SURAJ PRAKASH PURI Vs. SANT LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs. They had filed a suit for a, declaration that the property in dispute was the property dedicated to God Shiva appertaining to the muth in village Mirzapur Damodar of which mohant Ramavatar Puri, defendant 20, was the mahant and that the mokarrari lease executed by him on 25 May 1926 in favour of the defendants first party was invalid and illegal as the mohant had no right to create that mokarrari as it was created without legal necessity. The defendants first party transferred the lease to the defendants second: party. The plaintiff alleged that as mahant Barnavatar Gir had abdicated in his favour on 20 January 1934, he was entitled to file this suit.

(2.) The reliefs sought in the plaint were that the mokarrari lease should be set aside and that he should be allowed to recover possession of the property valued at Rs. 300 and also for a money decree for a sum of Rs. 800 against the defendants on the ground that the defendants had cut away almost all the trees on the land. The defendants first party did not contest the suit. The suit was mainly contested by the defendants second party, although written statements were filed on behalf of the minor defendants 22 to 24 and on behalf of defendant 15 to 18 and on behalf of one Lachmi Rai. The defence was that the plaintiff had no right to sue because Mahant Ramavatar Gir was still the mahant of the muth and that he had not abdicated. It was also alleged that they had not cut away the trees and the defendants second party urged that if the trees had been cut away they must have been cut away by the defendants first party before the defendants first party transferred the property to them; that the property which was the subject-matter of the mokarrari lease was the personal property of the mahant and therefore the transfer could not be questioned.

(3.) The trial Court held that the property appertained to the muth and as in the absence of any legal necessity no permanent lease should be created and as no legal necessity was proved in this case, therefore it held that the transfer was not valid against the successors. He also held in favour of the plaintiff on the question of abdication by Mahant Ramavatar Gir. Therefore he decreed the suit as against the defendants second party for possession and he decreed the suit against the defendants first party for money because he held that the trees were cut away before the defendants first party transferred the mokarrari property to the defendants second party. Then there was an appeal to the lower Appellate Court on behalf of the defendants second party.