MUNSHI DASS Vs. MAL SINGH AND MAL DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a Dharamshala situated in village Kaddon, District Patiala in the State of Punjab. A part of the same institution was another Dera or Dharamshala situate at Jasra Tehsil near Ludhiana. The fact that one Bishan Dass, Chela of Prem Dass was the Mahant of this institution at the end of the 19th century is not in dispute. Bishan Dass had four Chelas:- (1) Parmanand, (2) Narain Dass, (3) Atma Ram and (4) Ram Dass. Although Narain Dass was his junior-most Chela, Bishan Dass because of his incapacity and ill-health made Narain Dass the Mahant during his lifetime. Shortly thereafter the other three Chelas died one after the other. It appears that Narain Dass also died during the lifetime of Bishan Dass. One Ganga Ram was the Chela of Narain Dass, Ganga Ram was appointed the Mahant with the approval of Bishan Dass. This fact is evidenced by the Mutation Order of the Revenue Authority passed on 10-3-1908, Ext. P-2. After the death of Ganga Ram, Sobha Ram became the Mahant. It is not clear from the records of this case as to when Ganga Ram died and when Sobha Ram became the Mahant and how. What is clear, however, is that parties are not at variance so far. Sobha Ram died on 31st January, 1961 in a Hospital at Ludhiana. According to the case of original defendant No. 1 - respondent No. 1, Mal Dass, Sobha Ram had executed a Will in his favour on the 16th of January 1961, a fortnight before his death. Mal Dass claimed to have been installed as a Mahant in succession to Sobha Ram shortly after his death i.e. on 12-2-1961. A dispute, however, cropped up between Pritam Dass - a senior Chela of Mahant Sobha Ram and Mal Dass. This led to a proceeding under S. 145 of the Cr. P. C. between Pritam Dass and Mal Dass concerning the properties of the institution at Kaddon as well as Jasra. In the proceeding a compromise was entered into between the said two contesting parties. Under the terms of the compromise the Dharamshala and the properties at Kaddon were allotted to Mal Dass and Pritam Dass got the Jasra Dera and its properties. The Revenue Authority eventually made a Mutation Order on the 14th of February, 1962, Ext. D-13 in favour of Mal Dass recording his name in respect of the Kaddon properties. Munshi Dass - the appellant in this appeal claims that he was also the Chela of Mahant Sobha Ram and was duly installed as a Mahant on the 5th of November, 1961 as evidence by the Bahi entry, Ext. P-1. On the 16th April, 1962 he filed the suit giving rise to this appeal for possession of the Dharamshala and the properties appertaining to it on the basis that he was the duly installed Mahant of the said institution. Originally Mal Dass alone was impleaded as a defendant in the suit. He filed his written statement on the 17th May, 1962, inter alia, taking the plea of non-joinder of Pritam Dass. Thereupon, an amended plaint was filed by the appellant on the 21st May, 1962 adding in the original plaint a new paragraph to implead Pritam Dass as defendant No. 2. Pritam Dass filed his written statement on the 25th August, 1962.

(2.) Oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the parties before the trial Court which had framed several issues in the suit for trial. The trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant on 28-3-1963 holding that the appellant was the Chela of Sobha Ram and was a duly installed Mahant. Mal Dass was held not to be entitled to the properties on the basis of the alleged Will or otherwise. The trial Court did not accept his case that he was the Mahant. Mal Dass filed a regular first appeal in the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal on 23-5-1967 and defeated the appellant on the ground that he did not succeed in proving by any legal evidence that he was the Chela of Mahant Sobha Ram or that he was the duly installed Mahant according to the alleged custom, there being no adequate or satisfactory evidence to prove it. In accordance with the law as prevalent then the judgment of the High Court being one of reversal and the valuation test having been satisfied, certificate for appeal to this Court was granted as a matter of course. Thus comes this appeal.

(3.) Mr. P. P. Juneja appearing in support of the appeal after placing the history and the facts of the case, the relevant and the necessary portion of which has been extracted above, urged the following points:-