This article is written by Shubham Choube. The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the case of Krishna Singh vs. Mathura Ahir and Ors. (1980). In this article, we will delve into the details of the case, involving the arguments presented by both parties, the doctrines involved and a critical analysis of the judgement. This case deals with religious as well as civil laws related to the succession of religious property in Hinduism.

This article has been published by Shashwat Kaushik.

Introduction 

The intersection of religion and law has always been such a complex and intriguing subject that only extensive research could possibly suffice, considering the diversity and multiculturalism of a country like India. The fact that one example that showcases this complex relationship is seen in the Supreme Court judgement of Krishna Singh vs. Mathura Ahir and Ors. (1979) on the 21st of December, 1979. The lawsuit seeks to demonstrate the delicate boundary between religious customs and civil rights, as well as how the Indian legal system is mired in problems deriving from scriptural religious practices.

The conventional Hindu culture and customs in many parts of India are very strong and they affect the status of personal property in most cases. This case raised questions on how rulings of religious doctrines can go on to shape civil rights and people’s rights.

The Supreme Court’s judgement in this case was significant because it set the basis for how similar cases could be managed in the future. The Supreme Court had to pass through challenging issues of the legitimacy of the traditional laws, the dimension of religious rights and the required adherence to procedural norms in legal proceedings. This case is a manifestation of the core duty of the judiciary to justify and harmonise normative religious attitudes as well as the current legislation and its conflicts.

Examining the main points of concern and the Supreme Court’s reasoning sheds more light on the underlying principles about the treatment of religion in law and, hence, the multilateral approach that is needed in handling the cases that are within the intersection of religion and law. It definitely put an end to the conflict but also constituted an advantage for future ones. It issues a clarification on that matter, ensuring that justice was served and respect for diverse cultures and religions was shown in India.

Details of the case

Name of the case

Krishna Singh vs. Mathura Ahir and Ors.

Citation

AIR 1980 SC 707; 1979 INSC 278; (1981) 3 SCC 689; [1980] 2 SCR 660

Case type

Civil Appeal

Bench

Justice A.P. Sen and Justice Syed Murtaza Fazal Ali

Name of the appellant

Shri Krishan Singh

Name of the respondents

Mathura Ahir and Ors.

Date of judgement

21 December, 1979

Name of the Court

The Supreme Court of India

Background of the case 

The case of Krishna Singh vs. Mathura Ahir and Ors. (1979) relates to a dispute concerning the succession and management of some religious properties within the ‘Sant Mat’ sect. The ‘Sant Mat’ sect is a religious community in India that follows the customs and practices believed in Hinduism.

In 1937, Swami Atmavivekanand accepted Mathura Ahir as his chela (disciple) and gave him the title of Harsewanand as per the “Sant Mat” sect tradition. Swami Atmavivekanand was succeeded by Swami Sarupanand as the mahant or head of the sect. The properties acquired during their tenure include two houses in Varanasi, which are house No. C-27/33 and house No. C-4/83. Offerings made by the devotees were acquired as Bhent (gift), forming part of the math’s assets.

Mahant Swami Atmavivekanand expired in 1949 and, in accordance with the traditions of Bhesh and Sampradaya, the Bhandara was organised, in which the mahants and sanyasis of the Bhesh and Sampradaya installed Harsewanand as the Mahant of Bhesh and Sampradaya. In accordance with these customs, Harsewanand succeeded Swami Sarupanand in the properties of the math, including two houses in Varanasi, when installed.

However, a legal dispute developed when Harsewan and sued respondents Nos. 2 to 5, who claimed that one of the houses in Varanasi was being illegally sublet. The respondents filed the suit and contested the suit by denying that they are the tenants, challenging Harsewanand’s status as the legitimate Mahant and stating that the properties belong to Swami Atmavivekanand’s natural son and the disciple, Krishna Singh.

The case deals with highly complex legal issues ranging from the acceptability of religious practices and inheritance of religious positions as well as the notions of ownership of property within the context of religious organisations. It also explores the legal processes that are undertaken in legal cases involving religious organisations and their places of worship.

Facts of Krishna Singh vs. Mathura Ahir and Ors. (1979) 

In 1925, one of Swami Advaitanand’s disciples, Swami Sarupanand Paramhans, belonging to the ‘Sant Mat’ sect established in the north-west provinces, came to the place of Garwaghat, Mouza Ramna Malhija, nearby Varanasi City. He was a wonderful scholar and philosopher and used to teach the principles and the precepts of the ‘Sant Mat’ from his hermitage, which in no time attracted a very large number of followers. He was treated with great respect and some of his devotees, by a registered gift deed dated March 18, 1935, secularised the ownership of the building, which he named ‘Bangla Kuti‘. Later, the said Kuti and other lands and buildings adjacent to it came to be known as the “Garwaghat Math” of which Swami Sarupanand was the first mahant of the Math. He visited the village of Khuruhja, for a period of two days, and Baikunth Singh, the father of defendant No. 5, and Krishna Singh, the appellant, were deeply inspired by his teachings and relocated to Varanasi permanently. Later on, Atmavivekanand got the chance to become the chela of Swami Sarupanand and his master bestowed upon him the name Atmavivekanand. Swami Atmavivekanand Paramhans was the greatest disciple of Swami Sarupanand and was equalled with his Guru in the full rights of initiation and Bhesh. After Swami Sarupanand’s passing and Samadhi in Meerut, the leadership of the Garwaghat Math passed to Swami Atmavivekanand. Swami Atmavivekanand also had a large following and his ‘Sant Mat’ fraternity, which constituted thousands of Grihastha and Virakat devotees. Such devotees offered large amounts of money and even handed over all their properties to him as a religious or spiritual leader.

Using the math’s income from offerings, Swami Atmavivekanand purchased two properties in Varanasi and even handed over all their properties to him: one in Jagatganj (house no. C-27/33) and another within Sarai Gobardhan (house no. C-4/83). In 1937, Swami Atmavivekanand accepted Mathura Ahir as his chela (disciple) and changed his name to Harsewanand according to the tenets of the ‘Sant Mat’ sect. Swami Atmavivekanand died at Varanasi on the 23rd of August 1949. A Bhandara was organised on 3rd of October 1949 and as per the directions of Swami Atmavivekanand, the mahants and sanyasis of the Bhesh and Sampradaya offered the Chadar Mahanti to the plaintiff and he was installed as the mahant of the math in place of Swami Atmavivekanand on 4th October 1949 following the customs and usage of the Sampradaya. The mahants and sanyasis of the ’Sant Mat’ Bhesh who had gathered for the Bhandara also signed a legal document acknowledging him as the mahant. As the plaintiff has been installed as the mahant, the whole property of the Garwaghat Math including the two houses in the city of Varanasi became the property of the plaintiff as a successor of Swami Atmavivekanand. On assumption of his office, Harsewanand got the properties of math, including the two houses. 

Prior court proceedings

On the 21st of August, 1951, the plaintiff filed a case in the City Munsif Court in Varanasi (the present appeal arose from this suit) for the eviction of respondents nos. 2 to 5. It was pleaded that respondent no. 2, Avadesh Narain (defendant no. 1), had taken the house on rent from Swami Atmavivekanand, the late mahant. It was contended that he had illegally sublet the premises to respondents no. 3 to 5 (defendants no. 2 to 4). This position was strongly challenged by these respondents, who denied tenancy and, inter alia, claimed that they were in occupation of the house as chelas of Swami Atmavivekanand in their individual capacity by virtue of the licence granted to them by him.

A single bench of a learned Single Judge, Kirty J. in the course of his judgement found that there existed a prima facie evidence on the record according to which there has come into existence a math at Garwaghat of which Swami Atmavivekanand was the mahant. He pointed out to the clear proof led by the plaintiff that the building referred to as ‘Shanti Kuti’ and some other structures provided were for the math which was substantially a monastic institution headed by the mahant. He further submitting that the house in dispute was not the personal property of Swami Atmavivekanand but a part of math as it was built out of the offerings (Bhent) made by the disciple to him as their religious or spiritual mentor for the purpose of the spiritual order of the fraternity and therefore the natural heirs of Swami Atmavivekanand had no right over the property but the same has to be passed on to the

All the issues that were framed in the trial by the Munsif Court were decided in favour of the plaintiff and the suit was decreed. The Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi reversed some and maintained some of the findings of the decree and, during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, the plaintiff passed away; thus, respondent no. 1 who was made as an heir and legal representative. The reason stated therefore is that the plaintiff has not been able to establish that he, or his predecessors, had performed atma sradh and uttered pravesh Mantra as required in the Hindu law of succession. As to the factual part of the finding, that is, the performance of the Sradh and the utterance of the Mantra in a second appeal is mandatory, but the conclusion drawn therefrom is one of law.

The High Court was of the view that the plaintiff and his predecessors have not been legally incompetent to be the mahants of the math and, even if the plaintiff was disqualified from being a Sudra, he was entitled to sue since he was the de facto mahant for the math. Since the claim went in favour of the original respondent, Mahant, the appellant, brought an appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court.

Issues raised in the case

The following issues were raised before the Supreme Court in this case:

1. A first question arises here is to explore whether there was math in existence at Garwaghat, and if so, if the house in suit was an addition to the math. 
2. If the genealogical link between the claimant and his two predecessors in memory is not proved through any of the admonitions or Mantras, then none of them can be regarded as Hindu sanyasi.
3. Whether the death of the first respondent (original plaintiff) would automatically lead to the abatement of the substantive appeal?

Arguments of the parties

Contentions raised by the appellant

On hearing the appeal filed by Krishna Singh against Mathura Ahir and others to justify the main argument, Krishna Singh forwarded many arguments which are mentioned below:

• Krishna Singh, the appellant (defendant in the original suit), vehemently opposed the claim of Mr. Harsewanand on the title and right of possession of the subject property. As claimed by the appellant (original defendant), Krishna Singh, made the allegations that there was no math in reality. The defendant completely and categorically denied the accusation to the extant. He argued that, even if this math was valid, the house in question should not have been part of its property. As stated by Krishna Singh, the house and the other properties claimed by the plaintiff in the Math of Garwaghat were in fact secular and personal properties of his father, Baikunth Singh, also known as Swami Atmavivekanand.
• The principal issue centred on the ascertainment of the title and legitimate possession of the land in dispute. The plaintiff maintained that the subject property came into his possession by way of lawful succession, which consequently resulted in his legitimate ownership being confirmed. He claimed, however, that he was already in possession of the property and that his title was clear. Moreover, his continued possession over that period solidified his claim even more. Krishna Singh stressed the fact that, as Swami Atmavivekanand was dead, Krishna rightfully inherited the disputed properties. This argument was, in essence, that his inheritance was real because these assets were private properties of his father, which were out of reach of community math.
• In addition, Krishna Singh argued that the plaintiff, Mathura Ahir, was ineligible to sue on the grounds that there were several deficiencies. He maintained that Mathura Ahir, in his status as a Sudra, was thus lawfully incapable of becoming a sanyasi and, hence, could not legally be the mahant of the Garwaghat Math.
• Moreover, Krishna Singh claimed that the Trial Court had not properly taken into account his own evidence and committed a mistake by its way of ruling. According to him, the Trial Court did not take the legal principles governing succession and property rights into account, although these principles were valid and in his favour. The plaintiff further alleged that the trial judge’s reasoning with regard to the pertinent statutes and judicial precedents was faulty and, hence, the unjust judgement.

In a nutshell, he was trying to gain the right to the property through a legal inheritance process, by him being in continuous possession of the property, and by the defence presenting invalid claims. He applied to the Supreme Court for a reversal of the Trial Court’s decision. In his application, he stressed the fact that upon him there was a legal right and his ownership of the disputed property should have been restored.

Contentions of the respondents (Mathura Ahir and others)

The mahant of Garwaghat Ghat, Mathura Ahir, pointed out several points in his defence against the respondent, Krishna Singh, which are mentioned below:

• At the heart of his arguments was the fact that he was rightfully the next mahant after the death of Swami Atmavivekand. He maintained that the ownership of the land was collective and sacred to the Garhwaghat Math; the current mahant was supposed to control the land. Thus, he claimed to be the current mahant.
• Mathura Ahir denies the charge that he unlawfully sublet the premises to respondent Nos. 3 to 5. In fact, he was of the opinion that these individuals are now residing there with his permission as chelas (disciples) of Swami Atmavivekanand. According to him, the mutual accommodation of students on the property was a conventional practice in the course of math, i.e., the possession of disciples by the debating monastic head. Of course, Ahir pointed out that these members of the monastic community were given accommodation according to tradition and they were not in any way involved in subletting.
• He pointed out that these properties were not Baikunth Singh’s personal or secular properties and that they were meant to serve the religious and communal purposes of the Garwaghat Math. He claimed that in the event of the decease of Sri Swami Atmavivekanand, the rightful succession and administration of the property must necessarily devolve upon the novice mahant, therefore himself in this case.
• Moreover, Ahir objected to Krishna Singh’s comments that he was not by law entitled to be a sanyasi because he was born as a Sudra. He proved that his entry into the sanyasi order and later position as mahant were properly constituted and consistent with the established scriptural practices. Ahir claimed that his position as the mahant was right legally, and the functions entrusted to him not only included management of the math’s properties but also of the disputed house.
• In direct response to the lower Court’s decision, Ahuir challenged the overall thesis of Krishna Singh’s stated argument. He disputed solely on the basis that Krishna Singh was neither an existing chela of Swami Atmavivekanand nor appointed to be his successor. In his defence, Ahir said that Swami Atmavivekanand would never have given the property to his natural son and that the math’s ownership was always communal property. He opined that the property should be managed by the mahant, who is required to supervise the math and its assets.
• Aside from attacking the legitimacy of Singh’s claims for the inheritance, Ahir also presided over it as a ground for denying the appellant standing to bring the present suit.

Therefore, the arguments brought forward by Mathura Ahir centred on the authenticity of his status as a mahant, as well as the commonality of the property, and the legitimate residency of the worshippers under his management. He opposed the claim of personal inheritance by Krishna Singh and said that the property belonged to the Garwaghat Math, and as such, it should be managed as per the rules and regulations of the Math. Ahir urged the Supreme Court to acknowledge his position as the mahant and to dismiss the appellant’s claim. With this measure, the ownership of the property, which was communal, would be confirmed and his rightful administration would be effective.

Relevant legal provisions and doctrines involved in Krishna Singh vs. Mathura Ahir and Ors. (1979)

Doctrine of religious and charitable trusts 

Religious trust, which actually stands for encouragement and maintenance of religious works or institutions, is among the main obligations in the religious field. They are non-profit bodies that are part of society, working for the advancement of religious activities and organisations. The formation of these institutions is inspired by religious organisations and their operation is supervised by their board of trustees. A religious trust, which is there to promote religious activities, may be related to all these examples, like a temple, a mosque, and a church. They assume the responsibility of organising and providing religious services and programs that benefit the population at large. They also support the religious education of people. The religious trust operates on the donations it receives from the followers of the religion. Any funds or donations that one religious trust receives but is unable to utilise will be transferred to another organisation operating under the same objective. In India, there are strict laws that protect the work of the trust, ensuring that these trusts do not operate outside the scope of their objectives. The Supreme Court referred to several enactments, which regulate the management of religious trusts, such as the Religious Endowments Act 1863, the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 and certain state legislations like the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. 

In the case of Krishna Singh vs. Mathura Ahir and Ors. (1979), the doctrine of religious and charitable trusts played an important role in determining the rightful ownership and administration of the contested property. This theory addresses how property can be held for the use of religious or certain charitable purposes and must be used accordingly for the benefit of the community or spirituality, rather than for personal benefit. The Supreme Court examined that, if the house in question was a part of the religious institution of Garwaghat Math, which was governed by the principles of religious trust, or was the personal property of Swami Atma Vivekananda. The statutory provision governing this issue can be found under the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 and the Indian Trusts Act, 1882.

Doctrine of succession in religious institutions

The doctrine of succession in religious institutions is a legal concept that regulates the process of succeeding to roles of power within religious bodies, i.e., temples, monasteries and mathas. This doctrine also has implications in cases where there is a dispute over the successor to a leadership position, such as mahant or head priest. This doctrine takes centre stage in the case of Krishna Singh vs. Mathura Ahir and Others, determining who is the successor of Swami Atmavivekanand and, therefore, the rightful administrator of the contested land. It was the duty of the Court to thoroughly examine and determine the customs and traditions within the religious institution that would be used for the succession process.

The identification of the legitimate successor directly affected the ownership and administration of the disputed estate. The title of the mahant position would pass to Harsewanand, who would then have the ability to exercise authority over the property and make decisions on behalf of the math. On the contrary, if the appellant, Krishna Singh, with the support of his deep pocket, succeeds in his claim of succession, he alone or other parties could acquire the property and become the true owner with full property rights. The doctrine of cy-près, a Latin term which translates to “as near as possible,” is a legal principle that enables a Court to modify charitable trusts when the original intentions of the settlor cannot be given effect due to the impracticability, impossibility, or illegality. As per doctrine, if the particular charitable purpose stated in the trust is impossible to achieve, the Court has the power to divert the funds or assets of the trust to another purpose that is most likely to have been intended by the settlor. The Court strives to achieve the charitable objectives as closely as it was initially intended, however, this needs to be done while considering changes in circumstances or new needs.

Cy-près is a doctrine that is used sparingly by the Courts and only when specific principles are followed in order to ensure that charitable trusts are upheld. These principles include identifying the settlor’s original intention, ensuring that the new purpose is as similar to the original as possible, and seeking the approval of the Attorney General or other proper authority when changing the terms of a charitable trust. This way, through the application of the cy-près doctrine, the Courts protect the wishes of the donors and at the same time allow the charitable trusts to be effective in the current world.

The doctrine of legal capacity and competence

The doctrine of legal capacity and competence pertains to assessing the legal ability of an individual to carry out some specific acts or to be endowed with particular positions or roles in society. In the context of the present case, it is rather assessing whether Mathura Ahir was legally eligible and competent to occupy the status of sanyasi (a Hindu ascetic), followed by the position of mahant (religious leader) within the Garwaghat Math.

This conception involves a determination of the pertinent legal and customary norms associated with the sanyas initiation and appointment of mahants in Hindu religious institutions. It could involve creating novel approaches to spirituality where considerations of age, mental capacity, and adherence to prescribed rituals and practices are necessary. However, the doctrine may also address the legality and customary issues regarding Mathura Ahir assuming the mahant position, such as caste considerations or opposition from other members of the community. In the present case, Mathura Ahir’s legal competence and capacity to be recognised as a sannyasi and claim the post of mahant could also be reviewed. The Court may have argued over Ahir’s competence and whether or not he had fulfilled all the religious obligations to be appointed for these roles. Such an investigation would likely include a scrutinising of his background, teachings from an early age, and daily life approval by the leading men of the town.

This case required the use of the doctrine of legal capacity and competency to determine the legitimacy of Mathura Ahir’s claim to the position of Mahant and his authority to oversee the disputed property. This would be an examination of both legal principles and the religious rituals of Hindus to establish Ahir’s legal position within the framework of Hindu religious

The doctrine of secular and personal property vs. religious trust property

Secular and personal property means any materials or resources that individuals or any institution may use or possess for non-religious functions. These can include such things as residences for the household, buildings for conducting business, investments and other holdings that are used for personal gain. All such properties are under the control of the individual or entity concerned and do not fulfil religious or charitable purposes.

Religious trust property, on the other hand, consists of property set aside for religious institutions or purposes and held in trust for the benefit of the religious community or congregation. These assets may include places of worship such as temples, churches or mosques, religious books, fields or plots where religious activities are conducted; and money that is collected or reserved for religious purposes or charity. Religious trust property is usually owned by trustees or governing bodies that are tasked with caring for the property in order to achieve desired religious objectives.

The distinction between property controlled by the State or personal use and trust funds that are reserved for religious or philanthropic use is referred to as religious trust property. In this case, the provision probably refers to identifying the disputed property as either Swami Atmavivekanand’s personal and secular belongings or as part of the assets of the Garwaghat Math, constituting religious trust property.

This principle would consist of an examination of the nature and purpose of the property in question, and any legal documents or titles indicating its possession status. The Court would examine the distinction between the acquired property being either for personal or secular purposes by Swami Atmavivekanand or if the relevant property was dedicated to religious purposes as a part of Garwaghat Math assets.

Legal precedents discussed in the case

Vidya Varuthi Thirtha vs. Babuswamy Iyer (1920)

In this case, it was held that a property of math, which is significant here, is, in fact, connected to the post of mahant and passed by inheritance to the only person who holds this post. Even though a Maths’ head is not considered an absolute trustee, in legal terms he has an estate for his lifetime in the permanent endowments as well as absolute propriety over the income derived from the offerings of his followers, subject to two main responsibilities. One should expect to spend a considerable amount of the funds provided for religious purposes. By using the phrase “the burden of maintaining the institution”, one has to assume that the burden of all its maintenance activities, i.e., the existence of the ashram and the expenses of its head and his disciples, along with all other financial requirements for the proper performance of its religious needs, is included in the account.

Mahalingam Thambiren vs. La Sri Kasivasi (1974) 

In this case, the Supreme Court held that, when a person is involved in a religious order, he or she cuts off ties with the members of a natural family. That is why that person inherits nothing. Admission to a religious order is equivalent to a civil death, which consequently leads to a complete severance of his ties with his family and all of his possessions. Neither he nor his relatives can succeed one another as the holder of their right of ownership or inheritance. The law, however, is well-settled on the issue of succession to Maths or religious institutions and the same is regulated by the custom or usage of a particular institution, except where the founder himself finds it fit to lay down a rule of succession by creating the aforesaid endowment. The system of appointing the next heads of various institutions of the Mahant, Math Adhipathi or Sannadhi should be among the customs of the particular institution. Even if, in most of the Maths, the Mahant has the authority to appoint a new successor, such an appointment is nonetheless confirmed by the members of the religious fraternity to which the deceased was originally related to.

Harish Chandra vs. Atir Mahamed (1917)

In this case, it was held that Hindu Law stipulates that a Sudra cannot become a sanyasi and such devolution of the property of a Sudra who purported the renunciation of the world and, thus, became an ascetic would be predetermined by the ordinary law of inheritance. Asceticism in India, maybe more than in any other country, has been clearly and firmly stated in religion. According to the four ashramas, namely Brahmacharya, Grihastha, Vanaprastha, Sanayas, as asceticism became an integral part of the orthodox Hindu life, therefore every Hindu was first as a homeless and wanderer, and should still chasten himself with austerity. This was done to detach himself from earthly ties and to realise the union with Brahman formally. People had thereby a religious reason for what they said was an escape, a relief from responsibility, care, and the tight socio-cultural regulations. Gradually, with the advance of knowledge, the fetters of the caste system were broken through, and the powers and privileges of ascetic life could be extended to Sudras too. 

The same was reiterated in Dharmapuram vs. Virapandiyan.

Gossain Ramdhan Puri & Ors. vs. Gossain Dalmir Puri (1909)

In this case, it was held by Calcutta High Court that every devotee to become sanyasi must go through a probation period. In the first few days of his stay at the monastery, his behaviour and character are closely watched and enquiries are made about his caste, because normally the ascetic of the sanyasi’s order admit only members of the twice-born classes and very rarely they take members of the fourth caste. If the probationary is approved, the probationer has his head lost, his name is changed and, upon the performance of these preliminary ceremonies, he is treated as a probationer for entrance into the order. Eventually, the ending ceremony, as we call it, the Biraja Homa rituals, is not held after months but sometimes after years. At this stage of his apprenticeship, the apprentice is allowed to rejoin his family but, after the successful completion of the final ceremony, the relationship with the world is considered to have been severed once and for all.

Chandra Kunwar vs. Chaudhri Narpat Singh (1906)

In this case, it was held by Bombay High Court that the proof of this admission shifts the burden because, as against the party making it, as Baron Parke says in the case of Slatterie vs.  Pooley (1840): “This is, of course, the very principle that one-third person who witnesses the same event may reasonably extract that as the speakers admit it to be true, it may also be fact. No way about it, one of the parties such as when defendant is not party to the deed, there is thus no estoppel, plaintiff is able to refute the rebuttal but unfortunately, unless the evidence of the party is satisfactorily done, the fact is admitted to have been taken to be established.”

Babajirao vs. Laxmandas (1904) ILR 28 Bom 215​

In this case, it was held that, like a God, Maths under Hindu Law is a judicial person who is capable of acquiring, holding and protecting legal rights, though necessarily it can only do so through the medium of its human representative. On this account, although a mahant might die and be succeeded by another mahant, the suit does not become obsolete. The math’s legal personality is perpetual and does not depend on the life span or term of office of any individual mahant. This ensures that the math can always undertake legal action and ensure that its rights are protected. It is important to note that, although the math itself is a juridical person, it cannot operate independently of the human actors. This representative is the mahant, the head of math. If one mahant passes away, then the new mahant has to adopt this position, but this does not affect the legal status of the math. Litigations concerning math do not cease due to the demise of a mahant. The proceedings can also be allowed to continue by the successor mahant representing the suit. This principle eliminates the use of the death of a representative in a legal proceeding to his advantage and, therefore, ensures that legal disputes are determined on their merits.

Ramswarup Das vs. Rameshwal Das (1949)

In this case, it was held by Patna High Court that, when a suit for possession is instituted by a mahant of an asthal or Math or by a shebait of a debottar property and the defendant is adjudged to be a trespasser, such a suit must abate by the death of the mahant or shebait. This would mean that, after a long-drawn litigation as here, the new mahant or shebait has to be relegated to a separate suit. Mahants of Maths and shebaits of debottar properties work as legal guardians of the Maths and debottar properties respectively. They do not operate the property in person but on behalf of the institution or deity. Properties that are both Maths and debottar are juridical persons under Hindu law. This means that they can own property to sue and also be sued. However, as these are not natural persons, they act through their human representatives i.e., mahants for Maths and shebaits for temple properties.

The case claims that proceedings for possession or any other suit that is instituted by the mahant or any other shebait do not become futile or stop due to the death of the said person. This principle is important so that legal personhood is not challenged by the fact that religious institutions undergo changes in human representatives. In the event of the demise of a mahant or a shebait, the succeeding mahant or shebait becomes substituted in the position of the plaintiff in the pending suits. This eliminates the need to initiate a fresh action from scratch and thus ensures that the lawsuit proceeds smoothly without interruption. This continuity is particularly important in long-drawn litigation as it saves time and costs that would have been incurred in the institution of new cases.

Muhammad Hussain vs. Khushalo AIR 1937 PC 233

In this case, Edge C.J. held that it has always been his understanding that, in cases where the execution of justice did not abate upon the death of the plaintiff before judgement, the action would not abate if a final judgement had been obtained before the plaintiff died; in such event, the benefit of the judgement would go to his legal representative. The general rule is that the death of a plaintiff during the pendency of an action does not bar the action or cause it to abate. This principle advocates for the prevention of rights and claims being asserted by the plaintiff to die with him or her. However, the legal process can be pursued further through the plaintiff’s legal agents or heirs.

The benefit of such a judgement can be transferred to the legal representatives of the plaintiff in case a final judgement is obtained before he dies. This implies that any legal rights and entitlements that were acquired by the force of the judgement are not nullified merely because the plaintiff is dead. The judgement is still actionable and the legal representatives can intervene to enforce or suffer from the judgement.

Madura vs. Moottoo Ramalinga (1868)

It was held that under the Hindu system of law, evidence of prior usage will prevail over the express provisions of the law. Such deeply rooted traditions within a society may be upheld above the laws that have been formally enacted. Hindu law is not rigid; it can differ from place to place depending on the customs prevalent in a particular place. The burden of proof in the matter of custom rests on the party who pleads for its existence. The provision for the onus of proof in the context of the custom is provided under Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This section lays down that the onus of proving the existence of a custom is on the party that is trying to establish it. In other words, if a party wishes to rely on a customary practice to support its claim, the party must present evidence of the existence and relevance of the custom. They are required to present before the Court a strong proof of the custom’s origins and its continuation over time.

Judgement of the case

Before proceeding with the consideration of the case, it would be useful to address the opinion of the High Court that according to the Smriti writers strict rule that has rendered Sudras incapable of accepting the yati or sanyasi order, is no longer acceptable due to the protection offered under the Part III of the Constitution. In High Court’s view, the learned Judge erred in his understanding of the fact that Part III of the Constitution. In applying the law relating to the parties the Trial Court could not bring in his experience of modern world and apply the concept rather he was bound to apply the law as annexed to the recognised and authoritative sources of Hindu law namely the Smritis and commentaries referred to various High Courts and they are to be in force as they stand unless the said law is changed by usage or custom or by any statute or the said law is modified or abrogated. As for the main point, following the High Court, the Supreme Court accepts the proposition that based on orthodox Smriti writers, although it is invalid and unlawful for a Sudra to be admitted into a religious Order, and although the strict legal view does not allow or encourage asceticism on the part of Sudras, it cannot be denied that the practice all over India is the reverse. Thus, in cases where the usage is set as per which a Sudra can join a religious order akin to the twice born classes, the said usage should not be disregarded.

The Supreme Court delved into the historical and scriptural development of Shudras seeking ordination in Hindu religious orders. The Supreme Court noted that historically, higher castes, especially Brahmins, were preferred as sanyasi or mahant but in practice, the spiritual and religious work in many sects, including Sant Mat Sampradaya, is not biassed. The Supreme Court referred to some specific aspects of the Sant Mat Sampradaya beliefs and practices. It was observed that many Bhakti and Sant cults that focus on devotion and personal spiritual quests, as opposed to caste, do not uphold the strict Brahmanical caste system. Hence, the idea that a Shudra cannot be ordained as a sanyasi or mahant by no means excludes such traditions from the Brahmanical paradigm. The Supreme Court upheld certain progressive aspects of Hinduism that permitted the former to grant orders to people from lower castes. This interpretation by the High Court indicated a general awareness of the religious and social changes taking place in Hindu society.

Whether there was math in existence at Garwaghat, and if so, if the house in suit was an addition to the math

Math means a monastic institution or a monastery through which religious knowledge is imparted, religious practices are performed and other religious activities are carried out. These institutions are normally managed by a religious chief referred to as a “Mahant” or “Swami.” This person has the overall responsibility of managing the spiritual and organisational aspects of math. 

The  High Court clarified that property owned by Math is attached to the office of the Mahant and does not devolve to the heirs of the math. As explained later, the Mahant is not a typical trustee but has a life estate in the math’s permanent endowments as well as absolute property in the money generated by his followers’ offerings, subject solely to the responsibility of maintaining the institution. According to traditions, the Mahant is required to spend a good amount of this income on charity and other religious activities. The phrase “burden of maintaining the institution” also includes the costs related to the math and the fulfilment of religious obligations and charity works for the Mahant and his followers. The practice of establishing Maths which was originally started by the Brahmin ascetics slowly and gradually came down to the Sudras and in the later periods, it prevailed amongst the dissenting religious factions such as the Jains, Kabir Panthis, Nanak Panthis, Jangamus and more such groups who did not recognize the authority of the Vedas or the doctrines of conventional Hindus. 

As mentioned by the Supreme Court, there is no doubt that math is both a religious order and an institution; the plaintiff is the Mahant and he is both the religious head of the community and the person bestowed with authority to manage the secular properties of the math. In this particular case, the High Court held that the evidence pointed out the fact that a math building was constructed at Garwaghat involving the building known by the name ‘Bangla Kuti’ and other edifices formed part of the property of the math. The High Court as well as the Munsif made their decisions based on evidence whereby they determined and concluded that the Sant Mat fraternity is indeed a religious order. Sri Swarupanandji belonged to Sant Sanyas Sampradaya and he was a Sadhu. Sant Sanyas Sampradaya started being obtained from a very ancient time. This Sampradaya is of those ten Sampradaya which has been established by His Holiness Swami Shankracharji. This in the Dasnam is Sampradaya and from this there is Purinama. He wanted to join a branch known as Purinama in the Sampradaya.  Niranjani and Nirvani Akharas are the Akharas belonging to Giri Sampradaya. A Sanyasi who belongs to Giri, Puri, Bharti or any of the Das Nam Sampradaya if he leaves sanyas again and goes back to Grahast Ashram, he is known as a Gosain. The methods adopted in Giri and Puri Sampradaya for selecting a chief disciple and the sishya abhisheka for appointing the successor are identical. Even the code of conduct regarding every rule and regulation as well as the religious ceremony that is done at the time of ‘gaddi installation’ in both the Sampradaya is also done. Giri Sampradaya and Puri Sampradaya are similar and there is no distinction between the two. The rules, practices, rituals, and customs that are observed at the time of installation to gaddi are the same in all the ten Sampradayas established by Swami Shankracharya. Although the math at Garwaghat set up by Swami Sarupanand was of recent origin, the High Court pointed out that the religious order known as ‘Sant Mat’ has had a huge popularity in Punjab and some other parts of the country for more than a century now. In a sense, therefore, Swami Sarupanand himself did not for the first time create any new religious order. As the learned Munsif had pointed out, after comparing the general mass of evidence as submitted the High Court held that the ‘Sant Mat’ followers are of a religious order . All the witnesses who testified in this case and who are all the disciples of Swami Sarupanand and/or Swami Atmavivekanand categorically pointed out that it is a religious institution of monastic nature. It is set for the use of the ‘Sant Mat’ cult, the dissemination of its teachings, and the performance of rituals. The Swamiji who is the Guru or the spiritual master of the fraternity is the Mahant.

The line of succession to the Mahant’s position involves nomination by the Guru who then chooses a chela or disciple after performing certain rites and ceremonies. The chosen chela is devoted to the principles of celibacy and a life of begging for the rest of his days. On the demise of the present Mahant, the chela who was considered to be virtuous and efficient will be given the position to look after the management of the math. This process entails a ritual where the Sampradaya and other affiliated Mahants and Sanyasis have to attend an installation ceremony. Here, all the Courts held the evidence that Mathura Ahir was initiated as a chela by Swami Atma Vivekananda and was declared as his successor. After the death of Swami Atma Vivekananda, Mathura Ahir became the Mahant of Garwaghat Math as per the tradition (Bhandara was held) and the will of the predecessor.

The testimonies given majorly from part of disciples of Swami Swarupanand and Swami Atma Vivekananda affirmed that math was a religious and monastic institution. It is related to the Sant Mat cult that entails particular teachings and practices and the Guru or Swamiji, who is the Mahant, presides over this fellowship. The Supreme Court observed that there was no restriction to become a sanyasi and, therefore, anybody of any caste and community could become a Mahant.

Nature of property

In this case, the High Court reviewed the chronology and the life standard of Swami Atma Vivekananda to decide the nature of the property in dispute. Swami Atma Vivekananda was a family man with a family initially before he left home to become a disciple of Swami Sarupanand and completely cut off from the family. His dedication and life practices brought him the deserved respect of the Sant Mat admirers, who showered him with a number of precious gifts. After the death of Swami Sarupanand, the math was again headed by another religious head known as Swami Atmavivekananda.

The issue that the High Court tried to solve was whether the offerings received by Swami Atmavivekananda were for his own use or for math. According to the evidence presented, these offerings were not kept separate for the use of the individual, but instead merged with the math’s funds and employed for their operations. Further, there were no grounds to believe that such offerings were made for their own benefit. In view of this, given the fact that Swami Atmavivekananda was an ascetic who had renounced his family and the world, then it would not be expected that he would be amassing wealth for himself or his former family members.

The High Court then decided that the offerings made to Swami Atmavivekananda were for the benefit of the math, which is the religious institution, and not for personal gains. Therefore, anything he received as a religious leader was deemed to have been received on behalf of the math; thus, the disputed house was part of the math’s property. The rightful heirs of Swami Atmavivekananda cannot lay claim to the property  accumulated during his period as Mahant which was further made clear by the High Court that the property belonged to the math and not the Mahant. 

The High Court held that the natural heirs of the person concerned could not have any right to the property that the person acquired in his role as a religious or spiritual leader. The house in suit must be deemed to be an addition to the math property. 

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the High Court as its finding on the existence of a math at Garwaghat and the suit property being the math property.

If the genealogical link between the claimant and his two predecessors in memory is not proved through any of the admonitions or Mantras, then none of them can be regarded as Hindu sanyasi.

The first question is whether a brahman alone can become a sanyasi among dasnamis? The second question is, what are the necessary rituals, which should be performed prior to initiation of a Dasnami sanyasi? The third question is, what is the mode of succession to the office of a mahant of a math or Asthal belonging to any of the Dasnami sects?

The Supreme Court felt it necessary to find out the roots of Hindu sanyasis in Dasnami sects founded by the great Sankaracharya from which the ‘Sant Mat’ Sampradaya as a sub-sect of it originated. The Biraja Homa, often called Bijja Homa is performed by the Dasnamis with much value. It is obligatory and has been reserved by several High Courts as required to pronounce the Presha Mantram or the renunciation formula. As per Manu, it is the law that a sanyasi should not possess anything in this world.

As for Swami Sarupanand, the High Court admitted that it was quite unreasonable to insist on the production of any documentary evidence of initiation, given the fact that this man had been coming from distant places and that he had died a long time ago. However, the High Court chose to go by the available records and reasonable proof pointing towards the fact that Swami Sarupanand was accepted by his followers as the ‘Sant Mat’ supreme. There is no controversy about the fact that Swami Sarupanand passed away in 1936 at Meerut, where his tomb or shrine known as Samadhi (mausoleum) is situated. The oral testimony given by the plaintiff revealed that in fact after death, the Bhandara ceremony was organised in Meerut and at Garwaghat.

The Supreme Court pointed out that it is a tradition that people of the Sanyasi sect are not cremated but buried and at times their bodies are taken to a river. When the deceased is buried, a Bhandara is offered. The defendants in their written statement admitted that the first appellant, Swami Sarupanand was a ‘Paramhans’ and that a Bhandara was conducted after he died. The terms used ‘Swami’ and ‘Paramhans’ cannot be used for an ordinary man but only for a sanyasi in Hinduism. Altogether, this evidence proved the position of Swami Sarupanand and the traditions implemented after his death, which strengthened the statements of the plaintiff.

Necessary ceremonies

When assessing the issue in question, the Supreme Court decided to also determine the rituals that are required for an individual to be considered to have properly severed his worldly connections and embraced the role of a begging monk within the context of his order and given religion. The Supreme Court found that, when an individual becomes a member of any religious order, he or she cuts off every relationship with the members of his or her immediate family and is, thus, barred from any form of inheritance from his or her natural-born family. This act of entering a religious order is a form of ‘civil death’, leading to the complete severance of relations with kin as well as loss of property. Therefore, there is no inheritance between the individual and his or her natural relations, meaning they cannot inherit property from each other. Any property acquired subsequently by members of religious orders goes to their religious relations instead. As per religion, the persons who are excluded on this ground fall into three categories:

• The Vanaprastha (hermit);
• The Sanyasi or Yati (ascetic); and 
• The Brahmachari (one engaged in perpetual religious studies). 

For one to be classified under these categories, there must be a clear indication that the individual has no more worldly belongings and is not affiliated with the outside world in any way. Being a religious mendicant such as a Byragi or being recognized as one does not bar one from inheriting unless he renounces the world totally.

It was noted by the Supreme Court that this civil death does not bar the individual from owning private property which shall be subjected to special rules of inheritance in place of natural heirs. This principle applies unless civil death is not acknowledged in the legal system and the particular person only has certain beliefs or occupations. In terms of rituals, they may perform several ceremonies when an individual transforms into this state. For instance, during the Shiva-Ratri festival, the novitiate’s head is shaved after sacred water has been poured on it. This starts a series of activities that would mark them through a process of initiation. The novitiate takes a sacred oath from their guru and performs purificatory rites with other members of the Gosain community. They become a Gosain but they need to undergo other rituals in order to be accepted.

According to Hindu law, a hermit or an ascetic has no property rights, and the only belongings he owns are clothes and books. But considerable real estate assets are linked to their position as a head of a math (monastic institution) or an administrator of a religious or charitable foundation. The rules as to who inherits such property depend on the rules of that particular institution. The post of the Mahant (head of the math) is generally tendered on such principles which include confirmation or recognition by the religious community. According to Yajnavalkya text, property of a lifelong student goes to the preceptor, a hermit’s property goes to religious brother and a sanyasi property goes to a virtuous disciple which show that even maths follow of the principle of ‘a virtuous pupil takes the property’.

There is no set way in which a successor is appointed but usually the incumbent Mahant selects a successor who is approved by other Mahants of the sect. Earlier, according to the ancient law books called Smritis, Sudras (the servile class) had no permission to enter the order of ascetics. However, the current practices of the Hindu society, especially that of the Vaishnavas and the Tantrikas, do permit the Sudras and even the non-Hindus to adopt the life of the hermit. And the caste system that is seen in esoteric Hinduism is different from the traditional one and depends not on birth but qualification. The Smritis argue that the distinction between Sudras and the twice-born classes (the Brahmans, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas) is based on education in sacred scriptures, which implies they are born twice, hence the term.

The Supreme Court found that the status of Harsewanand as a sanyasi could not be questioned. But there was controversy over his claim of being an orthodox Hindu ascetic sanyasi for Hindu law did not allow Sudra to become a sanyasi. This argument does not take into consideration the more practical aspects of usage and custom that are peculiar to certain denominations. Religious groups and organisations have the freedom to determine elementary rituals and spiritual events. Hence, the legal conclusion is that the plaintiff was a real chela of Swami Atmavivekanand and became the mahant of Garwaghat Math under all the traditions of his “Sant Mat” Sampradaya.

Dandis

While discussing the case of the Dandi ascetics, the Supreme Court felt that it is imperative to consider their purpose and the activities that are characteristic of their lifestyle in the Hindu context. The Dandis are the correct embodiment of the fourth Asrama, or the mendicant life, which comes subsequent to being a student, a householder and a hermit, as prescribed by the Hindu legislators. The two easily distinguishable characteristics of a Dandi include: The prestige of having a wand, although small, with several projections referred to as Dand. They also have a piece of cloth painted with red ochre, representing the sacred cord of the Brahmans which is enclosed in it. The Dandis thus live completely out of touch with materialistic gratification of both the worldly and the transcendental kind. They are considered to have immense amounts of knowledge to the extent that the pandits or the learned Brahmin sages of the Hindu caste system would turn to seek their counsel without any demands for being paid. The upper classes regard and respect them as beings of the spirit. They inhabit a separate place and state that they are Brahmins and, therefore, will accept only Brahmins as followers. They have a very basic lifestyle and do not spend unnecessarily. They are barred from handling fire, metal, or any vessel made of metal, which would mean that they cannot conduct monetary business. They help their heads and beards and put a single piece of cloth of reddish material which is undyed.

Nonetheless, despite their apparent destitution, the Dandis do not steal in the manner of beggars but rather depend on the charity of others. They are supported by the Brahmans, and the Gosains, another group of worshippers, which guarantee they will not die of famine or starvation. Dandis sleep on the ground and beg for food one or two times a day; thus, taking whatever is provided to them. Originally, a Sannyasi or Dandi is supposed to be from one of the first three Varnas of Hinduism. But, in the present period, anybody among Hindus irrespective of caste can assume the Dandi form if they possess the required eligibility. The Dasnami Dandis, regarded as the pioneer members of this fraternity, having their origin from Sankaracharya.

The Supreme Court noted that most of the religious sects of ascetics do not have the concept of caste and they allow even the Sudras if they are fit for the initiation. This aspect of Hinduism is rather obscure and does not consider caste as hereditary, but rather as personal, with the qualifications dependent on the person. The Hindu religion also has the concept that one should look at other people and things as reflections of oneself and that the same God is in all. This principle is the foundation of many liberal and democratic monastic movements, such as the Dandis. Based on these points the Supreme Court held that it can be seen that the Dandis, in their ways of life, are a prime example of Hinduism’s concept of renunciation and the pursuit of spirituality.

Sant Mat

The Supreme Court looked into and rejected idol worship. The Sant Mat Sampradaya which is one of the religious groups, to be precise, a branch of the Dasnami sect that was initiated by Sankaracharya. Sankara, known for his celibacy, established monastic orders and formed four principal Maths (seats of religion) at strategic locations in India: 

• Sringeri Math in the South;
• Sharda Math in the West; 
• Jyotir Math in the North; and 
• Govardhan Math in the East. 

The disciples of Sankara and the monks, who were ordained by him, were known as Sanyasis and the head of each Math is referred to as Sankaracharya. It is further stated that Sankara had four chief disciples all of whom were Brahmans, gave rise to ten divisions within the order; hence, referred to as the ten-named Dandis or Dasnami Dandis. These divisions include: Thirtha (shrine), Ashrama (order), Vana (wood), Aranya (forest or desert), Saraswati and Bharati (goddesses of learning and speech), Puri (city), Giri and Parvata (hill), and Sagara (ocean). The Dasnami Dandis follow principles, which assert that the supreme deity is beyond human understanding principles are the basic tenets of the Sant Mat sect, which welcomes all people who wish to become its members.

In Hindu social structure, there are traditionally four main classes or varnas: First, the Brahmanas (priests and scholars) who are the spiritual guides of the society, the Kshatriyas (warriors and rulers) who control the physical strength and governance, the Vaishyas (merchants and traders) who control the economic gains and lastly the Sudras (servants and labourers) who provide the labour force. The first three varnas are regenerate varnas, namely, the Brahmanas, the Kshatriyas, and the Vaishyas. This status is achieved through the sacred thread ceremony (Upanayana) which marks the second birth and the beginning of the study of the Vedas.

The fourth class were excluded from this ritual and were considered the lowest order of people, the slave-like class. However, it can become relatively difficult to separate them from the regenerated classes of people in the society. These varnas are no longer distinct from one another as people from one varna have been able to move to the other varna and the practice of intermarriages has been practised in many societies today. In terms of their involvement with Vedic education and practices, the regenerate classes are seen to be separate but it must be understood that many individuals belonging to the Sudra castes are now also participating in occupations and living patterns that were previously reserved for the regenerate castes.

Golapchandra Sarkar Sastri suggests that as per the traditional texts of law called Smritis, all people are born as Sudras. The second birth, which entitles one as twice born, is earned once a person has studied and thus mastered the Vedic scriptures. The Supreme Court focused on Smritis which states that all people are born as Sudras and the second birth is only possible if one learns the sacred religious scriptures. Manu’s code of conduct prescribes that a twice-born man should live with his teacher and learn the Vedas for as long as thirty-six years or until he is able to memorise them. In the past, many of the twice-born castes have not paid much attention to the study of the Vedas and, thus, have become Sudras in effect. First of all, the privilege of asceticism belonged only to the Brahmins. It gradually expanded to all twice-born people, but the Dharmasastras did not recognize Sudras as having the right to become Sanyasis. However, these restrictions have since been abolished and Sudras are now allowed to practise asceticism, acknowledging them as Hindus and accepting them as Sanyasis. The current practices in India are in sharp contrast with traditional Hinduism where Sudras were barred from leading an austere life. Today, Sudras can indeed become Sanyasis. Thus, in this context, the plaintiff, Mathura Ahir, is rightfully awarded the status of Sanyasi. This recognition corresponds to the new and more liberal understanding of Hindu renunciation, which is based on the principles of the Sant Mat Sampradaya and the acceptance of all castes in the renouncer society. 

This judgement confirms that Mathura Ahir, being a Sanyasi by religion, has all the rights and privileges of this status.

Whether the death of the first respondent (original plaintiff) would automatically lead to the abatement of the substantive appeal?

The High Court’s view on this issue is crucial since it concerns the overturning of a practice that prohibited Sudras from being initiated into the order of yati or sanyasi as dictated by the Smriti writers. The High Court notes that this rule, which was previously strictly followed, is no longer applicable as it is in conflict with the provisions of the Part III of the Constitution that guarantees fundamental rights to the citizens. In view of the Supreme Court, the learned Judge of the Trial Court erred in holding that the Part III of the Constitution has relevance to issues of personal laws of the parties. While applying the personal laws of the parties, he could not have brought his own ideas of modern times but had to enforce the law as emanated from recognised and authoritative sources of Hindu law, i.e., Smritis and commentaries are referred to as interpretations in the judgements of various High Courts, except where such law is changed by any usage or custom or modified or abrogated by statute.

Abatement implies the dismissal or discontinuance of a legal proceeding. Under the common law, some types of legal actions used to die with the person; this meant that the lawsuits would be dismissed if the plaintiff passed away.

Legal representative

The Supreme Court discussed the general rule that all rights of action and all demands whatsoever subsisting to the benefit or prejudice of a person at the time of his death shall survive to or against the legal representative of such person. It was after the death of the plaintiff-mahant that the successor mahant, being in place of properties, had a right to be substituted in the legal representative within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, having the right to prosecute the appeal on behalf of math. The doctrine enables justice to be attained by allowing the positive consequences of a judgement to be enforced even after the death of the plaintiff. It helps to avoid an unjust situation where a favourable ruling is rendered ineffective by the death of the complainant. This principle ensures that there is legal continuity and that the death of a plaintiff does not jeopardise the success of a lawsuit. They offer certainty and finality to all litigants that judgements will be upheld and enforced.

The Supreme Court realised that this is not a class of case to which the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona, which means a personal right of action dies with the person, can be applied. The suit that plaintiff, Harsewanand, brought was for possession of the suit house which was at Garwaghat Math in his capacity as the mahant. On denial of his title, he pleaded that he was initiated as a chela by his Guru Swami Atmavivekanand, the then Mahant in 1937, and nominated to be his successor and accordingly upon his demise on August 23, 1949 had been duly installed as Mahant of the Math by the Sant Mat Sampradaya i.e., by the Mahants and Sanyasis of the Bhesh and given Chader Mahanti. It was stated that, under the beliefs of this particular group, the status of sanyasi was open to all Sudras and that the succession to the office of the mahant was handed down from guru to chela as per customary practice in the sect.

The Supreme Court relied on the Hindu jurisprudence that states that an institution, which is religious in nature such as math, is a distinct legal person that can hold property. It is, therefore, apparent that a suit instituted by the mahant for the time being is properly constituted and cannot be held abated under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure on the death of the mahant during the pendency of the suit or any appeal that may arise therefrom as the real party to the suit is the religious institution (math). The ownership is either in the institution or the idol. A math or an idol can work or exercise its rights through human beings which are called mahant, shebait or dharkurta or trustees.

The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court with costs.

Analysis of Krishna Singh vs. Mathura Ahir and Ors. (1979)

The Supreme Court clearly defined the necessity of proving continuity and legal status in religious status through traditional and recognised practices. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court also held that such formalistic adherence to genealogical connections and specific chants might not be strictly required at all times and in all instances, especially within some Neo-humanist sects that are primarily interested in the development of spiritual consciousness as opposed to religious rituals. The Supreme Court in this case, thus, ruled that, although genealogical connections and Mantras may be significant in proving sanyasi legitimacy, their absence does not necessarily negate one’s sanyasi identity if there is overwhelming evidence of the same and succession to other sanyasis. The Supreme Court understood the challenge of proving genealogical ties over several generations and proposed that the decision should be made based on the overall evidence of their religious practice and acceptance by the community.

The Supreme Court got an opportunity to grapple with the procedural question of whether the death of the plaintiff would amount to ‘abatement of appeal’. The Supreme Court also affirmed the legal proposition that legal actions touching on religious institutions or their representatives; do not automatically stand over due to the death of a plaintiff. The Supreme Court, nevertheless, pointed out that the death of a plaintiff does not lead to the abatement of the suit or appeal, particularly when the institution is a religious one in which the position of the plaintiff – for instance, the mahant – is taken up by another person. The new mahant or the successor assumes the position of the plaintiff to further the legal actions. This principle makes it possible to continue legal action and it also protects against interruptions in justice as a result of the death of an individual. The Supreme Court based its decision on legal principles that recognise the non-abatement of suits in such circumstances.

In conclusion, the case of Krishna Singh vs. Mathura Ahir and Ors. demonstrates how the judiciary handles legal matters concerning religious trusts and property rights. Thus, by examining statutory laws and legal doctrines, the Supreme Court highlighted the significance of compliance with the legal requirements concerning the discharge of the trustees’ duties and the appropriate handling of religious organisations for the benefit of the community.

Conclusion 

Krishna Singh vs. Mathura Ahir and Ors. (1949) is one of the landmark cases of Hindu law where the Supreme Court of India dealt with Hindu law and its adaptations to modern principles and customs. The judgement addressed three pivotal issues: the question of whether a Sudra can become ordained as a sanyasi and initiation as a mahant, the need for pure bloodlines and Mantras to define sanyasis as Hindu sanyasis and whether the death of the plaintiff causes the appeal to be dismissed.

The inclusive approach of theSupreme Court with regard to the ordination of Sudras is relevant to the fact that religion is dynamic and especially the Bhakti and Sant traditions focus on spiritual realisation irrespective of caste. This reflects the wider processes of social and religious reform within the Hindu society with respect to increased inclusion and equality.

With regard to genealogical connections and Mantras, the Supreme Court took a realistic and adaptable approach to these requirements, acknowledging that strict compliance with such elements may not always be possible or desirable. The Supreme Court hinted that evidence of religious behaviour and acceptance by the religious community might amount to adequate proof of sanyasi status.

Lastly, the Supreme Court reiterated the long-standing rule that lawsuits filed against religious organisations do not have to be dismissed when the plaintiff passes away. This will promote stability and consistency in the justice system to avoid interruption of legal proceedings for reasons relating to the replacement of individual representatives.

As a whole, the judgement in Krishna Singh vs. Mathura Ahir represents the combination of conservative values associated with adherence to traditional religious norms and the new liberal agenda that takes into consideration the realities of the modern world. It highlights the importance of a humanist approach in the legal context and the efforts to promote inclusivity and justice within the institution of Hindu law.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

In the context of this case, what does math mean? 

A math is a monastic institution or monastery in Hinduism where religious teaching, spiritual practices and community services are held. It is usually administered by a Mahant or a Swami.

How can Maths and other religious institutions be dealt with under Hindu law?

Maths are considered juridical persons under Hindu law since they are religious institutions. This means that they can own property, enter into contracts, and be parties to lawsuits. An institution itself has a perpetual legal personality that persists regardless of alterations in human persons.

Who are the Sant Mat sampradaya?

The Sant Mat sampradaya is a Hindu religious movement which focuses on inner spirituality and devotion to God. It is known for its greater acceptance and lesser emphasis on rigid caste distinctions as compared to other traditions.

What is the doctrine of religious and charitable trusts?

This doctrine deals with the legal position and support given to religious and charitable organisations. It sets out the basic rules about property rights and corporate personality, suits by and against such entities, and – crucially – mandates that they must be run according to the religion of the enterprise and the founders’ wishes.

What are the implications of this judgement in the case of Krishna Singh vs. Mathura Ahir and Ors. (1979) for religious minorities and lower castes?

The judgement helps to protect the rights of religious minorities and lower castes as it establishes their right to occupy religious positions and be the leaders of broad groups of sects. It emphasises the importance of social justice and equality and reminds believers of the fact that spiritual merit and social appreciation are more valuable than ancestry or caste background.

What is abatement?

Abatement means that a legal proceeding has been discontinued or stayed. Abatement in regard to civil litigation can occur for various reasons, including the death of a party involved, no existence of a necessary party to the suit or even the occurrence of certain events which make it impossible or unnecessary to continue with the litigation.

References

• Takwani CK, Civil Procedure (6th edn, Eastern Book Company 2009) 
• https://books.google.co.in/books?id=8V4IAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false