Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.
1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession from the 1st defendant of certain temple properties at Dakore, Claiming to be the Pitrai Chela of the deceased Bajrangdas who was a Mahant of the Dakore temple. The first defendant disputed his claim and called upon the plaintiff to prove the claim he asserted. The parties, it is not disputed, are Bairagis belonging to the sect of Vaishnavas of the Ramanandi class. It his been laid down in Ram Dass Byragee v. Gunga Dass (1868) 8 Agra 295 that in that class of Bairagis, on the demise of the superior Math, when there is no Chela to succeed, the heads, of the Maths ordinarly elect a successor from pupils of some other teacher. (Compare replies 39 and 40, relating to Bairagis in Burrodaile's Caste and Customs in Gujarat). That has not been done in the present case, nor has the plaintiff proved the existence of any special custom relating to the Dakore Math. It is contended on his behalf that Bajrangdas under whom he claims was a Sanyasi, and that he is entitled by virtue of a certain passage in the Mitakshara, Chapter II Section 8, para 2, to succeed to the property of that Sanyasi The passage is as follows :-' The heir as to the property of a hermit, of an ascetic, and of a student in theology are, in order (that is, in the reverse order), the preceptor, the virtuous pupil, and the spiritual brother belonging to the same hermitage ', and the three following paragraphs make it clear that the expression ' in the reverse order ' means that the heir of a student in theology is a preceptor, the heir of an ascetic is a virtuous pupil, and the heir of an hermit is a spiritual brother belonging to the same hermitage. But as I understand the argument which has been addressed to us on behalf of the appellant, it is contended that the plaintiff is a spiritual brother of the deceased Bajrangdas, but the deceased Bajrangdas was not a hermit, and, therefore, that class of heirs cannot be resorted to in the present case. Putting the position of Bajrangdas at its highest he was a Sanyasi, and, therefore, the declared heir of the Sanyasi under the Mitakshara would be a virtuous pupil. But the plaintiff was not a pupil of Bajrangdas, therefore he does not take as his heir according to the Mitakshara. It is, however, extremely doubtful whether the Bairagis can be classed as Sanyasis, because the order of Bairagis is not confined to the members of the twice born castes. As to this, reference may be made to Mitakshara, Prayashchitta, Book III, Chapter IV, clause 201, of the Allahabad translation. It appears to us therefore, that both on the ground of custom and on the ground of Hindu law the plaintiff has failed to make out his case. We, therefore, affirm the decree of the lower Court and dismiss the appeal with coats.