BABA JAGTANAND BRAMCHARI Vs. BARHMDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal by the plaintiff Baba Jagtanand Brahmchari whose suit has been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge of Gorakhpur. The suit as brought was in the first instance for a declaration that a number of sale deeds between 1893 and 1916 were not binding on the math and Mahadeoji installed in mauza Mathia Muafi in Gorakhpur district and the plaintiff might be put in possession of the property. Later, this relief was struck out and the relief asked was a simple decree for possession of the property in favour of the plaintiff. This point is of importance because the allegations for a suit asking for the first relief are materially different from the allegations in a suit asking for possession. The plaintiff headed his plaint by describing himself as "disciple of Swami Lachchmi Charan, deceased, residing at the math at mauza Mathia Muafi." It would appear therefore that he at first thought of claiming as a disciple or chela of one of the mahants, but that was not proved by the evidence and the learned Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff states that he does not now claim to be a chela of a mahant. The status of the plaintiff is set out in para. 10 of the plaint: The plaintiff is also a Nihang Sanyasi. He has, for the last four years, been performing all the religious services relating to the math and Shri Mahadeoji, installed in the said math. He has also started a Sanskrit and Hindi Pathshala under the auspices of the said math. He personally performs the service and worship of Shri Mahadeoji aforesaid and imparts religious teachings and has it done by others.

(2.) The table attached to the plaint shows that the property in question is situated in a number of villages. There were various written statements. One of these, on page 13, para. 5 states that there was never any math in mauza Mathia and in para. 10: The entire mauza Mathia Muafi was originally the family property of Mahipal Singh.... The ancestors of the said proprietors personally gave some land by way of birt to Shambhu Gir, Ratan Gir, Thamman Gir, Bhawani Bakhsh Upadhia, Kunjan Gir and Pargash Singh. Thus the persons mentioned at the end were the owners in possession of the property aforesaid and in every way entitled to transfer it. Accordingly, on the death of Shambhu Gir, his son and disciple Bundel Gir, became owner in possession by right of inheritance....

(3.) The Court framed issue 1 which was: "Whether the plaintiff can maintain the present suit or is it barred by Section 92, Civil P.C.?" The latter part of the issue does not now arise as the suit was altered to one for possession. On page 22 the plaintiff gave evidence and he stated that his residence was at math Kuber Nath which is another place from the alleged math at mauza Mathia. He states on page 23, line 27: I was born in mauza Koraya at a distance of 5 or 6 miles from village Mathia Muafi...my wife is alive, but I have no issue.