IQBAL SINGH Vs. SANTOKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Amritsar, dated 10-10-1974.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the case of the plaintiff is that the property in dispute was owned and possessed by Dharamsala Partap Singh situated in Amritsar. The property was debutter property dedicated to the Dharamsala for religious and charitable purposes, namely, for residence, maintenance and feeding of the Sadhus and other poor persons. Mahant Mehal Singh Chela Mahant Vir Singh was the Mahant of the Dharmsala. He became very weak on account of old age and generally remained ill. He therefore, became disabled to perform the duties as a Mahant. Consequently, on 29-4-1968, he resigned from Mahantship and appointed the plaintiff as the Mahant of the Dharmsala in accordance with the custom of the Nirmala Bhekh Sadhus after performing the customary rights in the presence of gathering of Nirmala Sadhus. He therefore entered into the possession of Dharamsala and started performing the duties of the Mahant. Since then he has been managing the property. The case of the plaintiff further is that the defendants alleged that they took the property on lease. If any lease was proved in their favour, if was without consideration and legal necessity and, therefor, not binding on the plaintiff. There was no need for Mahant Mehal Singh to give it on lease for a period of 99 years for any purposes of the institution. The lease is consequently void and the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property. He, therefore, filed a suit for its possession.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendants who inter alia pleaded that the suit did not lie in the present form, that the plainitff had no locus standi to institute the suit, that the property was not owned and possessed by Dharamsala and that the property was given on lease for a period of 99 years by Mahant Mahal Singh for legal necessity. Some other pleas were also taken and they are reflected in the issues which are as follows:-1. Whether the suit does not lie in the present form? 2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? 3. Whether the plaintiff has a locus standi to file the present suit?