MAHANT HAR KISHEN DAS Vs. SATGUR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This consolidated appeal arises out of execution proceedings in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Bahraich to enforce a certain provision in a decree made on 28th November 1927, by a Judge of the Chief Court of Oudh in its original jurisdiction. This decree had been modified as a result of appeals to that Court in its appellate jurisdiction and to His Majesty in Council. The decree of the Appellate Bench is dated 2 May, 1928, and the judgment of the Board was delivered on 18 January 1932 [Sat gut Prasad V/s. Har Narain Das. (1932) 19 AIR PC 89]. The suit in which the decree was passed was brought on 21 February 1927, by Mahant Har Narain Das (in this judgment referred to as Narain Das) against the present respondent, whom their Lordships will refer to as Satgur Prasad, and two other persons. The plaintiff's case in outline was as follows :

(2.) For many years there had existed in the City of Lucknow a sangat or Udasi shrine to the mahant of which valuable taluqdari property and certain other property moveable and immovable belonged. This institution had been founded by one Baba Hasara in the eighteenth century or earlier ; and at the annexation of Oudh the taluqa had been granted to the then mahant (Gur Narain Das) by a primogeniture sanad and entered in lists 1 and 2 prepared under S. 8 of Act 1 of 1869 (The Oudh Estates Act). The other immovable properties had been acquired by the succeeding mahant (Har Charan Das) who died in 1910 and was succeeded as mahant by one Sant Rain Das. When Sant Rain Das died on 8 January 1922, the plaintiff succeeded him as gurubhai, i. e. as having been with him a chela of his guru Har Charan Das ; but claims to succeed to the property were made by Sheoraj liner, mother of Sant Rain Das, and also by the respondent Satgur Prasad (then aged about 16 years). The claim made for the latter was that he had been chela to Sant Rain Das and was entitled therefore to be mahant. This dispute was compromised by an agreement dated 20 January 1922, which in substance provided that the plaintiff should hold the properties for life, and Satgur Prasad should be remainderman. In 1924 however the respondent Satgur Prasad induced the plaintiff to enter into an agreement dated 25 November 1921 whereby the whole of the properties were released to the respondent on the terms (inter alia) that the plaintiff would receive a monthly allowance of Rs.1000. Under this agreement the respondent, in addition to the immovables, obtained possession of the cash at the banks and estate treasuries together with the proceeds of War Bonds and other effects. The amount of money so obtained by the respondent was specified (in Sch. C of the plaint) as amounting to over two lacs of rupees. [For the purposes of the present case two items fall to be deducted and the amount may be taken as Rupees 1,83,000.]

(3.) The plaint alleged that by the agreement of 20 January 1922, the respondent was to succeed the plaintiff as mahant and was to become and behave himself as a Udasi and to appoint a successor of that sect, but that the respondent had violated these obligations and had failed to pay the plaintiff's monthly allowance. Also that the plaintiff's consent to the agreement of 25 November 1924, had been obtained by the fraud and undue influence of the respondent and his co-defendants. By the decree (28 November 1927) of the trial Judge (Pullan J.) the deed of 25 November 1924, was set aside, and the plaintiff was held entitled to possession of the immovable properties mentioned in Schs. A and B to the plaint as well as of the properties in Sch. C and to mesne profits (to be subsequently ascertained). A declaration was also made that the respondent was not entitled to any benefit under the agreement of 20 January 1922; but this declaration was set aside by the Appellate Bench. The appellate decree (2 May, 1928) affirmed the relief given as to the agreement of 25th November 1924, and the order for possession of the properties in Schs. A, B and C of the plaint, but determined that mesne profits were to be calculated as from the date of the suit (21 February 1927) and not from the date of the agreement. The question as to the date from which mesne profits should be calculated was the only point on which the appellate decree was modified by His Majesty in Council in 1932.