SANT NIRMAL SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER, JALANDHAR DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three connected Revision Petitions in which un-registered Will dated 30.9.1998 in favour of Mahant Nirmal Singh and Bhekh resolution dated 10.7.1999 in favour of Mehant Kashmira Singh are matter of controversy and the same are under challenge before this Court. Hence, all the three revision petitions are disposed of through a common order, a copy of which shall be placed on each of the files.

(2.) IN R.O.R. No. 234 of 2004 petitioner has challenged the order of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar dated 20.1.2004 before this Court. Brief facts of the case are that mutation No. 22876 pertaining to the inheritance of Mahant Gurdial Singh Chela Mahant Jaimal Singh, who expired on 10.4.1999, was entered by the halqa patwari on the basis of resolution/appointment as Mahant made by Panchayati Akhara Nirmala (Regd.) Kankhal, Distt. Haridwar in favour Mahant Kashmira Singh. This mutation was contested by Mahant Nirmal Singh on the basis of unregistered Will dated 30.9.1998 executed by Mahant Gurdial Singh in favour of Mahant Nirmal Singh. The parties led their evidence and counsel for the respondent Mahant Kashmira Singh relied upon Bhekh resolution dated 10.7.1999. But the Assistant Collector Ist Grade sanctioned the mutation vide his order dated 22.11.2001 in favour of Mahant Nirmal Singh on the basis of Will dated 30.9.1998. The Collector (ADC), Amritsar, accepted the appeal filed by Mahant Kashmira Singh. The main reasoning recorded by the Collector while accepting the appeal filed by Mahant Kashmira Singh in the impugned order was that in the matter of religious properties Bhekh decision is supreme and such property cannot be given to any one by executing the Will. It has also been mentioned in the order of the Collector that even Sant Nirmal Singh admitted in the cross- examination that Sant Kashmira Singh has been appointed Mahant of the Dera by the Nirmala Bhekh and it was also ruled out in the order that Will in question is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The A.D.C. cum Collector, Amritsar, accepted the appeal on 19.9.2002. The petitioner filed further appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, which has also been dismissed on 21.1.2004. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed before this Court against the order of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, dated 20.1.2004.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent has argued that Mahant Gurdial Singh received property from Mahant Jaimal Singh and property in question belongs to a religious Dera. The law of inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act and Indian Succession Act is not at all applicable to such religious properties. He has further submitted that only Bhekh can appoint Mahant of such Dera and no other authority can appoint the Mahant of the Dera. He has referred to the AIR 1954 SC 606, 1997(3) RCR(Civil) page 626 and 1997(2) PLJ page 148. Ld. counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the Will in question is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and where there is slightest doubt about the genuineness of the Will then the revenue officers should stay their hands and should not go into intricate question of law. It is for the civil Court to decide the genuineness of such a Will. The reference has been made to the original Will available on the Assistant Collector Ist Grade's file and pointed out by the counsel for the respondent that the address of two marginal witnesses have been written on the Will and as such the Will in question is false and fabricated document. Moreover, the Will has been typed in Hindi and scribed by Notary at Meerut. Mahant Gurdial Singh did not know Hindi and in Meerut District the Sub-Registrar was available within the District Administration Complex and it was very easy to get the Will registered, even then the Will was not got registered. Reliance has been placed on 1967 PLJ 129 and 1984 PLJ page 646. It has been further argued by the counsel for the respondent that in the revisional jurisdiction all disputed facts cannot be gone into and in the present case the petitioner is disputing question of facts and prayer has been made for dismissal of the revision petition.