A math is typically a Hindu religious institution. It was described in Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir MANU/SC/0657/1981 : AIR 1980 SC 707 by the Supreme Court, in the following manner:
"'Math' means a place for the residence of ascetics and their pupils, and the like. Since the time of Sankaracharya, who established Hindu maths, these maths developed into institutions devoted to the teaching of different systems of Hindu religious philosophy, presided over by ascetics, who were held in great reverence as religious preceptors, and princes and noblemen endowed these institutions with large grants of property. Dr. Bijan Kumar Mukherjea in his Tagore Law Lectures on the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, 4th ed. p. 321 succinctly states:
'Math' in ordinary language signifies an abode or residence of ascetics. In legal parlance it connotes a monastic institution presided over by a particular order who generally are disciples or co-disciples of the superior."
Sital Das (supra) is authority for the proposition that the consequence of entry of an individual into a monastic order, is his civil death:
"entrance into a religious order generally operates as a civil death. The man who becomes an ascetic severs his connection with the members of his natural family and being adopted by his preceptor becomes, so to say a spiritual son of the latter. The other disciples of his Guru are regarded as his brothers, while the co-disciples of his Guru are looked upon as uncles and in this way a spiritual family is established on the analogy of a natural family."
Krishna Singh (supra) states that property belonging to a 'math' is attached to the office of the mahant, and passed by inheritance only who fill the office. This creates an obligation to maintain the trust: "The head of a math, as such, is not a trustee in the sense in which that term is generally understood, but in legal contemplation he has an estate for life in its permanent endowment and an absolute in the income derived from the offerings of his followers, subject only to the burden of maintaining the institution." In Parma Nand v. Nihal Chand MANU/PR/0035/1938 : 65 IA 252 (Privy Council) it was held that:
"this circumstance (the descent from Guru to Chela) does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that a property, when acquired by a Mahant, loses its secular character and partakes of a religious character."
This formulation of law was approved by a larger Bench (of five judges) of the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Prasad (supra). The Supreme Court also took note of and approved Raghbir Lala v. Mohammad Said MANU/PR/0002/1942 : AIR 1943 PC 7, where it was held that:
"No doubt if a question arises whether particular property acquired by a given individual was acquired on his own behalf or on behalf of some other person or institution with whom or with which he was connected the circumstance that the individual so acquiring property was a professed ascetic may have some importance. But it is out of question to suppose that a man's religious opinions or professions can make him incapable in law of holding property."
The Court concluded that "we cannot but hold that the properties in their charge were their personal properties unless it be established that any particular item of property was the subject matter of an endowment or a gift for a particular charitable purpose."
16. Math Sauna (supra) was relied upon by the learned Single Judge to find that even an ascetic or sanyasi can hold personal property and that there is no automatic consequence that upon the ascetic's death, the Guru Bhai becomes heir to the estate of the deceased guru:
"All the facts and circumstances must be taken into consideration and on a balancing of the entire evidence it has to be determined whether the property can be said to belong to the Math or deity or is the personal property of the Mahant, the burden of proof resting on the party who makes the claim."
17. Certain legal principles, therefore, emerge, which have to be applied upon the death of a sanyasi or ascetic. Firstly, his entry into the monastic order has the consequence of a civil death. The "normal" line of succession then gets broken; all properties vest in the Math. Secondly, upon his death, the properties held by him are to be treated as the monastic order's property. Thirdly, there is no presumption regarding lack of the sanyasi's capacity to hold property for himself.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO (OS) 513/2012 and 26/2013
Decided On: 30.09.2015
Appellants: Swami Gurudev Muni Chela Sant Sewa Dass Ji
Vs.
Respondent: State and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:S. Ravindra Bhat and Deepa Sharma, JJ.
Print Page
