan, deepdan, daily and annual puja and the other obligations specified in the waqf deed. We are in agreement with the High Court that the fund from which the Amauli properties were acquired constituted the personal property of Mahant Shivpher Yati. On his death in 1917, the fund passed to Mahant Shivshanker Yati, who in 1921 employed it for the purchase of the Amauli properties.
9. Mahant Shivshanker Yati executed a Will in 1956, and it appears beyond dispute that by virtue of this Will the Amauli properties devolved on Umashankar Yati.
10. It is pointed out before us that in assessment proceedings under the U.P Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1948, the Amauli properties were described by Mahant Shivshanker Yati as properties of the math and therefore a claim to exemption from the levy was made. The High Court has found that the claim was not accepted by the assessing authority, and that the position in regard to those properties taken in the assessment proceedings was adopted by the mahant only for the purpose of escaping personal liability to tax. We concur with that finding.
11. In our judgment, the High Court is right in the view that the Amauli properties constitute the personal property of Umashankar Yati and do not form part of the properties of the Math Sauna or of the deity, Sri Thakur Gokarneshwar Mahadeo Ji.
12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Alert