RSA. No.1723 of 1983 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA. No.1723 of 1983 Date of Decision 14.11.2011 Kundan Lal son of Pt. Des Raj son of Devi Ditta (through LRs) …………Appellant Versus Atam Parkash and others ……Respondents Present: Ms. Alka Sarin, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate and Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No -.- K. KANNAN J. I. Law involved 1. The point involved in the second appeal is whether a person, who has taken to Sanyas leaves his blood relations as heirs or the spiritual lineage of a Chela to take right in the property left behind by the Sanyasi. II. Geneology – Basis for claim of the respective parties 2. The plaintiff’s suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the Appellate Court. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of RSA. No.1723 of 1983 -2- possession of the property in the hands of the 1st defendant, who admittedly claimed to be a Chela of Gokal Chand @ Kesar Bharti. The genealogy as brought through the pleading is reproduced:- Devi Dutt _________________________________ Nand Lal Des Raj Gokal Chand @ Kesar Bharti _________________ (died issuelss) Kundal lal Sikander Lal (plaintiff-appellant) (defendant- R.No.3) died on 7.5.2007 not traceable _________________________________________________________________ Khairati Lal Jagdish Chander Smt. Kaushlya Kimti Lal Smt. Neelam Rama Devi Impleaded as LRs on the basis of Will dated 12.07.2000 3. Gokal Chand @ Kesar Bharti died in the year 1976 and the suit had been filed by the plaintiff Kundan Lal for the relief of possession from the hands of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant has himself died and certain registered Trusts represented through trustees, who claim to be in possession of the properties have been brought on record. There seems to be rival contentions amongst the representatives of the 1st defendant themselves but I will not take them as relevant for consideration in this case, for it will be a matter for adjudication amongst the contesting respondents to resolve the issue by independent proceedings. The application for impleadment of parties have been allowed specifically reserving to RSA. No.1723 of 1983 -3- them the right to contend as to who shall be entitled to manage the properties. The point for consideration in this second appeal is of whether the plaintiff could claim himself to be the legal heir of the deceased Gokal Chand @ Kesar Bharti as an agnate of the deceased or whether the property would go to the hands of the 1st defendant, who claimed to be his Chela. III. Findings of Courts below-their raison d’tre 4. During the course of trial, the plaintiff introduced rather a strange contention that Kesar Bharti had married before partition in the place now in Pakistan and had even a child who was later anointed as Kishan Bharti, who was the 1st defendant. The attempt of the plaintiff was to show that Gokal Chand was not a Sanyasi attached to any religious order whose death could deviate succession from blood relations. The trial Court found on a matter of fact that the deceased Kesar Bharti was a Sanyasi, who renounced the world and the 1st defendant had also been anointed as his Chela by appropriate religious ceremonies. Evidence of villagers and persons connected with the 1st defendant had been examined and photographs had also been filed to show that there had been a Pagri ceremony and the assumption of the religious office was accompanied with all religious rituals. The trial Court also reasoned that the plaintiff’s contention that Gokal Chand had married and the 1st defendant, who was actually his own son, was actually destructive to the plaintiff’s own case, for if he had been married and the 1st defendant was his son then the plaintiff could not even treat himself as a legal heir to stake a claim in the property. The Appellate Court affirmed all the findings. RSA. No.1723 of 1983 -4- IV. Substantial questions of law, as framed 5. On the basis of pleadings and findings brought through the judgment, following questions of law have been framed:- (i) Whether after holding on issue No.3 that the suit property was the self acquired property of Kesar Bharti, the Courts below could still hold that defendant No.1 was entitled to inherit the same merely because he was the alleged chela of Kesar Bharti? (ii) Whether in the absence of evidence on the record that Kesar Bharti had dedicated his self acquired property to the religious sect, the Courts below could hold his alleged chela to be entitled to the same? (iii) Whether the initiation of Kesar Bharti into the religious sect has been proved in accordance with law? (iv) Whether in the absence of a Will, the property would devolve on the legal heirs as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act? V. Decisions considered – Effect of Sanyas 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that if the property is admitted to be a separate property of Gokal Chand and did not belong to any religious order, the plaintiff as a legal heir and the nearest agnate was entitled to succeed to the estate. Learned counsel would rely on the judgment in Krishan Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir and others AIR 1980 SC 707 to contend that without proof of religious ceremonies, line of succession cannot deviate from the succession to a legal heir, as per the rules of succession mentioned under the Hindu Succession Act. Learned counsel RSA. No.1723 of 1983 -5- appearing for the respondents would rely on the judgment of the Privy Council in Pandit Parma Nand Vs. Nihal Chand and another AIR 1938 Privy Council 195, which has also been referred to by the trial Court and Appellate Court to contend that even a private property acquired by a Mahant descends to a Chela and a descent to a Chela does not warrant its nature as religious. Learned counsel also refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sital Das Vs. Sant Ram and others AIR 1954 SC 606 that held that entrance into religious order generally operates as a civil death. The man who becomes an ascetic severs his connection with the members of his natural family and being adopted by his preceptor becomes, so to say a spiritual son of the latter. VI. A Sanyasi need not be attached to any particular religious order – A secular sanyasi is not opposed to tradition 7. It may seem a contradiction in terms that a Sanyasi that renounces the world leaves large properties for persons to fight for. A Mahant or Sanyasi that renounces the world cannot normally be expected to carry large chunk of properties in his peregrination. A Sanyasi, who is said to renounce the world, cannot be attached to property. But strange are the ways of world that it is ever an experience that Mahants and Sanyasis come to possess large estate and revel in luxury. It is normally expected that Sansayis or Mahants, who come by large donations from disciples secure the benefits of such acquisitions for the public at large and not for personal consumption. A Sanyasi may not at all times be professing any particular religion. A person that truly transcends sectarian approaches of ordinary mortals could alone be said to be a person, RSA. No.1723 of 1983 -6- who is liberated. In this case, an attempt is made by plaintiff to show that the Gokal Chand was not attached to any particular religious order. The properties held by him ought to therefore devolve only on the blood relations and it ought not to be taken as a property acquired or endowed to any Mahant or Math. VII. Voluminous evidence available to find the formal induction of 1 st defendant to Sanyas 8. These contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant will have to be seen from the perspective of how the plaintiff makes a claim to the property in the suit. The pleadings admit of no ambiguity that the plaintiff was contending that Gokal Chand @ Kesar Bharti was the owner in possession of the land and after his death about two years and ten months before the institution of the suit in the year 1978 leaving behind no child or widow, the property came to be in the possession of the 1st defendant. The claim by the appellant and the claim by the plaintiff in the suit was that Atam Parkash, the 1st defendant had taken illegal possession of the property before the suit. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court found that even in the transactions of sales, by Kesar Bharti, he did not describe himself as son of his father but in all the transactions of sales, he had described only as Swami Kesar Bharti. It is also to be seen that although the plaintiff sought to give evidence that the 1st defendant was himself a son born to Kesar Bharti through his wife, the averment in the plaint was that he died issueless. The defendant had produced the evidence DW-2 as Sarpanch of the village who stated that all the villagers knew Kesar Bharti as a Sanyasi having come to India from the place now in RSA. No.1723 of 1983 -7- Pakistan. He also stated that the 1st defendant was anointed as his Chela even when he was in Pakistan and he had appointed the 2nd defendant Sat Sharan as a 2nd Chela. He spoke from personal knowledge that after the death of Kesar Bharti, Sh. Dayal Bharti had come from Jammu and Sewa Bharti had come from Hardwar to give pagris to these Chelas. Photographs had also been produced before the Court at trial. The witnesses claimed that the plaintiff was present at the time of those ceremonies and he had also signed in some registers when mutations had been sanctioned in favour of Atam Parkash. In particular, witnesses DW2, DW3, DW5 and DW8 had also given evidence about the presence of plaintiffs at the time of Pagri ceremony. The trial Court noticed that no question had been asked even to the photographer, who produced the photographs that they were not taken by him or that such ceremony was not conducted. Several respectables were said to have assembled on 21.02.1976 for the gathering in the village of Talwandi Purdil after the death of Kesar Bharti and when Atam Parkash was given the Pagri. There were voluminous evidence recorded by the trial Court to say that the 1st defendant was the Chela of Kesar Bharti and Kesar Bharti lived the life of Sanyasi. I do not feel compelled to reopen the issue of a pure question of fact relating to the deceased Kesar Bharti as a Sanyasi and that the 1st defendant had been his Chela. VIII. Applying law enunciated to facts 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Krishna Singh’s case (supra) that the strict rule enjoined by the Smriti writers as a result of which Sudras were considered to be incapable of entering the RSA. No.1723 of 1983 -8- order of yati or sanyasi has ceased to be valid. The Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded the fact that the existing practice all over India is quite contrary to the orthodox view and Courts shall apply wherever the usage is established, according to which the Sudra could enter into a religious order and it should have no difficulty in upholding such contention. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would try to take benefit from the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishna Singh’s case (supra) that held that in order to prove that a person has adopted a life of Sanyasi, it must be shown that he has actually relinquished or abandoned all worldly possessions and relinquished all desire for them or that such ceremonies are performed, which indicate the severance of his natural family and his secular life. It must also be proved in a case of orthodox sanyasis that necessary ceremonies were also performed. It is nobody’s contention that religious orthodoxy prevailed for the life of Kesar Bharti or the 1st defendant. I have already observed that there was weighty evidence placed before the trial Court that the deceased Kesar Bharti lived a life of Sanyasi and 1st defendant had been anointed as a Chela. Such fact established through evidence cannot be displaced lightly. The plaintiff cannot stake his claim to the properties. The Privy Council’s view in Pandit Parma Nand’s case referred to above underscores the fact that there is no reason to hold that an Udasi cannot acquire private property with his own money or by his own exertions. If he does acquire property, it cannot be inherited by his natural relations but passes on his death to spiritual heir including his Chela, who is recognized as his spiritual son. The descent of the property from a RSA. No.1723 of 1983 -9- guru to his Chela does not warrant the presumption that it is religious property. The decision of the Privy Council and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court very clearly conclude the issue as far as the point of law that is taken in this case is concerned. IX. Conclusion 10. The decisions of the Courts below the plaintiff cannot be a heir and that the 1st defendant was the heir are affirmed. It is irrelevant whether the deceased had joined any particular religious sect and a secular sanyasi is not an anathema to tradition. A sanyasi could also own property and the chela to a sanyasi is verily the legal heir to succeed to the property. The propositions raised are answered accordingly, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 14, 2011 Pankaj*