SATNAM SINGH Vs. BAWAN BHAGWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is the "gaddinashin owner" of the property named in the plaint and the mahanth of Chaitan Math, a Sikh Math, in the city of Benares. The late mahanth, Ratan Singh, died on 23 June 1928 leaving the defendant-appellant, Satnam Singh, in possession of the math property, after nominating him as his successor and executing a will in his favour. The plaintiff, who is now called Bawan Bhagwan Singh, is by birth a Brahmin, whose Hindu name was Murli, and is the son of a man originally named Mahadeo, who acted as cook of the late mahant for several years. Both father and son were converted, to Sikhism and renamed Hardeo Singh and Bawan Bhagwan Singh, and both, according to the evidence for the plaintiff, were initiated as chelas of the late mahant; and subsequently on 13 April 1928, Bhagwan Singh was installed as mahant under the guardianship of his father, but was afterwards turned out in favour of the appellant, Satnam Singh. The case for the plaintiff was that the will executed by the late mahant in favour of Satnam Singh on 5 June 1928 was a collusive document obtained by fraud and undue pressure, and that in view of the fact that the plaintiff had himself been installed as mahant during the life-time of the late mahant, it was invalid, and the ceremonies of nominating Satnam Singh during the lifetime of the late mahant and subsequently installing him were ineffective. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant, Satnam Singh, on the grounds that the plaintiff was not a chela of Ratan Singh's (in the written statement it was said that he was not even a Sikh, but this objection was dropped), that he was never installed as mahant, and that the defendant-appellant himself was a chela and had been nominated and duly installed as mahant; and amongst his evidence he included two photographs of groups taken at his nomination and installation ceremonies. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the will of the late mahant was duly executed, and that there was no doubt also that the ceremonies of nominating and installing the appellant were observed; but he has also found that the appellant was not a "chela" of the late mahant s. As regards the plaintiff, the finding is that he was duly installed first, and consequently that the late mahant had no longer any disposing power when he executed the will in favour of the appellant, so that it was of no effect, as were the ceremonies of nominating and installing the appellant.

(2.) The circumstances that led up to the suit, so far as they appear from the evidence, are as follows: According to the plaintiff and his witnesses, the plaintiff's father, Hardeo Singh (who is a party to the suit), who had been acting as a cook to the late mahant for the last 10 or 11 years, and the plaintiff himself were initiated as chelas on 16 March 1927. There has been some juggling with the alleged date of this initiation, for at one time it is said to have been in 1984 Sambat, and that is the date given in the plaint. But the trial Court has found that the earlier date is correct, and we do not feel justified in differing from this decision. As we are clearly of opinion that the plaintiff, and his father were initiated as chelas, the exact date on which the ceremony took place is not of great importance. On 23 March, 1928 there was a meeting of Nirmal Sadhuis in Benares and a resolution was passed urging the mahant not to give the gaddi to Bhagwan Singh. The meeting has been described by Narhari Narain Singh, a witness for the plaintiff, who stated that, in order to organise the opposition, a president and secretary were appointed, and it was decided that sadhus should be deputed to the Punjab for holding meetings and passing resolutions, etc.; some documents were produced in evidence by the plaintiff to show that these meetings took place and that these resolutions were passed, and some of these are shown by the evidence for the plaintiff to have been received by the maharot, but their authenticity has not been proved. For instance, Exs. 7-11 show that letters were received by the mahant purporting to convey to him the disapproval of the mahants and sants of the maths in various places at the proposed installation of Bhagwan Singh. We cannot accept these documents as proof that the Sikhs in distant parts were agitated at the proposed installation but they do at any rate show that the mahant had received warning that trouble was brewing. On 13 April, a Sikh named Go pal Singh made an application to the District Magistrate of Benares, in which he said: For the present I may inform you that Mahant Ratan Singh, who is incharge of the Nirmala (Sikh Sadhu) Math...had made up his mind to appoint his successor a minor boy of about 12 years, who is the son of his cook and quite unfit for the responsible position being entrusted to him. The Sikhs and the Sikh Sadhus (Nirmalas) of this place as well as of the Punjab are all against this act of the said Mahant, and hence this agitation here as well as in the Punjab among the Sikhs.... The said Math yields a monthly income of about Rs. 1,000 only. Hence it is highly desirable to save it from deterioration in passing into unworthy hands.

(3.) This application was sent to the City Magistrate, Mr. Upadhiya who sent for the mahant and on 27 April recorded an order that there was no danger of breach of the peace and that no steps need be taken. It may be mentioned here that in his evidence Gopal Singh stated that he knew that the gaddi ceremony was to take place on 13 April. It was on that date that the ceremony of installing the plaintiff-respondent, Bhagwan Singh, took place, if indeed it took place at all. On 19 April, the "AJ," a newspaper published at Benares, printed a notice of the gaddi ceremony over the name of Bindraban Singh, a Khattri of Benares, who gave evidence to show that he had sent this notice to the paper with the consent of mahant Ratan Singh; and further, that as there was apparently a contradiction to the notice, two further letters were sent signed by mahant Ratan Singh and dated 21 April, Ex. 18, and 25 April Ex. 14-1 or 22, in which it is stated that the mahant had given the gaddi to Bhagwan Singh and Hardeo Singh after having initiated them in the Ninmali Sampardah and made them his disciples. The importance of this evidence will appear when we have to consider whether the ceremony of installing Bhagwan Singh really did take place.