Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed on the ground that the first defendant was a designated heir of the last guru Ramgiri, and, therefore, was entitled to succeed. The plaintiff claimed as a gurubandhu. But I do not think there was any necessity to enter into the question whether as a matter of fact he was connected with the line of gurus to this Math, as the first defendant was clearly designated by Ramgiri as his successor. An application was made to the Kolhapur Darbar for permission to adopt the first defendant as a chela. That permission was granted. But before the initiation ceremony was carried out Ramgiri sent the first defendant to Malvan to learn business matters, so that he might be competent when he succeeded to manage the Math properties. When Ramgiri found his end approaching he sent for the first defendant, but unfortunately from one cause or another the first defendant arrived too late, and, therefore, although one may very safely infer that Ramgiri intended to initiate the first defendant, he was unable to do so owing to his dying before the first defendant arrived. The question then is whether in these circumstances the first defendant is not the person to succeed to the Math rather than the plaintiff, even assuming he was able to prove that he was distantly connected as a gurubandhu. I should say on general principles that the designation of the heir would be quite sufficient to enable the first defendant to succeed, the absence of the formal ceremony during the lifetime of Ramgiri not being really material to his success in the suit. I think, therefore, that the Judge was right in holding that the designated heir could succeed to the Math and the appeal should be dismissed with costs.
2. I agree. I only desire to add that there is nothing to show that the person in the position of defendant No. 1, clearly designated as heir by Ramgiri, would not be able to succeed simply because the initiation ceremony was not performed during the life-time of Ramgiri. Though the proposition has been advanced that the initiation ceremony is essential for the purpose of constituting discipleship which would entitle him to succeed to the property, no authority has been cited in support of that proposition, and I do not think that it could be said as a matter of law that where the designation has been so clear, as in the present case, the absence of formal initiation during the life time of the last holder Ramgiri, should present insuperable difficulty in the way of the designated disciple succeeding as heir.