GURCHARAN PRASAD & ORS. v. P. KRISHNANAND GIRI & ANR. ETC.
Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 600; 1967 INSC 296
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT , G.K. MITTER
Judgment date:
Case summary
1967 INSC 296. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1967-12-13. GURCHARAN PRASAD & ORS. v. P. KRISHNANAND GIRI & ANR. ETC. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
6U2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ['. 968] 2 S. C. R. GURCHARAN PRASAD & ORS. v. P. KRISHNANAND GIRi & ANR. ETC. December 13, 1967 [R. S. BAtHAWAT AND G. K. MITTER, JJ. ] Hindu Law--£ndowment-Mchanti of math carrying on ntOMY-lending business, acquiring and disposing of properties-Properties how far personal-Religious head wheat her can own personal property. The successive Mahants of Uttar Giri Math in Benaras acquired properties and made dispositions of properties to their disciples who succeed-ed them. The incumbent of the office of Mahant in 1904 entered into a marriage against the custom of the brotherhood. One of his collatcrab th~ upon filed a suit in wh. ich be claimed to be put in possession of the properties of the Math, also challenging some of the dispositions of properly made by the Mahall!. 1lle defendants contended that all the properties in question did nvt belong to the Math and that the properties lra1':>· ferred were the personal properties of the Mahan!.
Toe trial Coun held that the transferred propcnies were the personal prope1 lies of the Mahan! and his predecessors and that only 12 items of property were endowed properties. In appeal the High Court held that all the i:ems of property were personal property. In further appeal this O:>urt held that the building in which the brotherhood resided was certainly Math property; as to other properties the case was remanded to the High Court fOr detcrmin-iog whether they were personal properties or endowment properties. 'The High Court, noting this Court's view that at least some properties mwt belong to the Math, observed : "Jn view of this finding of the Supreme Cour the fact that the evidence on the record docs not expressly indicate which property belonged to the Math and which did not. should lead to the conclusion that all the property belongs to the Math. Proper! y • acquired by a Mahan! personally but blended with the Math property will it. ! 12 of 1965). Yogeshwar Prasad, E. C.
Agrawa/a and P. C. Agrawala, for the appellants (In C. As. Nos. 213 and 214 of 1965). (T. ·N. Kunzru, B. P. Singh and R. R Datar, for the appellant (In C. A. No. 215 of 1965), for the respondent (In C. As. Nos, , 212, '213 and 214 of 1965 and for the respondents (In C. A. No. 216 of 1965). C. B. Agarwala, V. K. Sanghi and K. P. Qupta, for the appe1lant (In C. A. No. 216 of 1965). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. Bounded by the river Ganges on the east, in the locality named Tripura Bhairvi of the temple studded city of Benaras there stands a math popularly known as Uttam Giri's Math, the origin of which is lost in antiquity. For well over a century this Math has been a sanctuary of a spiritual brotherhood of Nihang Dasnami Sanyasis. Claim is laid that they belong to one of the ten orders of Sanyasis founded by the chelas of the four disciples of the famous philosopher, Sankaracharya.
Starting probably without any nucleus of endowed immovable property, the heads of the Math appear to have prospered enormously in matters material and temporal. Successive heads of the Math or Mahants as they were commonly known, seem to have been mon: keen about the acquisition of wealth and preservation ol propenies than about the furtherance of the spiritual benefit o( the brotherhood. Gifts in the shape of endowments seldom came their way but the Mahants who uniformly pursued money lending business also styled as a banking business in some of the documents, went on amassing wealth and property treating themselves as full owners thereof and directing tbcir successors almost invariably nominated by their wills, to treat the property in the same way as they themselves were doing but pay-ing scant regard to the cause of the brotherhood or the pursuit of any charitable purposes.
One Mayanand Giri became the Mahant in 1904 and it is his acts and conduct which sparked off this litigation nearly forty years ago. The immediate cause of the legal proceedings was his marriage which led the plaintiff, Purushottarnanand Giri, to file the suit in the court of the Sul>-ordinate Judge of Bcnaras claiming a dcclara(ipn that by Ii. is marriage, the defendant No. I, Mayanand Giri, had lost his right to continue as Mahant and that the plaintiff as his nearest collateral should, according tq the custom of Nihaog D'15nami Sanyasis, be put in occupation and possession of the Math and the properties appertaining thereto. The plain~iff also challenged a number of alienations impleading no less than forty five persons as defendants and claiming that the transfers made by defendant No. I were invalid and not binding on the Mahant of the Math. The suit was contested not only by Mayanand Giri but also by a number of the transferees. The defences raised were many and various.
The first defendant pleaded inter alia that the plaintiff was not his nearest collateral, that there did not exist a Math with the customs and usages alleged in the plaint and that all the properties scheduled in the plaint were not the subject matt. er . G C. Appeals al/owed.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.