PRIVY COUNCIL
                                  (Mahant) Lahar Puri.

                                             Vs.
                                 (Mahant) Puran Nath.
                        Privy Council Appeal No. 25 of 1914
(Lord Dunedin, CJ, Sir George Farwell, Sir John Edge, and Mr. Ameer Ali. J)

                                         15.3.1915

                   JUDGMENT

Sir John Edge CJ.

1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated
the 11th of March, 1912, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of
Saharanpur, dated the 29th of November, 1909, and dismissed the suit with costs. The
suit was brought on the 12th of January, 1909, by Lahar Puri, who is the appellant,
against Puran Nath who is the respondent. The dispute between the parties to this
appeal relates to the title to the mahantship of the Hindu math, or temple, at Hardwar,
known as the Akhara Baba Sarwan Nath, and to the property appertaining to the math.

2. The math was founded by one Baba Sarwan Nath, who was a Sunniyasi Rukhar
Fakir and died in 1849. Since his death there have been several mahants of the math in
succession. It does not appear that Baba Sarwan Nath, in founding the math,
prescribed any rules or practice to be followed in the selection and appointment of the
future mahants. Consequently, the selection and appointment of a person to be the
mahant of the math on a vacancy occurring in the mahantship must depend on the
custom or usage and the practices which have prevailed in the appointment of
mahants of this math, and on that principle this suit has been fought in the First Court,
in the High Court, and before this Board.

3. The dispute as to the title to the mahantship arose in February, 1905, on the death in
that month of Jhandu Nath, who was the mahant of the math, and had succeeded Tej
Nath in the mahantship in 1897. In this suit the plaintiff alleges that he was the only
sadhak (disciple) of the deceased Mahant Jhandu Nath, and being the only sadhak of
Mahant Jhandu Nath, he was the only one of the mendicant fraternity of the temple
who was qualified for election to the mahantship; that he was duly elected mahant by
the ten classes of mendicants (dasnam bhik) on the 24th of February 1905; and that he
was appointed with the usual ceremonies. On the other side the defendant denies that
the plaintiff had ever been the sadhak of Mahant Jhandu Nath, or was qualified for
election to the mahantship, or was elected mahant. The defendant's case is that it is
not necessary that the sadhak of the last mahant should be elected as the mahant. He
alleges in his written statement that:-

       "The sadhak or a co-disciple, or the sadhak of a co-disciple of the deceased
       mahant is appointed a mahant, and failing these or in the event of none of these
       being a fit person, the mendicants of all the ten classes (dasnam, bhik) have the
       power to make any fit person the sadhak of the gaddi and appoint him a
       mahant."
4. The defendant further alleges that he was a sadhak of mahant Tej Nath, who
preceded Mahant Jhandu Nath on the gaddi of the temple, and as such sadhak was
qualified for election to the mahantship, and that he was duly elected and with the
usual ceremonies was appointed mahant by all the ten classes of mendicants (dasnam
bhik) on the 24th of February, 1905. It is not disputed that the defendant was a sadhak
of Mahant Tej Nath. It is common ground that the time for the election of a successor
in the mahantship of this temple is the terhwin, the thirteenth day ceremony, after the
death of the deceased mahant, which in this case fell on the 24th of February 1905. It
is also common ground that on the death of a mahant of this temple the election of his
successor takes place at Hardwar, and that the election and appointment of the new
mahant is by the ten classes of mendicants (dasnam bhik) assembled at Hardwar for
that purpose. From the evidence their Lordships infer that the usual place at which the
dasnam bhik assemble for the purpose of electing a mahant of this temple, and at
which they elect a mahant, is at the temple. Another common ground is that on the
election and appointment of a mahant of this temple a mahantinama is drawn up and
is witnessed by those who were present at the election, and is registered.

5. The defendant, who was the general attorney and storekeeper of the deceased
mahant, is in possession of the temple and of the property appertaining to it.
Consequently it is for the plaintiff to prove his right to the mahantship, which if
proved, would in the case of this temple, carry with it the right to the possession of the
temple and of the property appertaining thereto. If the plaintiff has failed to prove that
he is the duly elected mahant of the math his suit must fail, and in the event it would
be immaterial to consider whether the defendant is or is not the mahant of the math, or
whether he has or has not any better title to the temple and the property which
appertains to it than a title of mere possession.

6. Much evidence has been led by each side. The documentary evidence is not, in
their Lordships' opinion, conclusive in favor of either side. The oral evidence is, as the
High Court observed, extraordinarily conflicting, even for a case of this kind. Some of
the material witnesses, who, if their evidence was true, must have been in a position to
contradict or explain much of the evidence of the other side as to the events of the
24th of February 1905, were examined and were cross-examined at great length, but
were allowed to leave the witness box without their attention having been directed to
the case of the other side. As the case was treated in the court of the trial judge, it was
an important question whether there were, on the 24th of February 1905, two elections
of a mahant by the dasnam bhik, or one election only, or no real election at all. As the
learned Judges of the High Court observed in their judgment in the defendant's appeal
before them :-

               "The witnesses for the respondent (the plaintiff) say nothing about the
       election of the appellant (the defendant), and the witnesses for the appellant,
       with one or two exceptions, say nothing about the election of the respondent."
       and yet it is alleged that there were two elections on the morning of the 24th of
       February, 1905, by the dasnam bhik then assembled at the temple.
7. The Subordinate Judge found as a fact that the plaintiff was the sadhak of Mahant
Jhandu Nath. The learned Judges of the High Court, after reviewing the evidence
bearing on that question, and not overlooking the fact that it was a strong point in
favor of the view which the Subordinate Judge had taken that a number of fakirs who
were unlikely to choose a complete outsider had joined in the so-called election of the
plaintiff as mahant, were on the whole unable to say that the evidence that the plaintiff
had been duly appointed a sadhak was satisfactory. As the plaintiff had failed to
satisfy the Judges of the High Court that he had been a sadhak of Mahant Jhandu
Nath, and as he had neither alleged nor proved that he was in any other way qualified
for election as mahant of the math, they might have allowed the appeal and have
dismissed the suit without going into the question as to whether he was or was not
elected. However, they did not dispose of the appeal before them on that point; they
decided the appeal on the question as to whether the plaintiff had or had not been duly
elected the mahant. In the view which their Lordships take of this case it is not
necessary for them to decide whether or not the plaintiff had been a sadhak of Mahant
Jhandu Nath.

8. The evidence as to the so-called elections on the 24th of February 1905, is most
conflicting. Each party claims to have been elected mahant by the dasnam bhik on that
day. That there were, in fact, two factions amongst the dasnam bhik - one faction
desirous of electing the plaintiff as mahant, the other faction desirous of electing the
defendant as mahant - is on the evidence obvious. The Subordinate Judge found that it
was satisfactorily proved that the plaintiff was duly elected mahant by the dasnam
bhik on that day, and that the alleged election of the defendant as mahant was a
fictitious transaction. The High Court found it proved that the defendant was elected
on the 24th of February, 1905, by a large gathering of qualified persons and that the
election of the plaintiff was:-

       "A hole-and-corner affair in comparison with that of the appellant (the
       defendant), and seems to have been carried out hurriedly by a discontented
       minority." of the dasnam bhik which had assembled at the temple on the
       morning of the 24th of February, 1905.
9. There is evidence to support each of these contradictory findings. (The judgment
then discussed the evidence and proceeded). The High Court has found that the
majority of the persons present on the morning of the 24th of February who were
qualified to elect a mahant of this temple were in favour of the defendant; that in point
of numbers and of influence the defendant received more support than the plaintiff
did; that the election of the defendant must have taken place before that of the
plaintiff; and that there was no attempt on the part of the defendant to conceal the
arrangements which he had made for the 24th of February, 1905. It has not been
shown to their Lordships that the High Court came to a wrong conclusion on any one
of these points. An election by dasnam bhik of a mahant to be a valid and effectual
election must be by a majority of the dasnam bhik assembled for that purpose. A
separate election by a faction of the dasnam bhik is not a valid and effectual election.
Their Lordships have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that
he was elected a mahant.

10. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be
dismissed. The appellant must pay the costs of this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.