BAIJNATH Vs. RAM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two second appeals by the defendant Baijnath arising out of two separate suits id both of which the plaintiffs were the same, Tholia and his son Ram Nath. Tholia having died, his son Brahm Nath has been brought on record as his legal representative in the second appeal. The brothers Ram Nath and Brahm Nath are thus the plaintiffs-respondents in both these appeals.

(2.) Both the suits were dismissed by the trial Court but decreed on appeal by the District Judge of Chamba. The present second appeals were thereupon filed by Baijnath in the Court of the Chief Judge of Chamba. Under Notfn. no. 3. 7915/48, dated 14-1-1949, read with Section 36, Chamba State Courts Act, the Baijnath vs. Ram Nath and Ors. (25.11.1950 -HPHC) Page 2 of 5 Chief Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh referred to the Judicial Committee for its opinion cases that were pending in the Chief Court of Chamba. That is how these second appeals are now before me as Judicial Committee.

(3.) The two suits were for recovery of value of offerings made on the occasion of Navamala ceremonies, corrupted in local parlance into Nawala ceremonies. The ceremony in one case was performed at the house of one Ashwani Kumar and in the other in that of one Mataditta, and they were the respective co defendants with Baijnath in the two suits. In the suit against Ashwani Kumar one Turath Nath officiated for Baijnath, and therefore he was also joined as a defendant. Tholia and Ram Nath claimed to be hereditary yogis entitled to preside over the said ceremonies in Chamba town, where both Ashwani Kumar and Mataditta resided, to the exclusion of everybody else. It was pleaded on their behalf therefore that the yajmans Ashwani Kumar and Mataditta had no right to call Baijnath at the Navamala ceremonies at their houses, and Baijnath had no right to preside over them and appropriate the offerings. The defence was that the plaintiffs were not the hereditary yogis, and that the yajmans in Chamba town were not bound to call any particular yogi to preside over such ceremonies, but that they were at liberty to accept at such ceremonies the ministrations of any yogi they chose. The lower appellate Court has passed decrees in both the suits against the alleged usurper Baijnath for certain sums of money, being price of offerings at the aforesaid ceremonies, and he has, therefore, filed the present second appeals.