1. These appeals have arisen in two suits fought vehemently on petty rivalries among persons who profess to have given up all ego and jealousy. As the persons concerned in both the suits are the same it is convenient to refer to them by their positions in one of the suits, Viz., O. S. No. 2 of 1962 which gave rise to a. S. No. 676 of 1963.

2. About 1900 a. D. Sadananda swami established a hindu mutt at sadanandapuram, Kottarakara, With a sanskrit school, A library, An ayurvedic pharmacy and dispensary, A printing press and a weaving institute as its adjuncts. In his days the mutt flourished well; the school and the dispensary had large attendance; the medicines and soaps prepared at the pharmacy were sold largely in many parts of india; and texts and magazines in religious literature were published regularly from the press. The mutt had large estates and many branches. Sadananda swami died on january 22,1924, And was succeeded by his chief disciple, Mahaprasad alias atmananda bharathi. Nithiananda swami, The 2nd defendant, Is another of sadananda's disciples. During mahaprasad's management also the mutt throve well. But during his last days the mutt had an adverse career. Most of its branches were either closed down or separated'; and many of its properties were alienated. Mahaprasad died on june 7,1954, After nominating the 1st defendant as his successor. At that time there were only five sanyasis in the mutt - the 2nd plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4. The 1st plaintiff was also residing in the mutt and was attached to it. Evidence shows that by 1959/1960 he wanted to become a. Sanyasi. But the 1st defendant refused initiation to him. The 2nd defendant administered sanyas to him; and a notification under date april 22,1960, Announcing that fact was published in the kerala gazette, Dated may 24, 1960. Dissensions arose in the mutt; and very soon, It appears, Passion began to run amuck among the inmates thereof. Plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 4 left sadanandapuram - leaving the 1st defendant alone there - and took shelter at bharatipuram where the mutt has an asramam with 40 odd acres of land around. On may 10, 1960, The plaintiffs 1 & 2 filed an application (ext. D - 210) before the advocate - general for sanction to institute a suit under s. 92, Cpc., For removal of the 1st defendant from management, For directing accounts and for framing a scheme for the future management of the mutt. On july 8, 1960, The 1st defendant, In his turn, Instituted o. S. No. 13 of 1960 before the subordinate judge, Kottarakara, To direct accounts of the income of the bharatipuram properties taken by the 2nd defendant, Impleading all the other sanyasis as co - defendants thereto. The suit instituted in the district court, Quilon, Under s. 92, Cpc., Is o. S. No. 2 of 19621 that gave rise to a. S. No. 676 of 1963; and the counter - suit instituted by the 1st defendant, Which was subsequently transferred to the file of the district judge, Quilon, Is o. S. No. 3 of 1962 out of which a. S. No. 262 of 1964 has arisen. The additional district judge has dismissed the latter suit and passed a preliminary decree in the former, Declaring the 1st defendant as not been duly constituted mahant of the mutt, Removing him from its management, Directing accounts by, Him, Appointing a receiver to manage the mutt and its properties till the election of a new mahant and adjourning the case for final decree with scheme framed for its future management. Hence these appeals.

it is seen that the 2nd defendant had instituted another suit on july 9, 1960, Which was registered as o. S. No. 17 of 1960 on the file of the subordinate judge, Kottarakara, And as o. S. No. 4 of 1962 after it was transferred to the file of the district judge, Quilon. It was for a declaration that he is the lawful mahant and for an injunction to restrain the 1st defendant from managing the mutt. That suit has been dismissed by the additional district judge along with o. S. No. 3 of 1962 and the 2nd defendant has not pursued the matter further.

3. One of the material questions in these appeals is of the order of succession to mahantship in the mutt. Succession to the office of a mahant may be by nomination by the last mahant or by election. The rule that applies to any particular mutt has to be sought: firstly, In the rules laid down by the founder of the mutt; secondly, In the usage of the mutt, And thirdly, In the customs of the order or sect to which the mutt belongs. Admittedly, No rule has been laid down by the founder for the succession of mahants, And enough time has not run out for the establishment of a usage in the mutt. The rule in the instant case has therefore to be sought in the custom of the sect to which the mutt belongs.

4. Counsel read a passage in the hindu law of religious and charitable trust by b. K. Mukherjea:

". It may be taken to be settled law that the controlling rule with regard to the right to the office of the mohunt would have to be found in the usage and customs of the institution provided however that there are no rules relating to the same laid down by the founder. The legal principle seems to be that the wishes of the grantor are to be primarily respected in such matters, But when there is no evidence of any direction given by the founder, The usage or practice that obtains in any particular institution is to be regarded as presumptive evidence of the grantor's intentions"

and contended that the practice for the particular mutt alone is relevant, And not the custom of the sect to which it belongs. We do not think this contention to be right. In sital das v. Sant ram air. 1954 sc. 606 the question was of the rule of succession to mahantship in a mutt "belonging to the ram kabir sect of hindu bairagis. " the judgment of the supreme court was delivered by b. K. Mukherjea, J. (as he then was). After observing:

"the law is well settled that succession to mahantship of a math or religious institution is regulated by custom or usage of the particular institution, Except where a rule of succession is laid down by the founder himself who created the endowment"

,

his lordship considered the evidence given by mahants of similar mutts in the neighbourhood and concluded:

"in our opinion the custom that is proved to exist in this bairagi institution, In matters of succession to mahantship, Is that the bhak of the bairagis and the worshippers of the temple together appoint the successor, But the appointment has got to be made from the disciples of the deceased mahant, If he has left any, And failing disciples, Any one of his spiritual kindred like a 'gurubhai, Bhatija chela' or a'pota chela' could be appointed."

obviously, The expression 'particular institution' in this connection is taken by the supreme court to mean not the particular mutt but the sect or the order of the ascetics of the mutt.

5. The names of the plaintiffs and the defendants indicate - it is also conceded by the parties - that they belong to the order of 'bharatis', Who form one sect of the dasanami sanyasis.

about the 8th century a. D. Shri sankaracharya, The great hindu scholar and philosopher, Who defeated the budhists in discussions on religious philosophy and re - established hinduism as the dominant religion of bharat, Established four mutts as centres of learning on hindu theology - jyotir mutt at badrinath in the north, Sarada mutt at dwaraka in the west, Sree mutt at sringeri in the south and govardhan mutt at puri in the east - and placed one of his chief disciples in charge of each mutt with full powers - trotaka at badrinath, Swarupa (hastamalaka) at dwaraka, Prithwidhara (sureswara) at sringeri, And padmapada at puri. These latter acharyas (mahants) by their learning and sanctity attracted disciples round themselves and, In proportion to the number of disciples gathered, Set up two or three orders among them with one of their chief disciples at the head of each order.

wilson in his book on hindu religion has observed:

"the spiritual descendants of sankara in the first degree are variously named by different authorities but usually agree in the number he is said to have had four principal disciples, Who in the popular traditions are called padmapada, Hastamalaka, Sureswara and trotaka. Of these, The first had two pupils, Tirtha and asrama; second vana and aranya; the third had three, Saraswati. Puri and bharati; and the fourth had also three, Giri parvata and sagara. These, Which being all significant terms, Were no doubt adopted names, Constitute collectively the appellation dasnami or the ten - named, And when a brahman enters into either class, He attaches to his own denomination that of the class of which he becomes a member as tirtha, Puri, Giri, Etc."

(see also sanyasa grahana padhati where the same account is given by sankaracharya.)

it appears that among the 'bharatis' themselves there are two distinct classes, One being dandis and the other atiths. Wilson describes them thus:

"there are three classes of sanyasis and a part of a fourth - these are called tirtha, Aranya, Saraswathi and bharathi - who are still regarded as really sankara's dandis. These are sufficiently numerous, Especially in and about benares. They comprehend a variety of characters, But amongst the most respectable among them are to be found very able expounders of the vedanta works. Other branches of sanskrit literature owe important obligations to this religious sect.

the remaining six and a half members of the dasnami class, Although considered as having fallen from the purity of practice necessary to the dandis, Are still in general, Religious characters and are usually denominated atiths. The chief points of difference between them and the preceding are their abandonment of the staff; their use of clothes, Money and ornaments; their preparing their own food, And their admission of members from any class of hindus. They are often collected in mutts, As well as dandis, But they mix freely in the business of the world; they carry on trade, And often accumulate property, And they frequently officiate as priests at the shrines of the deities; some of them even marry but in that case they are distinguished by the term samyogi from the other atiths. "

(see also hindu and mohamedan endowments by ganapathi iyer, Second edition, Pages 246 and 260 - 61).

it is clear from the above account that the sanyasis of the suit mutt, Who have been running an ayurvedic pharmacy and dispensary, Engaged in sale of medicines and soaps for profit and conducting a bus service too, Are of the atith axox sect of bharatis among the dasnami sanyasis descended from shri sankaracharya. The custom of the sect of the suit mutt must therefore be the custom of the sankara mutts.

6. Jogendra chunder ghose, In his tagore law lectures, 1904, "the hindu law of impartible property including endowments" has observed:

"sankara's system was very simple. He placed one of his chief disciples in charge of a mutt with full powers. There was nobody to question his authority and be had the power to nominate his successor. Nomination was thus the ordinary rule. But if he died without nominating, The first in point of the time of initiation among his disciples would be the most likely to succeed. But if he was not competent, The sanyasis would elect another whom they would like to follow.

"among the hindu sanyasis however, The smriti text of yajnavalkya about disciples succeeding teachers had unquestioned authority. There is no doubt that the first mohunts of the ten orders founded by sankara were all nominated by him. These mohunts also followed his example in nominating their own successors in the first place from among their disciples. But as a guru had undoubted power to expel or disown any disciple, He could not be said to be under an obligation to nominate a disciple, If there was no one worthy of the office nor is it reasonable to suppose, That a chela or shisya could impiously question the act of the guru in nominating his successor.

"it is supposed by some that the bhandara and the chudder ceremony show that there was originally some system of election. This is a mistake. These sanyasis, When they became very wealthy, Arrogated to themselves the position of kings. Being above all wordly things. The mohunts performed the bhandara in imitation of the sradh of the rich and feasted all the sanyasis of the neighbourhood with a lavishness of expenditure equalling that of kings and on the same day they had their own formal installation ceremony, Like the abhisheka of kings, Performed. The chudder ceremony is only a social function. The invited sanyasis, As is usual in ordinary invitations, Presented chudders out of courtesy and in recognition of the fact of the installation of the host.

"nomination was the original rule but in recent times, The sanyasis of an establishment sometimes claim the right of election. There are certain panchaiti mutts, Like the naga mutts at allahabad and the panchaiti mutts of benares and hardwar, Which have mohunts but are quite democratic institutions, In which the sanyasis all claim some kind of right and participation in the management. These sanyasis introduced some sort of election. But in the true sankara mutts such practices were seldom resorted to. On failure of nomination, It is possible that, Though the first - made chela had a preferential right, The sanyasis of an establishment exercised some sort of a right of election of a successor to the deceased, From among his chelas, And failing them, Among those who would be his heirs according to sanyasi genealogy."

thus the rule in sankara mutts - there is no evidence that bharatis have a rule of their own - is nomination of a successor by the reigning mahant.

7. Now, The events in the suit mutt may be examined. Apart from the disputed case of the 1st defendant's succession to mahaprasad, The only other case of succession that arose in the mutt is of mahaprasad on the death of sadananda swami. According to the 1st defendant mahaprasad became mahant by nomination of the founder. According to the plaintiffs it was by election by the members of the mutt. It is

seen that on the death of sadananda swami, Escheat proceedings were started by the tahsildar, Kottarakara. Ext. D - 101 is a statement given before the tahsildar, On january 29, 1924, By kumara pillai who was a disciple of shri sadananda swami and the holder of a registered power - of - attorney from him to manage the affairs of the mutt. He has stated therein that sadananda swami had, Before his demise, Told him that he had written to mahaprasad, Who was then in benares, To return and assume management of the mutt. Ext. P - 39 is the report dated february 27,1924, Of the dewan peishkar (the district collector). Quilon, To his superior to refer the case to the opinion of the head sirkar vakil (advocate - general). Therein he has stated

"mahaprasad is away in northern india. His right to succeed to the management is admitted by all including. Swamy dayanandan - the senior disciple at the spot."

adverting to those documents, The additional district judge has observed:

"anyhow, It is admitted that it was on the basis of ext. D - 101 and p - 39 that mahaprasad swami succeeded sadananda swami the plaintiff's learned counsel contended that this unanimous approval by all the members of the asramam amounts to or had the effect of election. In ext. D - 18 mahaprasad swami had never stated that he was nominated by sadananda swami nor had he stated that he was elected by the other members. But all what he had stated in ext. D - 18 is that succession to the office of mohunt in the plaint ashramam is from disciple to disciple. In my view this circumstance alone will not lead to the conclusion that mahaprasad swami was nominated by the founder or succession to the office is by nomination or appointment by the existing mohunt."

we are unable to agree with the above conclusion of the additional district judge. If ext. D - 101 and p - 39 could be accepted - we find no reason why they should not be accepted, When their contents are admitted correct by the parties - succession by mahaprasad has to be found to have been a case of nomination by the founder. And that was quite in tune with the established custom of the sankara mutts. A reference in ext. P - 39 that the other inmates of the mutt admitted his right to succeed cannot spell out a case of election by them or even the necessity of an approval on their part.

8. The additional district judge then formulated the question:

"when nomination is not proved to be the custom or usage prevailing in the plaint asramam (mutt) what is the next procedure to be adopted in appointing the successors to the office of mohunt."

and concluded that it should be by election. His reasoning runs thus:

"in ext. P - 42 (dated 13th february 1927) the written statement filed by the present 2nd defendant in o. S. No. 346 of 1102 of the kottarakara munsiff's court, He had stated that mahaprasad swami who was then the mohunt was the president of the chit sabha and it was the president who managed the affairs of the asramam. When the 1st defendant was questioned with reference to ext. P - 42 he had admitted that the president of chit sabha mentioned in it refers to mahaprasad swami of avadhootha asramam. So he confirms the case of the plaintiffs that the president of the chit sabha will be the madhatipathi of the asramam. Thus on a consideration of the peculiar circumstances prevailing in the plaint asramam, Viz., That the president of the chit sabha is always the mohunt, I hold that the appointment to the office of mohunt has to be made by election from among the ascetic members of the asramam by such members."

in ext. P - 42 we find no statement to the effect that mahaprasad was the president of the chit sabha or to the effect that it was the president of the chit sabha who managed the affairs of the asramam. The additional district judge has therefore proceeded on a misreading of ext. P - 42. Even if mahaprasad was both the mahant of the mutt and the president of the chit sabha, It cannot warrant a conclusion "the president of the chit sabha is always the mohunt. " it might be that by virtue of his mahantship he became the president of the chit sabha. The finding of the court below that the existing rule in the mutt is "that appointment to the office of mohunt has to be made by election from among the ascetic members of the asramam by such members" is not warranted by the evidence on record or by the custom of the institution. It has to be and is set aside.

9. That the 1st defendant has been nominated by mahaprasad as his successor mahant is not seriously disputed before us. Ext. D - 19 dated may 1, 1954, Is the testament of mahaprasad attested by defendants 2

and 3 (the senior sanyasis of the mutt), Pw. 7 (a senior advocate) and another gentleman of status. Pw. 4 in o. S. No. 3 of 1962 is the sub - registrar who attended the mutt on may 1, 1954, To register that testament and he has sworn that mahaprasad is known to him and has signed the will in the presence of himself and the other attestors. The additional district judge has found

"ext. D - 19 is a true and genuine will executed by mahaprasad swami in a sound and disposing state of mind."

on going through the evidence in the suits, We find no reason to disturb that finding, Which is therefore accepted. Ext. D - 19 contains an appointment of the 1st defendant as mahant of the mutt to succeed its executant. That the 1st defendant is an ordained sanyasi is not in dispute. It then follows that the 1st defendant has been duly nominated to mahantship of the mutt by mahaprasad.

"the nomination by the last mohunt may not require any confirmation at all by the disciples" (hindu and mahomedan endowments by ganapathi iyer, 2nd edn. Page 485).

here, However, There is the fact that the 1st defendant has admittedly been the mahant from 1954 to 1960, When alone dissensions appear to have arisen in the mutt, And that shows that his nomination to mahantship had been respected and acted upon by all the members of the mutt. We have therefore to set aside the finding of the court below that the 1st defendant is not a validly constituted mahant of the mutt, And to declare him to be its lawful mahant.

10. Our acceptance of the 1st defendant's status as the lawful mahant does not imply that we approve the conduct of the 1st defendant in management of the mutt hitherto.

in sammantha pandora v. Sellappa chetti ilr. 2 mad. 175 sir charles turner, C. J. And muttuswamy ayyar, J. Have held:

"the property of the mattam does not descend to the disciples or elders in common; the preceptor, The head of the institution, Selects among the affiliated disciples him whom he deems the most competent, And in his own lifetime installs the disciple so selected as his successor, Not uncommonly with some ceremonies. After the death of the precepter the disciple so chosen is installed in the gaddi, And take by succession the property which has been held by his predecessor. The property is in fact attached to the office and passes by inheritance to no one who does not fill the office. It is in a certain sense trust property; it is devoted to the maintenance of the establishment, But the superior has large dominion over it, And is not accountable for its management nor for the expenditure of the income, Provided he does not apply it to any purpose other than what may fairly be regarded as in furtherance of the objects of the institution."

that dictum has been approved by the judicial committee of the privy council in vidya varuthi thirtha v. Baluswamy ayyar 48 i. A. 302.

the powers of a mahant are summarised by b. K. Mukherjea in the hindu law of religious and charitable trust, Thus:

"though the mohunt is not a trustee in the strict sense of the word, He is. A trustee in the general sense occupying a fiduciary position in respect of the endowment and having obligations of certain kinds to discharge. He holds the mutt property for certain religious and charitable purposes which are laid down by the founder or sanctioned by usage. These duties include the upkeep of the mutt, The continuance of its religious rites and festivals and the performance of ceremonies appropriate to the particular religious order to which the institution belongs. He has to support his disciples and other persons attached to the mutt and also entertain ascetics of the same religious order, If they come to stay in the mutt for a short period of time. In addition to these, The mohant has got to maintain himself and the dignity of his own office in accordance with the usages of the mutt and all these are legitimate charges upon the income of the endowed property. The question arises whether if after meeting the expenses of these defined and specific purposes of the mutt there is still a surplus in the hands of the mohant what are his powers in respect of this surplus?. It cannot be disputed however, That the mohunt has a wide discretion in the matter of dealing with the surplus. He is not bound to save the surplus or invest it in a particular way, Unless he is obliged to do so under the terms of any scheme framed by a court. He cannot spend it, It seems, On his personal use unconnected with the dignity of his office, And it is expected that he should employ the funds in furthering the general objects of the institution. Of course he has a discretion in such matters also and he can choose one or more of these purposes and spend as much as he likes upon it. The whole thing. Depends upon the presumed intentions of the grantor. The mohunt would be certainly accountable if he uses the surplus funds for purposes alien to those for which the institution is founded. If the objects on which the money is spent relate to. Matters for which the institution exists, Nobody can call him to account as to why he did not employ the funds for making additions to the endowment or why he chose one particular object and not another."

it is seen that large sums of money had come into the hands of the 1st defendant during his management of the mutt. The accounts that he has kept are unintelligible as to the purposes for which he had spent them. They do not impress us as anything like regular accounts from which the receipts and disbursements could be verified. Though this is far from satisfactory we do not think that on that account the 1st defendant should be removed from his mahantship or be called to render accounts now. It may be that he had been indiscreet in his disbursements. But that would not by itself be a ground for direction of strict accounts; it would only be an indication that he should take at least one other member of the mutt to be in joint management of its affairs or have a junior mahant with right of succession who would collaborate with him in the management (as exists in dharmapuram adhinam - see thiruvambala deikar gnana sambanda pandora sannadhi v. Chinna pandaram ilr. 40 mad. 177 or of the necessity for a scheme to be framed by the court for such joint management. Extraordinary circumstances like the labour disputes and the intervention of leaders of political parties that the 1st defendant had to meet might account, As counsel put it, For some of his exceptional expenditure. There is no averment, Much less proof, That he had spent any amount for his personal luxuries or for purposes not consistent with the welfare of the mutt. We would therefore discharge the direction of the court below for rendition of accounts of the past management of the 1st defendant. We are glad to record that when the position became crystallised in the course of discussions at the bar, Counsel for the plaintiffs agreed to such a discharge.

11. But it is a matter for deep regret that the 1st defendant's conduct was such as to compel all the other sanyasis of the mutt to leave him and live apart. The 2nd defendant is his gurubhai. He was 77 in 1960. The 4th defendant is the 1st defendant's co - disciple and a lady aged 70 in 1960. The 3rd defendant is another co - disciple of the 1st defendant and elder to him by about 10 years. The 1st plaintiff who begged of the 1st defendant for initiation is also elder to him by about 10 years and he has been long residing in the mutt and attached to it. He was a confidant of mahaprasad as is seen from the power - of - attorney executed in his favour by the latter. The 1st defendant's refusal to initiate him does not appear to have had much justification. Greatness lies in forgetting and forgiving the past; and theology is not wanting in instances of ruffians having been reformed into saintly yogis. As the custodian of the interests of all the sanyasis and probationers, The 1st defendant ought to have been so good to them as to overcome any dissension on their part. It might not have taken long to prove honour virtutis praemium (honour is virtue's reward). Whatever were his legal rights, And however justified his excuses, He could well have avoided retaliation - as the counter - suit obviously is - which widened the gulf between himself and the other sanyasis whose interests are entrusted to him by his guru who is no more to express his feelings in person to him. Sanyasis who have "burnt off all their ego and self" cannot afford to revel in mutual jealousies and spites. Those who are wedded to austerity cannot afford to spend their resources in wasteful litigations. The pharmacy and the dispensary that the founder had established for the service of humanity and the school he set up as a means for dissemination of knowledge and for the discovery of persons with an aptitude for theology required the concentrated work of all the inmates of the mutt for their revival. J. C. Ghose in his tagore law lectures, 1904, (cited supra) deplores the ignorance of sanskrit among most of the sanyasis: "now, In course of time, Excepting a very few, The million sanyasis, That roam about the country as yatis, Are ignorant of sanskrit. " most of the texts on hindu theology being in sanskrit, A knowledge of that language is an essential accomplishment of a worthy sanyasi. If mutts are seats of religious learning and their very object is imparting of spiritual instruction to the people who assemble round them, The necessity for a good sanskrit school as an adjunct of the mutt cannot be over - estimated. The pharmacy, Dispensary and the soap works were yielding an annual income of rs. 20,000 and over for the mutt. It must have been a "penny wise and pound foolish" policy that induced the mutt to close down the same. Nothing substantial can be achieved in these days without financial resources. It is high time that all the parties meet and put their heads together to devise ways and means to carry out their guru's intentions and to live upto their vows. They should realise that their position and honour depend on their piety and learning and not in the ventilation of their spites and jealousies in courts, And remember the noble service for which they have renounced the world and joined the mutt.

12. It is a good gesture that when the claim for accounts was given up by the plaintiffs, The 1st defendant also gave up his claim for accounts urged against the 2nd defendant in o. S. No. 3 of 1962. While appreciating this mutual accommodation, We would like to point out that in law none but the mahant has a right to be in possession or to take the yield of the properties belonging to a mutt. As pointed out in sammantha pandora v. Sellappa chetty, (cited supra) ,

"the property of the mutt does not descend to the disciples or elders in common. The property is in fact attached to the office and passes by inheritance to no one who does not fill the office."

it is not pretended that any other than the 1st defendant is the mahant of the mutt. It follows that if any other is in possession of the properties of the mutt or part thereof he can be called by the mahant to account for the yield collected by him. Of course, The 1st defendant is bound to maintain all the inmates of the mutt and conversely all the other members of the mutt are entitled to have their maintenance out of the income of the mutt; but the latter cannot affect to take the law into their own hands, And their rights, If it comes to that, Have to be enforced through a court of law only. We have pointed out the legal flaw in the position taken by the plaintiffs and other defendants to impress them of the need for their stepping down to embrace their superior in due respect.

13. If, Inspite of all that we have said above, The parties do not end their differences - for which three months' time (from this date) is allowed - the court has to and shall impose a scheme for the management of the mutt and curtail the large discretion of the mahant for the sake of effective supervision by court whenever moved therefor and direct early election of a junior mahant from the existing sanyasis. We are aware that the election of a mahant, With its concomitant canvassing by candidates, Is apt to rouse passions among the voters - the sanyasis - and result in dissensions among them which are most unhealthy for the atmosphere of a mutt and should therefore be avoided as far as possible. But if, On account of vehement dissensions and unbecoming rivalries that hinder a smooth running of the mutt, The court becomes convinced of the necessity of introducing a rule of the majority, Nothing stands in the way of its framing a scheme for the management of the mutt and for the election of mahant, Or better of a junior mahant with right of succession. The scheme to be framed by the court will have to provide

(i) for the election of a junior mahant from time to time to be in joint management of the mutt, Subject to the condition that on matters on which he differs from the mahant, The latter will ascertain the opinion of all the sanyasis in meeting convened and act according to the opinion of their majority;

(ii) for succession to mahantship to be by the junior mahant - thereby doing away with the right of nomination of a successor by the existing mahant;

(iii) for the appointment of an accountant, - a sanyasi, Or a probationer at the mutt, Or a paid employee - who shall be bound to keep regular accounts of all the affairs of the mutt and its properties;

(iv) for the constitution of a reserve fund to revive all the institutions established by the founder; and

(v) for the supervision of court in regard to affairs (like alienations of properties), Not being the ordinary functions of a mutt.

14. In the result, In reversal of the decree of the court below, We declare the 1st defendant to be the duly constituted mahant and discharge the directions for his removal from management and for rendition of his accounts of past management of the suit mutt. The receiver appointed by the court below will continue in possession of all the properties of the mutt till a scheme for the management of the mutt is framed by the court and brought into operation. In case any member of the mutt desires to cultivate the properties, The receiver will allow it subject to his supervision and take orders from the court from time to time as to the collection, Disbursement or preservation of the yield thereof. If any of the 'asramam' buildings has been taken possession of by the receiver, He will surrender the same forthwith to the 1st defendant and the other sanyasis of the mutt. Adequate allowances for the maintenance of the members and for their religious services and other necessities of the mutt will be made from time to time under orders of the court. Litigation expenses, Even if they be payments for past services; will be particularly scrutinised by the court with a view to avoid wasteful expenditure of mutt funds.

the court below will expedite the framing of a scheme and in any case have it done within six months of this date. The parties may submit draft - schemes, Serving copies on the opposite side, So as to expedite the framing of the scheme.

the cross - objection in a. S. No. 676 of 1963 by the plaintiffs, Challenging the finding as to the genuineness of ext. D - 19, Has no substance and is dismissed.

the orders as to costs made by the court below in both the suits are discharged; and there will be no order as to costs in these appeals either.