- (1.) SUIT No. 469 of 1951 was filed by the plaintiff -respondent on 21 -8 -1951 against respondents 2 to 5 inter alia, for the ejectment of the said de fendant -respondents from house No. C -27/ 33 Mohallah Jagatgani. Varanasi. It was pleaded that Avodhesh Narain. defendant No. 1 had taken the house on rent at Rs. 15/ - per month from Swami Atmavi -vekanand, the deceased Guru of the plain tiff. Defendants 2 to 4 were alleged to have been put in possession of the house illegally by defendant No. 1. The suit Was contested by the defendants, who denied the tenancy and, inter alia, plead ed that they were in occupation of the house as chelas of Swami Atmavivekanand in their own right by virtue of the licence granted to them by the said Swamiji. The plaintiff's right to sue was denied and it was alleged that he was neither chela of the Swamiji nor his successor. It was alleged that on the death of Swami A_tmavivankanand his natural son and disciple. Shri Krishna became the owner of the house. In the circumstances, the plaintiff got his plaint amended and im -pleaded Shri Krishna as defendant No. 5, The suit was also converted into a re gular suit for possession.
(2.) ACCORDING to the averments in the plaint. Swami Sarupanand. Guru of Swami Atmavivenkanand came to Banaras some time in or about 1925 and started preaching and propagating the tenets and precepts of "Sant Mat" of which he was himself an adherent and follower. The said Swamiii stayed in the building known as "Bangla Kuti" situate at Garwaghat, Varanasi. Subsequently the said "Bangla Kuti" and other build ings and land appurtenant or adiacent thereto became a math of which Swami Sarupanand was initially the mahant. There after Swami Atmavivenkanand. the chief disciple of Swami Sarupanand be came the mahant and, on the demise of the latter, the plaintiff, who was his chief disciple, became the mahant having been nominated to be the successor by his said Guru and also having been recognised and acknowledged as the mahant at a con gregation of the followers of the Sant Mat and the mahants of several other maths or religious institutions. It is not necessary to mention the details of the other averments in the plaint, nor is it necessary to mention in detail the various pleas raised in the written statements filed by the defendants. It will be suffi cient, however, to mention that Shri Krishna, defendant No. 5, who has filed the instant appeal, was the principal, con testing defendant. He denied the exis tence of the math as pleaded by the plaintiff and asserted that the house in suit, in any case, was not math property. He further pleaded that the plaintiff being a Sudra was legally incompetent to be come a Sanyasi and that the plaintiff was not the mahant of the alleged Garwaghat math. The said defendant claimed that after the death of Swami Atmavivekanand he became the owner of the house in suit by inheritence, as also of the properties alleged by the plaintiff to belong to Garwaghat Math. All these properties, according to defendant No.5 were secular and personal properties of his father Baikunth Singh, who was also known as Swami Atmavivenkanand. In the trial court the issues, as finally framed, were 17 in number. Out of these issues, mention in particular may be made of the following: - 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the premises in suit? 8. Whether the plaintiff was nominat ed as a Mahant and given Chader in ac cordance with the custom? Is there any custom as alleged by the plaintiff? 12. Was Swami Atmavivakanand A Sanyasi and had he ceased to be a Grihast? 13. Is the plaintiff Sudra and not entitled to become Sanyasi according to Hindu Law? 14. Is the plaintiff chela of Swami Atmavivekanand and entitled to succeed to properties left by him in preference to his son Shri Krishna? 15. Is the house in suit a Math pro perty? 17. Is Kamlasan Singh a necessary party? 4. Issue No. 17 above, which was not pressed at the trial, was raised on the plea of defendant No. 5 that his father. Baikunth Singh had also left another son Kamlasan Singh. On the other issues noted above the trial court recorded find ing in favour of the plaintiff and decre ed the suit for possession and for damages a,t the rate of Rs. 15/ - per month from the date of the institution of the suit till delivery of possession. The material find ings recorded by the trial court were as follows: - 1. Swami Sarupanand was a Sanyasi. 2. Swami Atmavivekanand was ini tiated into ascetic order and was a Sanyasi. 3. The plaintiff himself was a sanyasi and under the custom and usage of the religious fraternity to which he belonged even a Sudra could become a Sanyasi.
(3.) THE property at Garwaghat was Math property of which Swami Atmavi -vekanand was the duly installed Mahant as per custom and he was and remained in possession of the Math properties as Mahant till his death.;