Prithi Nath vs Birkha Nath And Anr.

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Not extracted

Decision Date: 4 October, 1955

Coram: Bhagwati, J.

In this matter, the appellant identified as Prithi Nath, the Supreme Court was asked to examine a decision issued by the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla. The High Court decision, recorded as Letters Patent Appeal No 108 of 1951, had set aside an earlier judgment of a single High Court judge that was rendered in Regular Second Appeal No 942 of 1949. The High Court not only reversed that earlier judgment but also dismissed the appellant’s suit and ordered that costs be awarded throughout the case. The present appeal therefore directly challenged that judgment and the accompanying order for costs.

The suit that gave rise to the present appeal had been instituted by the appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, situated in Delhi. The defendants in that suit were Respondent 1 and Respondent 2. The appellant’s principal claim was for a declaration that he was the rightful Mahant of the Temple of Bhaironji. He asserted that, as Mahant, he was entitled to all the properties and per‑quisities attached to the temple, to the right to worship in the Temple of Sri Kalkaji, to recover income arising from rents, to receive offerings, and to obtain any other reliefs that the court might deem appropriate.

The appellant pleaded that the original Mahant of the Temple of Bhaironji had been a man named Baba Balak Nath, who was survived by three Chelas—Sehaj Nath, Maya Nath and Sahib Nath. He submitted a pedigree chart to demonstrate the representation of the three lines of descent that emanated from Baba Balak Nath. From the line of Sehaj Nath the chart showed a succession through Maha Ram Nath, then Magni Nath, followed by Khubi Nath, Dhani Nath, Ram Rattan Nath, Naina Nath, Agdi Nath, Mansha Nath, Ram Rikh Nath, Pancham Nath, Sanwat Nath, Ram Chandar Nath, Shiv Nath, Pup Nath, Misri Nath, Bhola Nath, Sandhiya Nath and finally the plaintiff, Prithi Nath. From the line of Maya Nath the chart indicated a succession that also led to Sandhiya Nath, while the line of Sahib Nath descended through Pancham Nath. The chart further identified other members such as Shanker Nath, Badlu Nath and others who were related to the various branches. The appellant emphasized that Bhola Nath was the last representative of the line of Sehaj Nath; Bhola Nath died on 10‑April‑1918 without leaving any surviving Chela or Gurbhai, which caused the extinction of the Sehaj Nath line. Consequently, the estate, right, title and interest of the last representative of that line devolved upon the surviving lines, namely the lines of Sahib Nath and Maya Nath. The line of Sahib Nath was then represented by Pancham Nath, and the line of Maya Nath by Sandhiya Nath, each inheriting the estate in equal shares. Pancham Nath was succeeded by his Chela Mam Chand Nath, and after the death of Mam Chand Nath the appellant, who was another Chela of Pancham Nath, succeeded to the estate of Pancham Nath. Sandhiya Nath was succeeded by his Chela Shanker Nath; however, Shanker Nath was removed by the Bhekh Bara Panth on account of his immorality and Hardwari Nath, another Chela of

In the present matter, the Court observed that after Sandhiya Nath had been removed by the Bhekh Bara Panth on account of his immorality, Hardwari Nath was appointed the Mahant in his place. Hardwari Nath instituted a suit in December 1941 against Shanker Nath, which concluded with a compromise decree. When Hardwari Nath attempted to take possession of the property pursuant to that decree, Shanker Nath murdered him; consequently, Shanker Nath was sentenced to death on 18 April 1943. Following this episode, Badlu Nath, another Chela of Sandhiya Nath and also the Gurbhai of Shanker Nath, succeeded to the estate of Sandhiya Nath. A dispute then arose concerning the mutation of the estate between Badlu Nath and Respondent 1, who claimed to be the Chela of Phul Nath, himself a Chela of Naina Nath, an earlier representative of the line of Maya Nath. While this dispute was pending, Badlu Nath died on 23 September 1945 without leaving any Chela, resulting in the extinction of the line of Maya Nath. The Court noted that, with the extinction of that line, the estate and the associated right, title and interest of Badlu Nath, the last representative of the Maya Nath line, devolved upon the Appellant, who was the representative of the surviving line of Sahib Nath. The Appellant contended that Respondent 1 had no entitlement to succeed Badlu Nath and possessed no right, title or interest in the estate left by him. The Appellant articulated his rule of succession in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the plaint. In paragraph 4, the Appellant stated that Balak Nath, identified as an Abdhut Jogi, belonged to a community that does not marry and that succession customarily passes from “Guru to Chela”; if a Chela does not survive, succession passes to the next Chela, and when an entire line becomes extinct with no Chela remaining, the Chelas of the remaining lines inherit the share. Paragraph 6 reiterated that the rule of succession to the property left by Balak Nath was evident from the pedigree‑table submitted, emphasizing that among the three lines, succession—according to custom and law—transferred from a Guru to a Chela, and upon the death of one Chela to another; in the event of a line’s extinction, succession devolved upon the surviving lines. The Appellant further illustrated the principle in paragraph 7, describing how Bhola Nath, a Chela of Shiv Nath, died without a Chela, and consequently Sandhiya Nath and Pancham Nath, proprietors of the other two lines, succeeded to one‑third each of the deceased’s estate as heirs under law and custom, an arrangement confirmed by an order dated 19 April 1918 that sanctioned mutation in favor of Sandhiya Nath and Pancham Nath in equal shares. Respondent 1 disputed the Appellant’s claim, advancing his own rule of succession in his written statement, which formed the core of the contested issues at trial.

The respondent’s written statement, recorded in paragraph four, asserted that the Avdhut Jogis do not marry and that succession to the Gaddi Nashin is governed by a specific custom. According to that statement, only a Chela who is nominated by the Guru as his successor during the Guru’s lifetime, or in whose favour the Guru executes a will, and whose nomination is subsequently approved by the Bhek, becomes the Gaddi Nashin. The statement further explained that if a Guru fails to nominate a Chela as his successor, the Bhekh Bara Panth appoints a successor in accordance with the custom prevailing in the Bhek, and the person so selected becomes the lawful heir and successor. It was emphasized that a Chela possesses no right to succeed merely by virtue of being a Chela; the custom requires nomination by the Guru and approval by the Bhek. The statement also clarified that a Guru Bhai, meaning a co‑disciple, has no right to succeed simply because he is a Guru Bhai. The parties proceeded to trial on the basis of these pleadings, and the principal dispute centered on the rule of succession applicable to the religious institution. The trial court examined the evidence and held that the custom asserted by the appellant was proved. It found that the Gaddi of Bhaironji together with the rights to perform puja and receive offerings at Mandir Kalkaji, the property attached to that institution, and the land in the village of Bahapur devolved from Guru to Chela. In the absence of a Chela, the Gurbhai of the last Mahant succeeded, and if none of them were available and the line became extinct, the rights devolved upon the surviving line. Accordingly, the court concluded that the appellant was the rightful claimant to the Gaddi and to the rights and interests of Sandhiya Nath in both religious institutions as well as to the lands in village Bahapur. The suit was therefore decreed in favour of the appellant, and the court awarded costs against the respondent.

Respondent 1 appealed the trial‑court decree to the Court of the District Judge, Delhi. The District Judge accepted the trial court’s finding on the rule of succession, dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the decree in favour of the appellant, but varied the costs order by directing each party to bear its own costs in both courts. Unsatisfied, Respondent 1 filed a second appeal to the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla. A single judge of that High Court reviewed the matter, affirmed the trial‑court decision, and dismissed the appeal, ordering costs throughout in favour of the appellant. Subsequently, Respondent 1 pursued a Letters Patent appeal against the single judge’s decision. The Division Bench hearing that appeal reached a contrary conclusion, holding that the appellant had failed to prove the custom he asserted, and consequently allowed the appeal, dismissing the appellant’s suit with costs awarded throughout to Respondent 1. The appellant then filed an appeal against the Division Bench’s decision.

In this appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla considered the matter on a certificate that the High Court had granted under Article 133 of the Constitution. The sole issue that the Court examined was whether the appellant had succeeded in proving the rule of succession that he had set out in his plaint. At the very beginning the Court observed that the first respondent had not succeeded in proving the rule of succession that he presented in paragraph 4 of his written statement. The trial court had found, on that point, that there had never been any election to the office of Mahant in the institutions involved, and that finding had not been contested either before the District Judge in Delhi or before the High Court. Moreover, the counsel appearing for the first respondent before this Court did not raise any objection to that finding, and consequently the Court treated the respondent’s contention as having been rejected. The appellant, however, could not rely merely on the failure of the respondent to prove his own rule; he had to establish his own title. Accordingly, the appellant was required to prove the rule of succession that he had pleaded in paragraphs 4 and 6 of his plaint. Because the alleged elective principle had been repudiated, the Court inferred that succession to the estate in the lines of descent from Balak Nath was hereditary and proceeded from “Guru” to “Chela.” The findings of the District Judge, Delhi, on the succession in the three relevant lines corroborated the proposition that the rule of succession operated from “Guru” to “Chela.”

The District Judge’s factual findings were detailed as follows. The judge identified the essential evidence as the actual facts of succession in the three lines. In the line of Sahib Nath, the evidence showed that in 1898 Agdi Nath, who belonged to that line, was succeeded by his Chela Ram Rikh Nath, who in turn was succeeded by his Chela Pancham Nath. In 1930 Pancham Nath transferred the estate to his Chela Mam Chand Nath, who died in 1943 and was succeeded by his Gurbhai, the plaintiff Prithi Nath. In the line of Sehaj Nath, the evidence indicated that Sanwat Nath died in 1892 and was succeeded by his Chela Shiv Nath, who died in 1910 and was succeeded by his Chela Bhola Nath. Bhola Nath died in 1918 without leaving a Chela; there was also no Gurbhai of the preceding Mahant, nor any Chela of such Gurbhai, and the line was therefore considered extinct. In the line of Maya Nath, the evidence showed that Naina Nath died in 1866 and was succeeded by his Chela Roop Nath. Roop Nath absconded in 1897 and was succeeded by Misri Nath, a Chela of his Gurbhai. Tulsi Nath, who claimed to be a Chela of Naina Nath, disputed that succession; the dispute was taken to court and was resolved in favour of Misri Nath. Misri Nath later died and was succeeded by his Chela, Sandhiya Nath. These findings demonstrated that, in each of the lines, either the Chela of the last Mahant or the Chela of the Mahant’s Gurbhai succeeded, and no person more remotely connected with the last Mahant ever succeeded.

The record showed that after the death of Sandhiya Nath his Chela succeeded him. It therefore seemed that, in each of the lines examined, succession passed either to the Chela of the last Mahant, to the Gurbhai of that Mahant, or to the Chela of the Gurbhai, and that no individual who was more remotely related to the last Mahant had ever succeeded. From these findings the Court considered that the first part of the rule of succession advanced by the appellant had been established. That rule stated that succession passed from a Guru to his Chela, and if a Chela did not survive, the succession fell to the other Chela, who would in effect be the Gurbhai of the deceased Chela. Accordingly, succession followed the line of descent from the last Mahant, who represented the particular lineage, and the question was whether his Chela or his Chelas would succeed to his property. The Court noted that this interpretation was supported by what had occurred in the succession to the property of Pancham Nath in the line of Sahib Nath, and also, apart from the elective principle alleged by Respondent 1, by the succession to the property of Sandhiya Nath. In that case Shankar Nath had succeeded Sandhiya Nath, but when Shankar Nath was removed from the Gaddi because of his immoral conduct, Hardwari Nath, who was the other Chela, succeeded to Sandhiya Nath’s estate. After Hardwari Nath was murdered, Badlu Nath, another Chela of Sandhiya Nath, succeeded to the same properties.

The Court then turned to the question of what should happen when a particular line became extinct. It observed that the lower courts and the High Court on second appeal had expressed divergent views on this issue, whereas the Letters Patent Bench had taken a different approach. All three courts that had ruled in favour of the appellant agreed that the extinction of the line of Sehaj Nath on the death of Bhola Nath provided an illustration of the second part of the appellant’s rule of succession. That second part held that when a line became extinct because no Chela remained, succession passed to the surviving lines. The Court noted that extinction of a line could occur only once and would be a very rare event; consequently, a single instance of such extinction was sufficient to establish the rule as articulated by the appellant.

However, the Court recognised that the Letters Patent Bench had reached a contrary conclusion based primarily on an alleged admission made by the appellant’s counsel. The counsel was reported to have said that, with respect to the custom the appellant was seeking to enforce, “there was not a single instance and that in the course of the last 100 or more years since this temple came into existence there was no such occasion for such a custom which he was propounding to be in operation.” The Court found that this statement reflected a serious misapprehension. It observed that the appellant’s pleading, particularly paragraph 7 of the plaint, had contended that the line of Sehaj Nath had become extinct on Bhola Nath’s death, and therefore it could not be true that no instance of line extinction or consequent succession to remaining lines had ever occurred during the temple’s hundred‑year history. The Court therefore concluded that the alleged admission could not be taken at face value and that the factual findings supported the appellant’s rule of succession.

The record shows that when Bhola Nath died, the lineage of Sehaj Nath ceased to exist. No counsel could have truthfully claimed that there had never been any such extinction of a line or that succession had never devolved on the remaining lines during the past one hundred years. In fact, the only line that became extinct was that of Sehaj Nath; the line of Maya Nath continued unbroken through Sandhiya Nath and Badlu Nath. Consequently, the alleged admission that no such extinction ever occurred can be understood only if one assumes that a genuine misunderstanding had arisen concerning this point. The finding of the Letters Patent Bench against the appellant was chiefly based on its interpretation of paragraph 6 of the plaint. The bench was struck by the apparent confusion in the drafting of that paragraph and rejected the argument advanced by the appellant’s counsel that the confusion was clarified in the other paragraphs of the plaint. The appellant’s counsel explained that the intention of paragraph 6 was to convey that the extinction of a line referred only to the disappearance of a particular Chela who was the last Mahant, and did not imply that all Chelas belonging to that line were extinct. The emphasis, the counsel said, was on the wording “if there be no Chela in that line.” Considering the trial court’s finding – a finding that the appellant did not contest before the District Judge of Delhi nor before the High Court – that Respondent 1 was the Chela of Phul Nath and therefore belonged to the line of Maya Nath, the bench concluded that a Chela still existed in that line and, consequently, the line could not be said to be extinct. The present Court, however, cannot accept the reasoning offered by the Letters Patent Bench. If succession operates from “Guru” to “Chela,” the pertinent question is whether any Chela or Chelas were in a position to succeed to the Guru at the moment when succession to the Guru’s property opened. Only the Chelas of that particular Guru, whose property is to pass on, could succeed; Chelas of any earlier Guru, irrespective of any spiritual connection, cannot be considered in this context. This conclusion is reinforced by the events of 1918. When Bhola Nath, the last representative of the Sehaj Nath line, died on 10 April 1918, the only two individuals who asserted a claim to inherit his estate on the basis of the extinction of his line and the devolution of succession to surviving lines were Pancham Nath and Sandhiya Nath. At that time Phul Nath, the Guru of Respondent 1, was still alive, and if the criterion for inheritance in this spiritual descent were merely the proximity of relationship, Phul Nath would have been nearer in relation than Sandhiya Nath and could have claimed a half‑share of Bhola Nath’s property along with Pancham Nath. Nevertheless, no such claim was made by Phul Nath, and the inheritance was recognised in favor of the representative of the Maya Nath line together with Pancham Nath when the mutation was effected.

In this case the Court observed that, for the purpose of determining the right to inherit, Phul Nath was unquestionably nearer in spiritual relationship to the deceased Bhola Nath than Sandhiya Nath. Consequently, Phul Nath could have asserted a claim to one‑half of Bhola Nath’s estate alongside Pancham Nath. However, neither Phul Nath nor Sandhiya Nath actually made any such claim. Instead, the only claim for inheritance was advanced by the representative of the line of Maya Nath, who was consequently acknowledged as the heir of Bhola Nath together with Pancham Nath when the land‑record mutation was effected. This fact, the Court noted, demonstrates that succession from “Guru” to “Chela” merely signifies the passing of property from the final representative of a line to his own Chela. Likewise, when succession is discussed from one Chela to another after the former’s death, it refers to another Chela belonging to the same Guru who remains the last living representative of that line. The Court further explained that the extinction of a line occurs when the last representative of that particular lineage dies without leaving any Chela, any other Chela, or any Gurbhai capable of succeeding to his estate; there is no need to look backward to earlier Gurus to find a surviving Chela. Accordingly, the Court held that on the death of Sandhiya Nath his own Chelas—Shanker Nath, Hardwari Nath and subsequently Badlu Nath—successively inherited his property. When Badlu Nath later died, he left no Chela or Gurbhai who could succeed, and therefore no further succession from “Guru” to “Chela” was possible, resulting in the extinction of that line. The appellant’s counsel, Mr Achhru Ram, argued that unless the appellant could demonstrate that, at the time of Bhola Nath’s death on 10 April 1918, there were existing Chelas within the line of Sehaj Nath and that nevertheless the line was treated as extinct with succession passing to Pancham Nath and Sandhiya Nath (who represented the surviving lines of Sahib Nath and Maya Nath), the appellant’s proposed rule of succession could not be established. The District Judge of Delhi answered this contention by observing that it had been admitted that Sehaj Nath possessed three Chelas and that it was highly unlikely that the two Chelas who did not inherit had no Chela of their own, just as it was unlikely that Sanwat Nath and Shiv Nath lacked any further Chelas beyond those who actually succeeded. The evidence showed that Jogis customarily initiated many Chelas; Respondent 1 himself admitted that Naina Nath had as many as twenty Chelas, and another witness corroborated this. Hence, it was probable that the line of Sehaj Nath was deemed extinct not because it lacked any Chela, but for other reasons.

It was held that the line of succession could not be said to be extinct merely because no Chela existed; rather, the last Mahant, identified as Bhola Nath, had died without any Chela of his own, without any Gurbhai belonging to him, and without any Chela belonging to a Gurbhai. The learned District Judge also relied on another circumstance to support this view. He observed that, although the disputed line still included living Chelas, one such Chela named Har Nath had appeared as a witness for Respondent 1. Har Nath was the Chela of Misri Nath, which placed him in a closer spiritual relationship to the last Mahant than Respondent 1 enjoyed. Nevertheless, Har Nath had never asserted any claim to the Gaddi that was the subject of the present dispute. The Judge noted that, if Respondent 1’s case were well‑founded, Har Nath would have been entitled to the Gaddi in preference to Respondent 1. The only plausible explanation for Har Nath’s silence, according to the Judge, was his knowledge that he was neither the Chela of the last Mahant nor the Chela of the Gurbhai, and therefore possessed no legitimate claim to the succession.

The Court agreed with the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge and endorsed the conclusion he had reached after considering all the relevant factors. It affirmed that the rule of succession presented on behalf of the Appellant was the rule governing such institutions: a Mahant is succeeded by his Chela, or by his Gurbhai, or by the Chela of that Gurbhai; and if none of these categories produce a claimant, the line is deemed extinct and succession passes to the representative of another surviving line. The Court found that this reasoning was sufficient to dispose of the appeal and therefore chose not to discuss the other points raised in the judgment of the Letters Patent Bench. After a full consideration of the circumstances, the Court concluded that the rule of succession articulated by the Appellant in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the plaint was neither vague nor indefinite, that the custom described therein had been duly established by the Appellant, and that the contrary conclusion reached by the Letters Patent Bench was erroneous. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Letters Patent Bench, and restored the decree of the trial Court in favour of the Appellant, ordering Respondent 1 to pay the costs throughout.