RAMCHANDRAJI MAHARAJ Vs. LALJI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Patna dated 30-6-1952, reversing a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna, dated 1-5-1951, given in a suit instituted by the plaintiff appellant for a declaration that the perpetual lease dated 6-9-1944 executed by Mahant Parsuram Dass in favour of the defendants was void and legally ineffectual and for recovery of possession of the same. Mahant Parsuram Dass was the shebait of the Pita Maheshwar Thakurbari, Gaya. The plaintiff, Mahant Jairani Dass was initiated by him as Chela, and after his initiation he renounce ed the world and became an ascetic and dedicated his properties consisting of 5 annas 4 pies milkiat interest in village Salempur Kura, tauzi No. 17435 in the district of Patna, to the deities installed and consecrated in the said Thakurbari by a registered deed (Samarpannama) dated 27-6-1937. By this dedication he also imposed a condition on the shebaits of the Thakurbari that they were to be absolutely debarred from making any sort of alienation. The deities through their shebait Mahant Parsu-ram Dass entered into possession of the dedicated properties. Notwithstanding the restraint on the power of alienation, Mahant Parsuram Dass executed in favour of the defendants, in consideration of a salami of Rs. 5000, a registered deed of perpetual lease dated 6-9-1944 leasing out to them the dedicated properties and also 4 decimals (1 katha) of Jagir land, out of 17 kathas 10 dhurs comprised in survey plot No. 643 appertaining to khata No. 128 situate in mauza Kasthua at an annual rental of Rs. 40. The entire leasehold properties are situate in the district of Patna, with the exception of the aforesaid 1 katha Kasthua land in the district of Gaya. It is said that the defendants obtained possession of these properties. Due to old age and infirmity Mahant Parsuram Dass retired from Mahantship and the management of the properties of the Thakurbari and appointed the plaintiff, Mahant Jairam Dass, his Chela, as his successor and shebait of the Thakurbari, by a registered instrument dated 20-5-1947. The plaintiff assumed the management of the properties as shebait. A year later on 2-5-1948 Mahant Parsuram Das,s died. On 9-7-1949 the plaintiff instituted the present suit for avoidance of the perpetual lease and for recovery of possession of the suit properties. The case made out by the plaintiff is that the perpetual lease was legally invalid and did not pass a good title to the defendants, because, first, there was fraud on the registration, inasmuch as the land of 4 decimals in the district of Gaya was fraudulently inserted in the deed to obtain registration thereof in the district of Gaya; second, by the deed of dedication Mahant Parsuram Dass, his Guru, and the previous shebait, had no power to alienate the properties, and, third, there was no justifying legal necessity.

(2.) The defendants contested the suit and traversed all the allegations of the plaintiff. Their defence was that there was sufficient legal necessity to justify the alienation, that there was no fraud on registration, as the land of 4 decimals in the district of Gaya was really conveyed to them and they entered into possession and that the condition imposed by the Samarpannama placing limitation on the power of disposal by the Mahant was void and unenforceable at law.

(3.) Both the Courts below concurrently held that there was no fraud on registration and that the Gaya property was intended to be conveyed and was in fact conveyed to the defendants. On the questions of legal necessity and the power of the Mahant. there was a divergence of opinion between the Additional Subordinate Judge and the District) Judge, the former finding in favour of the plaintiff and the latter in favour of the defendants, with the result that the suit was decreed by the additional Subordinate Judge and was dismissed on appeal by the District Judge.