VYAWASTHA&DARPANA 309 According to the established custom of the religious order of mohantas or sanyisis, it appeared that, out of the chelás or pupils whom the mohanta, in his capacity of Guru or spiritual teacher, instructs in the doctrine of the sect, some one is selected by him to succeed at his decease; and that, after his death, the mohantas of other similar institutions in the vicinage convene an assembly of the order, for performing the bhaindirá or funeral obsequies, at which they generally confirm the nomination made by the deceased, and install the pupil he selected as his authorised successor. XI. On a claim by Tej Gir, a sanyasi, against Ganesh Gir, to the succession of a deceased mohanta, the Sudder Court (present Messrs. H. Colebrooke and J. Fombell) referred the case to a pancháet (or religious assembly) of the sect, who after reciting that, Ganesh was never elected, and got possession of the math or temple (in dispute), stated that, according to the usage of the sect, the proper successor to a mohanta was his khâs chelá or principal pupil; that at the obsequies of Prem Gir, Tej Gir, his principal pupil, was elected his successor; and that (on the death of Tej Gir) Omrāo Gir, the principal pupil of Tej Gir, was the person now entitled to the office, and has been elected accordingly. The pandits of the Zillah and provincial courts certifică the legality of this award. The pandits of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut having also been referred to, reported that, “by the law of the Sanyasi sect, a Guru or spiritual teacher must be succeeded in his rights or possessions by his cheld or adopted pupil.” In conformity with the award of the panchāct and the opinions of the law officers of the respective courts, the Sudder Court passed judgment in favor of Områo Giro.—Ganesh Gír versus Omrāo Gir. 9th November 1807. S. D. A. Rep. Vol. I. p. 218. XII. In a suit for a mohanti, on the ground that the plaintiff was the successor appointed by the last incumbent, and afterwards regularly installed, the case was not made out, and the claim was dismissed. But the defendant in possession of the endowed lands not having becn regularly clected or installed after the death of the last mohanta, as required by the usage of the sect, the Court (present Mr. Harington) directed that an assembly of mohantas should be convened to elect and install the defendant, if entitled, or another person in whom the title might be vested. Gangá Dàs and others versus Tilak Dás. 26th November 1810. S. D. A. Rep. Vol. I, p. 809. X III. In the case of Dhan Sing Gir versus Māyā Gir, it being proved that the late mohanta Tulá Gir appointed the defendant (Māyā Gir) his principal pupil, and portioned off other pupils, that they might not interfere with him; that he was installed as the successor at the celebration of the obsequies; and that, the plaintiff was present at that time, and did not then set up any pretensions; the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, 15th August 1806. S. D. A. Rep. Vol. I. p. 153. * See also the case—Râm Ratan Dás versus Banomáli Däs. 26th September 1806. S. D. A. Rep. Wol. I. p. 170. - I. In the case of Samran Singh and others, appellants, versus Khedan Singh and Har Lál Singh, the respondents pleaded the peculiar usage of their family, which, they averred, was sufficient to regulate the mode of succession: and they adduced two instances, in which the distribution had been made by the number of wives without any reference to the number of sons that they had borne respectively. The proceedings in this case were delivered to the Pandits for an exposition of the Hindu law, and from their written opinion, it appeared that, to legalize any deveation from the strict letter of the law, it was necessary that the usage should have been prevalent during a long succession of ancestors in the family, when it becomes known by the name of kuláchár. In support of these opinions the following texts of
- The present decision establishes a precedent where no successor has been nominated; and it may be considered tha *ined rule, in such cases, that “the proper successor of a Mohanta is his Khás or principal pupil;" though, from the result of onquiries itstituted in the case above noticed, the election or installation of the successor by an assembly of Mohantas at the obsequies of the deceased Mohanta, appears to be in all cases indispensable and conclusive.
Z 3 Cases. bearing on the vyavastlvis No8, 148 & 1 19.
