Sulaiman and Kendall, JJ.:— after reciting the facts as above, thus continued:—The main point before us is whether the properties covered by the sale-deeds were part of the trust property belonging to the math. There was some oral evidence led in the court below, consisting of statements of witnesses based mainly on hearsay to the effect that these properties belonged to the math.
[The evidence was discussed and found not sufficient to support the conclusion that the properties in question were in fact trust properties.]
The learned advocate for the appellant has next contended that having regard to the fact that these properties have descended from guru to chela for several generations and that it is found that there is some nucleus of trust property, it should be presumed that the succession in the spiritual line took place because these properties were trust properties.
The mahants of this math are Puris and belong to one of the Dasnami Goshains, an order founded by the famous Shankaracharya. As pointed out in the case of Ramdhan Puri v. Dalmir Puri, before a person is taken into this order finally a number of ceremonies are performed, e.g the taking off of janeo, the cutting off of his chotia (tuft of hair) and his performing his own sradh. All these indicate that his connection with his natural family and the secular life is altogether severed, and he belongs completely to this order. This would suggest that after he has been taken into the order finally no tie of relationship remains between him and his natural relations, and neither can succeed to the private property of the other. No authority has been cited before us to show that the private property which a mahant of this order might acquire can descend to his natural relations in preference to his spiritual chelas. Primâ facie one would imagine that the devolution of both the trust property and the private property would be in the spiritual line. It cannot be doubted that the rules of succession and devolution prevailing in a particular math are governed by particular customs applicable to it. It cannot be denied that a mahant might acquire private property with his own money, but such property also could not be inherited by the members of his natural family. In view of this matter there is no significance attached to the mere circumstance that the devolution of these properties has for several generations been in the spiritual line. Great reliance has been placed by Dr. Sen on the case of Indar Singh v. Fateh Singh. But it was assumed in that case that there could be devolution on the natural heirs and it was then held that when it was shown that property had descended from one mahant to another to the exclusion of the natural heirs there was a presumption that the property was trust property. In this particular case we are unable to hold either on the evidence or on any authority that even the private property of any mahant could have been inherited by his natural heirs.
On the one hand we have the circumstance that these properties were in the possession of persons who were the mahants of this math, on the other we have the undoubted - fact that, between the years 1874 and 1022 there had been various transfers in the form of usufructuary mortgages made by the spiritual great-grandfather, grandfather and the father of the present plaintiff. These mahants had been treating these properties as their own properties, as if they had full disposing power over them. In the sale-deeds which are disputed in this case. Bun Puri asserted that these properties belonged to him and he was competent to transfer them. We have, therefore, the assertions of private ownership made by these mahants for so long a period, and we also have their course of conduct during all this time. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it must be assumed that they were dealing with properties which belonged to them as owners. There is no presumption that they were trust properties and the plaintiff has therefore failed to prove that they were part of the trust properties belonging to the math. We accordingly dismiss these appeals with costs.
Appeal dismissed.