Holding

The Amauli properties are the personal property of Mahant Shivshankar Yati and do not belong to the Math Sauna or its deity.

Summary

The plaintiffs, Math Sauna temple, claimed that the Amauli properties belonged to the Math or its deity and that Mahant Sadashiva Yati, as Sarbarakar, was entitled to them. The defendants argued that the properties were personal assets of Mahant Shivshankar Yati, acquired from the personal fund of his predecessor Mahant Shivpher Yati and passed to him by succession and will. The Supreme Court examined whether Sanyasis of the Dashnami sect could own personal property and whether the fund used to purchase the properties was personal or a nucleus of Math property. Relying on evidence that the predecessor Mahants were former householders who received personal bhents and that revenue records listed the properties in the name of Shivshankar Yati, the Court held the fund was personal and the properties thus personal. Consequently, the Amauli properties were deemed the personal property of Mahant Shivshankar Yati and not part of the Math or deity, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Amauli properties form part of the Math Sauna or deity's assets or are personal property of the Mahant.
Whether a Dashnami Sanyasi can acquire and hold personal property.
Whether the fund used to acquire the properties was personal property of Mahant Shivpher Yati and thus passed by succession.
Whether the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish ownership by the Math.
Whether acquisition of property by application of a nucleus of Math funds converts it into Math property.

Legislation cited

U.P. Agriculture Income Tax Act, 1948

Subjects

Hindu lawSanyasi propertyPersonal property of MahantMath propertyWaqfSuccessionSarbarakarReligious trustBurden of proofProperty acquisition

Judgment

659 A

MATH SAUNA AND ORS.

v.

KEDAR NATH@ UMA SHANKAR & ORS. B
September 4, 1981

[R.S. PATHAK AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]

Hindu Law-Sannyasi-Whether could acquire personal property-Property C
acquired by application ofnucelus-Tests for deciding.

The plaintiffs in their suit claimed that the properties in dispute belonged
to the Math Sauna temple and that one of the plaintiffs Mahant Sadashiva Yati
on the death of his predecessor was elected as Mahant of the temple and that
therefore as Sarbarakar he was entitled to all the properties recorded in the name
of the deity or his predecessor. D
The defendant claimed that by virtue of a will executed by Mahant Shiv..
shankar Yati, the predecessor Mahant, the properties in dispute which were his
personal properties devolved on him.

The Civil Judge decreed the plaintiffs" suit with a finding that Mahant
Sadashiv Yati was not the Sarbarakar. E
Upholding the respondenfs claim, the High Court in appeal, held that the
properties did [not belong either to the Math or the deity but were the personal
and separate properties of Mahant Shivshankar Yati.

In appeal to this Court the appellants impugned the correctness of the High
Court's view. F
Dismissing the appeal,

HELD : The properties in dispute did not form part of the properties of
Math Sauna or of the deity but were the personal properties of the respondent.
(664 D-E)

It is well accepted that certain sects of Sanyasis (such as Dashnami Sanyasis
G
in this case) could acquire personal property of their own and that the pronamis
given to a Mahant are generally his personal property. The mere fact that a
Mahant is an ascetic does not raise any presumption that the property in his
possession is not hie. personal property. There is no presumption either way.
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 which he is
H
entitled. (662 F-GJ
-
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] 1 S.C.R,

A In the instant case the three earlier Mahants before they took to sanyasa
had been grahasthas. They were entitled to possess, enjoy and acquire personal +
property. Mahant Shivpher Yati, one of the predecessor Mahants, whose repu-
tation as a man of learning and personal attainments was high, received personal
bhents from many of his affluent cheJas. In addition, on the death of his
predecessor Mahant Shivbaran Yati. Mahant Shivpher Yati inherited his personal
property, all of which devolved on Shivshankar Yati. A succession certificate
B in respect of these properties was granted in the name of Shivshankar Yati. The
revenue records also showed him as the owner of the properties and not the
Math or the deity. None of the transfers of small parce]s of these properties
made by Mahant Shivshankar Yati from time to time was challenged by the
plaintiffs at any time. [663 A-El

Whether a property was acquired by the application of the nuc]eus could
C only be determined after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances
of a case and on a balancing of the entire evidence. The burden of proof rests
on the party making the claim. [663 F-G]

In the present case there is no material on record to show whether the
total income from the properties belonging to the Math and the deity, left any
appreciable surplus after meeting the expenditure on bhog and other ceremonies.
D The High Court rightly held that the fund from which the properties were
acquired constituted the personal property of Mahant Shivpher Yati on whose
death Shivshankar Ya ti employed it for the purchase of the properties and by
virtue of his will the properLies devolved on the respondent. [663 H]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 196
of 1970.
E
From the judgment and decree dated April 21, 1969 of the
Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 80 of 1964.

S.T. Desai, A.T.M. Sampath, Jfuku/ Mudga/ and Raju
Ramachandran for the Appellants.
F
R.K. Garg, Mrs. Urmila Sirur and Shiv Pujan Singh, for
the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by r
G PATHAK, J: This appeal arises on a certificate under sub-cl. (b)
of clause (l) 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.
H The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming that the property in dispute
belonged to the Math Sauna or the deity Sri Thakur Gokarneshwar
MATH SAUNA v. KEDAR NATH (Pathak, J.) 661

Mahadeo Ji installed in the Math Sauna temple, and that Mahan! A
Sadashiva Yati was in possession as Mahant and Sarbarakar. It
+ was claimed that in the event of Mahan! Sadashiva Yati being found
out of possession a decree for possession should be made. Sadashiv
Yati pleaded that on the death of Mahan! Shivshanker Yati he was
elected Mahan! of Math Sauna and was, therefore, entitled as
Sarbarakar to all the properties recorded in the deity Mahadeo B
Ji or in the name of Mahan! 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 Mahan! Shivshanker Yati owned per·
sonal properties which included the properties in village Amauli, that c
he was the chela of Mahant Shivshanker Yati and the Amauli pro·
perties had passed to him under a will executed by the Mahan!.
We are concerned in this appeal solely with the Amauli properties.

Math Sauna is an old Math situated in the village of that name
in Tehsil Saidpur in the district of Ghazipur. One of the earliest D
Mahants of the Math Mahan! 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 Mahan! Shivbaran Yati, who executed a waqf deed on Novem-
ber 12, 1892 dedicating various properties to the deity with the
intent that arrangements for bhog, deepdan and other expenses be E
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.

The learned Civil Judge decreed the suit but included a finding
in his judgment that Sada shiv Yati was not a regularly constituted F
Mahan! 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 Chau bey @ U ma Shanker Yati against the
declaration that the Amauli properties were owned by Math Sauna
or the deity and that Sadashiv Yati was in possession thereof
as Mahan! and Sarbarakar. The other appeal, First Appeal No. 270
G
of 1965 was flied by the plaintiffs for the relief that Sadashiv Yati
was a properly constituted Mahan! 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
H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] 1 S.C.R.

the personal and separate funds inherited by him from his prede-
cessor Shivpher Yati, and that the Amanli 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.

B It is admitted between the parties that the Amauli properties
were purchased by Mahan! Shivshankar Yati for Rs. 40,000
forming part of a fund left behind by his predecessor Mahan!
Shivpher Yati. The point for decision is whether the fund was the
personal property of Mahan! Shivpher Yati, and if so, whether it
devolved on Mahan! Shivshankar Yati.
c
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 sanya-
sis who had formerly been married men and householders, men who
had passed through the grihastha ashram. Some of them con-
D tinued to possess and even to acquire personal property after taking
sanyas. It was observed in Susi/ Chandra Sen v. Gobind Chandra
Das(') that Dashnami sanyasis mixed freely in the business world
and carried on trade and often accumulated property. This Court in
Gurcharan Prasad v. Krishnanand(') affirmed that Nihang Dashnami
Sanyasis could pursue money-lending business and could own pro-
E
perty as absolute owners, and enjoy them as their personal pro-
perty. That certain sects of sanyasis could acquire personal pro-
perty 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
F 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
G properties in respect of which he is asking for possession are pro-
perties to the possession of which he is entitled in the right in
which he sues".

(I) A.I.R. 1934 Patna 431.
H (2) A.LR. 1968 s.c. 1032.
(3) 4th Edn. pp. 358, 359 § 7 .57, 7.58.
MATH SAUNA v. KEDAR NATH (Pathak, J.) 663

There is reason to believe that Mohan! Shivbaran Yati, A
Mohant Shivpher Yati and Mahan! Shivshankar Yati were not
celibates and had been grihasthas, and were entitled to possess,
enjoy and acquire personal property. The evidence discloses that
Mahan! Shivpher Yati was held in high regard on account of his
personal learning and attainments, and has a large number of chelas
including many affluent persons from whom he received personal B
bhents or pranamis of large amounts of money. His personal pro-
, perty, 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 c
devolved on Mahant Shivshankar 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.
Mahan! Shivshankar 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
D
moiety share in the other. In respect of both properties, the revenue
records mentioned the name of Mahan! Shivshankar Yati and not
that of the Math or the deity. Small parcels of these properties
were transferred by Mahan! Shivshankar Yati from time to time,
and none of those transfers was challenged by the plaintiffs in the
present suit.
E

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 F
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 Mahan!, the burden of proof resting on the
party who makes the claim. In the present case, it is difficult to G
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 H
the fund from which the Amauli properties were acquired consti-
tuted the personal property of Mahant Shivpher Yati. On his
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] l s.C.R.

A death in 1917, the fund passed to Mahan! ShivshankarYati, who in
1921 employed it for the purchase of the Amauli properties.

Mahant Shivshankar Yati executed a will in 1956, and it
appears beyond dispute that by virtue of this will the Amauli proper-
B ties devolved on Umashankar Yati.

It is pointed out before us that in assessment proceedings
under the U. P. Agriculture Income Tax Act 1948, the Amauli
properties were described by Mahan! Shivshankar Yati as properties
of the Math and therefore a claim to exemption from the levy was •
c 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.

D 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 Mahadeoji.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.

P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.