PANDIT PARMA NAND Vs. NIHAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the town of Gujranwala, there is a building variously described as Baghichi Thakaran or Gurdwara Baghichi, and the main issue, which their Lordships have to determine in this appeal, is whether that building, together with the shops and other property attached to it, is the subject-matter of a trust for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature. The issue was raised by the defendants who, claiming to be the representatives of the Hindu public, made an application to the District Judge under S. 3, Charitable and Religious Trusts Act (No. 14 of 1920) alleging that the Baghichi Thakaran was a public endowment for religious and charitable purposes, and called upon Mahant Narain Das, who was described by them as the trustee of the endowment, to furnish details of the nature and purposes of the trust, and of the value of the property belonging to the trust, and also to render an account of the income and expenditure of the trust property. Their allegations were contested by Narain Das, and the controversy between the parties led to the present action brought by Narain Das for the purpose of obtaining an authoritative pronouncement upon the nature of the trust and of the property attached to it. The trial Judge found against the public character of the alleged trust; but his judgment has been reversed by, the High Court of Judicature at Lahore. From the judgment pronounced by the High Court and the decree which followed upon it, this appeal has been brought to His Majesty in Council by Pandit Parma Nand who, on the death of Narain Das, was impleaded as his legal representative.

(2.) The learned Judges of the High Court, after a careful consideration of the question of onus, have endorsed the conclusion of the trial Judge that it was for the defendants to prove that the plaintiff, who was admittedly in possession of the property, held it on a trust created for public purposes of charitable and religious nature. The history of the Baghichi Thakaran or Gurdwara Baghichi may be briefly stated. The Baghichi was founded by one Baba Kulla or Kuljas who died about 1800 A. D. He was a Khatri by caste, and migrated from a place called Saidnagar to Gujranwala, where he took up a plot of land and built a house thereon. He also planted a garden, which was the origin of the name Baghichi (orchard) usually applied to this institution. Baba Kulla was succeeded by his chela, Thakar Ram Das who was an Arora by caste. It is stated that Ram Das practised as a physician, and that while he was in charge of the Baghichi Thakaran he made improvements to the building. It was however Ram Das's successor, Sant Das, who made considerable extensions and also acquired house and shop property at Gujranwala. The prosperity of the institution was mainly due to Narain Das who succeeded Sant Das on his death in 1879. Narain Das acquired properties at Nankana Sahib, and also built shops at Gujranwala. The annual income of the various properties during the time of Narain Das rose from Rs. 1394 in 1905 to Rs.7664 in 1923. It was probably this abnormal rise in the income which attracted the attention of the respondents who made the application under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act which led to this litigation. It appears that the person, who happened to be in charge of the Baghichi, was called mahant; and that the Baghichi itself was known as Gurdwara. But the main property, which is the subject- matter of the dispute, was acquired by the person or persons who occupied the office of mahant.

(3.) The principal ground, upon which the judgment of the High Court proceeds, is that the Baghichi and other properties have descended from guru (religious preceptor) to chela (religious disciple); but this circumstance does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that a property, when acquired by a mahant, loses its secular character and partakes of religious character. It is common ground that the mahants of this institution belonged to an ascetic order called Udasi. The Udasis rarely marry ; and, if they do so, generally lose all influence; for the dharamsala or Gurdwara soon becomes a private residence closed to strangers : Maelagan's Census Report for the Punjab, Part 1, Chap. 4, p. 152. When a person enters the Udasi order, he severs his connexion with the members of his natural family: It follows that neither he nor his natural relative can succeed to the property held by the other. There is however no reason for holding that an Udasi cannot acquire private property with his own money or by his own exertions. If he does acquire private property, it cannot be inherited by his natural relatives, but passes on his death to his spiritual heir including his chela who is recognized as his spiritual son. The descent of the property from a guru to his chela does not warrant the presumption that it is religious property.