Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Kesari Devi v. Dharma Devi, (AIR 1962 All 355); Raja Ram v. Mata Prasad, (AIR 1972 All 167) (FB); Sarojini Amma v. Neelkanta, (AIR 1961 Ker 126) (FB); L. I. C. v. United Bank. (AIR 1970 Cal 513); Parbati Kuer v. Sranghar, (AIR 1960 SC 403); Radha Debi v. Controller, Estate Duty, ((19681 72 Cal WN 696); Sethalakshmi Ammal v. Controller of Estate Duty, (1966) Mad LJ 484.

4. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that an ascetic cannot have his separate property. If he acquires any it will be of the Math. Whatever property will be found to belong to the Mahanth at the time of his death will devolve not on his personal heirs but on his disciples. Further, all the offerings made to a Mahanth belong to the Math and not to him personally. For this submission reliance has been placed on the following:

18. In para. 819 of the same volume it is laid down:

"A mahant is entitled to be installed and put into possession of all the Math property, which will remain distinct from the Mahant's private property, though it is open to him at any time to merge his private assets with the former."

19. In my opinion, these observations are not relevant in the instant case. Even if the deceased Mahanth had private sources of income, still, we are really concerned with the question whether the two insurance policies were the assets of the Math or whether the same were his private assets. In my opinion, the documentary evidence to which I have made a reference, clearly establishes that the insurance policies were the assets of the Math and were so declared by the deceased Mahant himself to two independent bodies like the defendant-respondent No. 2 and the Income-tax Department before any controversy arose about the ownership of the said insurance policies. Therefore, it is not necessary to discuss whether the deceased Mahanth had private sources of income or not. Even if he had, the insurance policies were held by him as the assets of the Math and it was not open to him to transfer or alienate the same for the benefit of his wife. The ownership of the Math remained unaffected by the nomination made by the deceased Mahanth after he ceased to be the Mahanth. The policies in question could not be disposed of by the Mahanth except for a legal necessity or benefit of the estate in his lifetime and he could not make the said assets the subject-matter of a will for the benefit of his wife.