BALAK DAS Vs. BHAGWAN DAS ALIAS BHAGWAN BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is directed against an order dated 4-6-57 passed by Sri J. P. Gupta, a Magistrate of the first class at Gopalganj by which, in a proceeding under Section 145 of the C. P. C. he held opposite party Bhagwan Bhagat, who was second party in that proceeding, to be in peaceful possession of the di-sputed land and ordered him to continue in possession until ousted by a competent Court.

(2.) The dispute relates to three plots, bearing Nos. 594, 595 and 1457 in village Chanawe. At Turki in the district of Muzaffarpur there is an As-thai. Subordinate to this Asthal there are Asthals at different places, viz., Chanawe, Bhujali and Har-bansa. It is undisputed that all these Asthals are subordinate to the principal Asthal at Turki. One Narsingh Das was appointed Mahant of Turki Muth an 1937. It is beyond controversy that he was in possession of all properties attached to the principal as well as the subordinate Asthals. On 17-12-51 Narsingh Das executed a deed of nomination whereby he nominated petitioner Girjanandan Bhagat, one of his disciples, as his successor. This was followed by another document dated 15-9-52, whereby Narsingh Das appointed Girjanandan Bhagat as Mahant of Turki and the subordinate Asthals. In due course, the name of Girjanandan Bhagat was mutated in Register D and in the landlord's Sarishta. The case of the petitioners is that Bhagwan Das, another disciple of Narsingh Das, had been deputed by the latter to look after the properties at Chanawe as his agent or Karinda. After the appointment of the petitioner No. 2 as the next Mahant Bhagwan Das is said to have shown hostility towards him as a result of which there were several litigations between them. Eventually Girjanandan Bhagat deputed Balak Das, petitioner No. 1, to Chanawe Muth to look after the properties there as his agent in place of Bhagwan Das. This led to friction and eventually the present proceeding under Section 145 was drawn up.

(3.) The opposite party No. 1 denied that the petitioner No. 2 had been appointed the Mahant of Turki. He claimed that after the abdication of Narsingh Das he himself was selected 'Mahant of Turki Mutb. He contends that he has been in possession of these properties on his own account.