BHAGWAN DASS AND OTHERS Vs. JAIRAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs who have preferred this appeal instituted a suit under section 92, Civil Procedure Code, for the removal of Mahant Jai Ram Dass defendant and for appointment of Mukand Dass plaintiff as Mahant and manager in place of the defendant. A prayer for rendition of accounts was also included in the plaint along with the prayer for delivery of moveable and immoveable property of this Samadh to the said Mukand Dass. The leases said to have been made by the defendant were further sought to be declared as ineffective and null and void. The grounds on which the suit was based were that the defendant was the manager of the Dera Samadh Udasi Baba Sarb Viapi and the land belonging to the said Samadh stood entered in the revenue papers in the name of Baba Sarb Viapi Samadh, the defendant being only a manager without any proprietary rights therein. The Dera was known as Dera Sarab Viapi. This Dera is accordingly an institution of public, religious and charitable nature and the manager had no right to transfer the property in anyway, or even to give it on long lease, he was also disentitled to appropriate or transfer the property of the Dera for his own personal requirements. The defendant was alleged to be proclaiming himself to be the owner with the object of utilising the entire property of the Dera for his own personal use as an absolute owner. He was also alleged to be openly violating the tenets of the said Samadh of Udasis. The moral character of the defendants was also attacked but the counsel before us has refrained from addressing any arguments on this point. Two lease -deeds for 99 years each were recited in the plaint as evidence of transfer of the Dera property, one was by means of a deed registered on 28th April, 1953 for a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - and the other was evidenced by a deed registered on 16th February, 1955 for a sum Rs. 7,500/ -. Further allegations were to the effect that the defendant was neither running a langer (free kitchen) nor was he serving food to the sadhus in the Dehra in accordance with the tenets of Udasi sect. He was also refraining from performing Arti Puja of the Samadh or burning incense or celebrating the festivals which used to be celebrated from ancient times and indeed he was refraining from providing any facilities for the purpose of these functions. He was further alleged to have opened a hotel in the Dera for supplying meat and liquor in direct disrespect to the Samadh, but this allegation has also not been persisted in before us. Mukand Dass plaintiff was in the end described to be the Chela of the defendant and, therefore, entitled in that capacity to be appointed a Mahant after the defendant's removal. The income of the Dera was described to be Rs. 500/ - per month and the defendant was alleged to have kept no account of the income nor was he prepared to render the accounts. It goes without saying that the plaintiff's claim to belong to Bhekh Udasi, having faith is the said Samadh.

(2.) IN the written statement, several preliminary objections were raised, the most important and glaring objection being denial of the existence of any trust property. There being no trust property, the suit was pleaded to be unmaintainable. On the merits against, the existence of Samadh Sarb Viapi Dera was denied and it was averred that the defendant used only to receive Rs. 18/ - per month from the Patiala State Government for the Samadh Sarb Viapi and there was no moveable or immoveable property belonging to the Samadh "received by way of waqf." The property and the land in dispute were claimed to be owned by the defer dant himself. In paragraph 4, it was again most emphati cally asserted that the allegation of there being a Dera and the disputed property being attached thereto was incorrect, on the other hand it was claimed to belong to the defendant; it was also denied that the defendant had violated any tenet of Samadh Sarav Viapi. As a matter of fact, according to his plea, "there could not be nor there were any tenets of the aforesaid Samadh." In paragraph, it was pleaded that when there was no Dera, the question of running any langar or supplying of food and amenities to Sadhus did not arise. The allegation of immorality was of course described to be false and baseless, having been made with a view to defame him the defendant claims to be an old man of 75 years. The execution and completion of the lease deeds was admitted. Regarding accounts, it was averred that the defendant's income was not so much that its account could be kept Eight issues were settled on the pleadings of the parties and after recording the evidence, the learned District Judge, Patiala, dismissed the suit in April, 1957, According to the Judgment of the learned District Judge, the defendant was not the owner of the property in dispute and he had no power to give the property attached to the Dera Baba Sarb Viapi, to the Chela or to any other person. As a matter of fact, the Court entertained no doubt that the premises in dispute had all along been treated by the predecessor of the defendant as well as by Patiala Government to be a religious and charitable institution and the Mahant had been drawing some amounts from the Government treasury periodically for celebrating important festivals on these premises; such amount being essentially in the nature of help given by the State to the religious institutions for the performance of religious affairs on certain occasions. The Court has thus unequivocally found the place in dispute to be a Dera of Udasis, the land in dispute to be the property of that Dera and the defendant Jai Ram Das to be a mere Mahant and manager of the Dera and the land. It has further been held that this Dera is associated with the name of its founder Baba Sarv Viapi whose samadh exists in it and it is a religious and charitable Trust for a public purpose. The land attached to this Dera has also been held to be inalienable. The plaintiffs have been found to belong to the Bekh of Udasi Sadhus with which this Dera is connected with the result that they are sufficiently interested in it so as to invoke section 92. Civil Procedure Code. Needless to state that the Advocate General's permission has been obtained for the present suit. Mukand Dass plaintiff's assertion that he is the defendant's chela has been negatived. Same is the position with regard to the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant has been guilty of non -observance of principles of the sect of Udasi Sadhus who have belief in the Samadh of Baba Sarv Viapi The defendant has accordingly been held not to be liable to be removed from Mahantship of the Dera on account of such non -observance. Indeed, according to the Court below, there is no convincing evidence led to show as to what are the principles of Udasi Bekh. In the end it has been observed that though the defendant could not grant leases for long terms, never -the -less in these proceedings the Court was helpless and it was left to the plaintiffs to take appropriate proceedings for setting aside those alienations. For the removal of a person from a religious office, in the view of the learned District Judge, something more than a mere unauthorised alienation is required to be proved and mere granting leases for long terms is, according to him, not sufficient to establish his unfitness to remain as a Mahant. The suit has for these reasons been dismissed.

(3.) IT is indisputable and indeed is not disputed before us that a Mahant or Shebait, who has accepted this office or acknowledged himself as such, is incapable of asserting any hostile title against the trust, such disability being implicit in any person who holds fiduciary position in relation to another. It is also his duty to keep regular accounts of the income of the trust property, for he is responsible for the due application of the trust money and is bound to keep regular accounts of income and expenses. The manner of keeping accounts, of course, depends to a large extent on the custom etc, obtaining in a particular institution but the obligation to maintain accounts is certainly implicit in the very office of a Mahant or a Shebait. As observed by a Bench of this Court in Gurdial Singh and others v. Mahant Harnam Singh, (1963) 65 P.L.R. 94, failure to keep proper accounts of the income of the dera and assertion of a hostile title of his own by the Mahant to the trust property are sufficient grounds for his removal. This view also seems to get support from a Privy Council decision in T.P. Srinivas Chariar and another v. C.N. Evalappa Mudaliar, A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 325, to which indeed reference was made by the Bench in the reported case. Reference has been made to some observations in a decision by Pandit J., and myself in Jaggar Singh v. Kartar Singh, (1961) 63 P.L.R. 117 at p. 120 where while dealing with the contention that the defendant there had admittedly not kept any accounts and that he was, therefore, liable to be removed on that ground, it was observed that it had not been shown in that case that the defendant's predecessor ever kept the accounts or that the plaintiffs or the residents of the village had ever scrutinised or examined any accounts kept by the Mahant who had held office prior to the defendant. With these observations, the Bench considered it proper to direct the defendant henceforth to maintain regular accounts. It appears that in the reported case there were some party factions in the village and the defendant had been put to a considerable expense on account of the litigation initiated by the plaintiffs and that the income of the institution was so meagre that even the maintenance of the lungar had to be discontinued. The observations relied upon in the reported case, therefore, must be construed to be confined to the facts and circumstances of that case alone.