STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. MAHANT UDAYGIR GURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHNAN J.-This is an appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh from the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent granting him a bare declaration, from which according to that trial Court certain consequential reliefs automatically follow which have been evaluated at Rs. 1,25,000 for purposes of jurisdiction but have not been taxed. The questions for decision are, firstly, whether this suit is in contravention of the proviso to section 42 of the Specific Relief Act: secondly, whether in view of Government's inherent power to terminate and resume a jagir grant, the order of the Rajpramukh of Madhya Bharat resuming the jagir of this particular mahant is justiciable at all. Thirdly, on merits, whether the plaintiff has established that he was not only a disciple but also the heir to Mahant Rewsdas, who in his turn, was the properly appointed Mahant successor to Balramdas and had properly nominated or otherwise appointed the plaintiff as his successor.

(2.) THE parties have gone through the history over about a century and a half of certain jagir and inam grants granted to some "Geer Gosai" Mahants as long ago as 1813 or 1814 A. D. THEre had all the time been the practice of religious people doing what is called the "Narmada parikrama", walking along one bank till the river entres the sea, then crossing over and walk back along the other bank. At different places by the river-side "maths" and similar institutions were established with the purpose of caring for such pilgrims and affording them food and rest. Anyway, in the Dhar State two villages Pathori in jagir and Sundrel in inam were granted to one Mahant Udaygir (for convenience described as "Udaygir 1") in 1813. About the same time in the Holkar State two villages were granted to the same Udaygir for the same purpose, they being Nigarni and Itavadi. We are not in this suit concerned directly with the Holkar grants but certain Orders made by the Holkar authorities have been referred to apparently as foreign judgments having an evidentiary but not conclusive force. Anyway, the succession to the Dhar grant (as also the Holkar grants) was by shishyaparampara, that is to say, inheritance through disciples though the' instruments themselves do not indicate in what manner each grantee or mahant was to select the particular disciple; that obviously was left for a practice to develop. Fifth in descent was one Balramgir who became the mahant towards the end of the last century. Presumably he was the mahant.also for the Holkar grants; but we are now concerned with the grant in the Dhar State. All these mahants, at least till Balramgir and including him were unmarried sanyasis; but Balramgir's own loose morals in this regard came under notice of the Dhar State. It is not clear whether they came under similar notice of the Holkar authorities; but it is in evidence that the authorities in the two different States took different lines in dealing with these mahants In the Dhar State Balramgir was declared unfit and the two villages granted to him in jagir and inam were taken over by the Court of Wards in 1898. This continued till 1954, the authorities of the Dhar State till 1948 and of the Madhya Bharat afterwards funding the income separately till there was an accumulation of Rs. 53,000 as an accretion to this jagir and inam. Though it is suggested at one place that the intention was to forfeit the grant, till 1954 the position was that there was a theoretical possibility of the return of the jagirs, in whatever form it existed at the appropriate moment, to a person recognized as the mahant. Ultimately the Court of Wards did release the two villages as well as the income in deposit which went to the Government and not to the mahant, for reasons to be stated presently.

(3.) ONE change has been already referred to, namely, that jagir or man or inam after 1952 had a very restricted meaning, namely, the amount of compensation if any, plus some agricultural land in certain cases. The whole matter was placed before the Rajpramukh in 1955 and he passed an order which is summarised below and in regard to which the plaintiff has urged that it should be declared null and void and should be set aside. What was originally a question whether or not Rewagir should be mutated in the place of Balramgir's and whether again the plaintiff should be so mutated in the place of Rewagir, now became the basic question regarding the right to the jagir and the inam. The Rajpramukh considered the question. He ordered on 18-10-1955 (Ex. P/10) that the question of the title to the jagir and the right to inheritance having been raised he held that the plaintiff could not be recognized as the mahant because he was a married man and had broken the condition that the occupant of the gaddi should be a celibate (nihang). Accordingly:- "With effect from this date the jagir was being resumed by the Government and whatever income had been funded and held on its behalf is being remitted to the treasury." It is significant that the order expressly refers to only the jagirdari village of Dathora and makes no mention of the mafi inam of Sundrel. However, Government has taken possession of both the villages as well as the total accumulated deposit in the time of Court of Wards from both, and also the compensation payable in respect of them under the Abolition of Jagirs Act.