BADHU JANA MAHAJAN Vs. SHREE SATPANTH SANSTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) His Lordship after stating the facts, which are summarised above, continued as follows : On behalf of the plaintiff his learned advocate has argued two points. It is contended, first, that the Leva Satpanthi Samaj had authorised the loan resulting in the passing of the promissory note and of the agreement to execute the mortgage, and it is argued next that the promissory note and the agreement to execute the mortgage were justified by legal necessity. Before dealing with these two points it may be convenient to set out the conclusions to which the learned trial Judge has come. He said that it was clear that Shree Satpanthi Sansthan was treated as belonging to Leva Satpanthi community, that he was convinced that Shree Satpanthi Sansthan, Faizpur, belonged to Leva Satpanthi Samaj or Leva Satpanthi community and that other non-Leva Patidar Satpanthis had no right over it. He also concluded that Shree Satpanthi Sansthan was not a Devasthan but that the same was property belonging to Leva Patidar Satpanthi community. He next said that he was convinced that exhibit 47 which is a proceeding of the general meeting held on October 15, 1924, was a concocted document; and he came to the conclusion that Dharma had no authority to pass the promissory note on behalf of the Sansthan as there was no sanction for incurring the expenses by the plaintiff for the two suits by the Leva Satpanthi community and that a large portion of the amount was barred by time. In effect he held that the promissory note in suit, was not valid and that the agreement to execute the mortgage was also not valid.

(2.) In order to understand the first question as to whether the Leva Satpanthi community had sanctioned the loan for the two suits filed in 1924, it will be necessary once again to refer to the proceedings of that meeting. It may be noted that although on that date a meeting of the Mahamandal was held, as also a general meeting the proceedings of the general meeting were not recorded in the proceeding book used for the meetings of the Mahamandal. It was said, therefore, as one of the grounds, that the document exhibit 47 was a concoction. The learned Judge has given several reasons for saying that that document was a concoction and those grounds I shall examine in a moment. After discussing the grounds and relevant evidence his Lordship proceeded :

(3.) The question whether exhibit 47 is a concoction or not is to be decided by some indication contained in the document itself and, if there is any, as we understand the proceedings and the circumstances of the case, we think that this ground is not certainly justified. In our view, therefore, the learned Judge was wrong in holding that exhibit 47 which records the proceedings of the general meeting of October 15, 1924, was a concocted document.