In Swami Gurudev Muni Chela Sant Sewa Dass Ji v. State & Anr Case ,  The key question involved the authenticity of a Will executed on 08.10.1993, whereby Swami Amar Muniji left his immovable and movable properties to Swami Kishore Das Ji, the respondent of this case , who was the Parmadhyaksha of the same mission. The Will was contested by the appellant, Swami Gurudev Muni, who was allegedly the Chela (disciple) of the testator and contended that, based on the traditions of the Udasin Sect to which both the testator and he belonged, he was entitled to inherit the properties by virtue of civil death of the testator on entering the religious order. He contended that attributes of a saint or mahant are the property of the sect or math, and that the disciple, having obtained the Bhek’s sanction, inherits by default.

At first, the erudite Single Judge, after scrutinizing the evidence, affirmed the validity of the Will. The Single Judge expressly dealt with two significant points:

 (1) whether the Will was executed in accordance with law, and (2) whether the testator, as an Udasi ascetic, had the capacity to make a will regarding the properties. The Single Judge relied on the depositions of the two attesting witnesses ,Mr. Lalit K. Malhotra and Shri O.P. Wadhwa ,the court held that the conditions under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act were satisfied. Even though minor discrepancies in the statements were brought to light by the appellant, specifically concerning Mr. Wadhwa’s illiteracy (and the affidavit remaining mute regarding reading out the contents to him), the court ruled that these irregularities were immaterial, considering that both witnesses ratified each other on the significant aspects of execution and attestation. In addition, the court underscored that inconsistencies from previous statements such as being provided in affidavits or during prior cross-examination could only be used against the witness if sufficiently confronted under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, a procedural precaution not followed by the appellant. This is consistent with judicial interpretation in criminal jurisprudence as well, where the statements recorded under Sections 161/162 CrPC, when utilized to contradict a witness, Need to be strictly in Accordence with the  Section 145 of the indian Evidence Act.

The Single Judge also rejected the argument that the properties of Amar Muniji vested in the sect, observing that in Math Sauna v. Kedar Nath [(1982) 1 SCR 659], the Supreme Court had made it clear that there was no presumption either way of a mahant’s property being private or institutional. The onus on the claimant Said here to establish sect ownership was not discharged or Given by the appellant. In the same manner, while the appellant cited Jiwan Das v. Hira Das [AIR 1937 Lah 311] and Brahma Nand v. Mathura Puri [AIR 1965 SC 1506] to contend that Chelaship leads to succession following civil death of a guru, the court found Chelaship to be incomplete without explicit proof of custom, usage, or formal succession ceremonies like Bhek endorsement. No such evidence was provided in the instant case.

In appeal, the Division Bench, consisting of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Deepa Sharma, upheld the conclusions of the Single Judge. The court of appeal again assessed the evidence of the attesting witnesses and deemed that their testimonies were credible and sufficient in law to prove due execution of the Will. It observed that the Will was signed voluntarily, not under duress, and expressed the deliberate will of the testator to use the benefits for the mission and not for any specific person. The Will was not surrounded by any dubious circumstances. The court added further that the testator  had completely testamentary capacity and was in sound mind And senses when the Will was executed. Regarding the challenge on the basis of sect tradition and rights of Chelas’ inheritance, the Division Bench reiterated the position that there is no automatic or customary inheritance of property to a disciple unless there is lawful succession and sanction of the community, which again was not present in the case.

The appeals FAO (OS) Nos. 513/2012 and 26/2013 were ultimately ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.