History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3.c46.77

v3.c46.77

He retains his attachment to his former family and uses a good deal of the income for his relatives and friends. Real reform of the *maṭhas* cannot come unless great improvements are made in selecting a successor. There must be several disciples, the selection must not be made on the incumbent's death-bed, representative bodies must have a voice in the selection. The heads of ascetic *maṭhas* have often come to the courts on questions about dignity, jurisdiction and properties. For example, in 3 Moore's Indian Appeals p. 198 the Śṛṅgerī Pontiff claimed a declaration that he alone was entitled to proceed on the public road in a palanquin crosswise and for an injunction restraining the *Swāmi* of the Lingayats from doing so; in *Madhusudan Parvat v. Shree Madhav Teertha*, 33 Bom. 278, the Śaṁkarācārya of the Śāradā *maṭha* at Dwarka sued for a declaration that the defendant was not entitled to the title and dignities of a Śaṁkarācārya and that he was not entitled to call for or receive any offerings from people at Ahmedabad or other places in Gujarat either in his assumed capacity of a Śaṁkarācārya or as a Śaṁkarācārya of the Jyotir-maṭha (this claim was also rejected on the grounds that the suit was not of a civil nature and that the offerings were voluntary).