NAND KISHORE ALIAS NAND BABA Vs. HEM RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will also dispose of R.F.A. No. 1794 of 1978 as both of them have arisen out of the same judgment of the Subordinate Judge First Class, Ludhiana, dated March 1, 1969.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant, Hem Raj, filed the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property, in dispute on the allegations that Mahant Mathra Das was the owner of the suit property. He died on November 13, 1966. He (the plaintiff) was appointed Senion Chela in 1963. Mahant Mathra Dass also executed two documents dated September 28, 1963 and December 13, 1965, regarding his appointment as such and that he had been treating him as such since the year 1963. It was specifically pleaded in paragraph 10 of the plaint that according to the family custom of the parties, a son could not be appointed a Chela, nor he could inherit the property in the presence of the Chela and as such, he inherited the property, in dispute, from Mahant Mathra Daas and was in its possession. Since the defendants did not admit his claim as a Senior Chela; hence the present suit. Nand Kishore, defendant-appellant, in his written statement denied the allegations of the plaintiff by Mahant Mathra Dass was also denied. Balram Dass, defendant, in his written statement denied the allegations and pleaded that he was appointed as chela of the Mahant and he inherited that the property in accordance with the said will. The plaintiff had got no concern with this property. The appointment of the plaintiff as the Chela of Mathra Dass was denied. The execution of the will in favour of the plaintiff and pleaded that he was appointed Chela by Mahant Mathra Dass and that regular ceremony in that regard was held on June 4, 1965. A will was also executed in his favour by Mahant Mathra Dass that very day which was later on registered on July 30, 1959. It is Exhibit D. 8. It was also pleaded that he was given the puggra by the bhek and as such he was the only Chela of Mahant Mathra Dass and, thus, entitled to succeed to the property in dispute. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :

(3.) Earlier a report dated September 5, 1986, was received from the trial Court, but since it was not in compliance with the remand order dated 24, 1985, the case was again sent for sending the report vide this Court order dated January 13, 1987. Consequently, the report dated April 6, 1987, has been received from the trial Court. According to its findings on the additional issue, it has been found that the plaintiff had led no evidence to prove that a son could not be appointed a Chela or that if he was appointed Chela, he could not succeed to the property of bairagi sadhus. As regards issues Nos. 4, 7 and 8, the plaintiff prodvced one Gian Parkash handwriting expert, who compared the signature of Mahant Mathra Dass on the document, Exhibit P. 2, dated September 28, 1965, with the signature on the will, Exhibit D. 8, set up by Balram Dass, defendant, whereas this defendant examined P.S. Ahuja, handwriting expert, in rebuttal. The trial Court after considering the statements of the said witnesses along with the earlier evidence on the record, affirmed the findings of the trial Court recorded earlier. Against the said report of the trial Court, written objections have been filed on behalf of Hem Raj, plaintiff, as well as by Nand Kishore, defendant.