RSA No.531 of 2006 ( 1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.531 of 2006 Date of Decision: 29.7.2009 Mahant Sukhdev Muni ......Appellant Versus Budh Ram and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Jasbir Rattan, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri A.K. Goel, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the appeal filed by defendant No.1 was accepted and the suit for declaration that the plaintiff as Mohtmim/Mahant of Dera Dera Baba Beri Sahib Udasian Akahara Bara, village Juner, Tehsil Malerkotla, was dismissed. Dera Baba Beri Sahib Udasian Akahara Bara, village Juner, Tehsil Malerkotla, is owner of the land measuring 43 bighas 19 biswas. The plaintiff claimed to be its Mohtmim/Mahant being Chela of Mahant Dhunni Dass, having been appointed as such by said Mahant vide a writing dated 10.10.1989. On the other hand, defendant No.1 has taken up a stand that he RSA No.531 of 2006 ( 2) is a duly appointed Mohtmim/Mahant having been appointed in the presence of devotees, respectables and Mahants of Udasian Bhekh. The learned trial Court has decreed the suit, inter-alia, on the ground that defendant No.1 is a devout Sikh and, therefore, is not eligible for appointment as a Mahant and, therefore, is not eligible for appointment as a Mahant. Whereas in appeal, the said finding was reversed and the suit dismissed. The learned first Appellate Court has found that as per the averments made in paras 2 and 4 of the plaint, it is the pleaded case of the plaintiff himself that Mahant Prem Dass, was Mahant/Mohatmim of the Dera who was appointed as such by the Nagar Panchayat and Saints of Udasian Beikh, who were Mahants of other Deras. After the death of Mahant Prem Dass, his Chela Sant Ram became the Mahant/Mohatmim of the Dera, who was also appointed by the village respectables and Mahants of Udasian Deras. After the death of Mahant Sant Ram, his Chela Dhunni Dass was appointed as Mahant/Mohatmim of the Dera in the presence of Nagar Panchayat, Sadhu Samaj and Mahants of the Deras and a writing dated 2.11.1982 was also executed. Thus, it was held that the following three tests were required to be proved for appointment of a Mahant/Mohatmim:- (i)Mehantship/Mohatmimship goes from Guru To Chela; (ii)Mahant/Mohatmim is appointed after the death of previous Mahant; and (iii)Mahant is appointed by Nagar Panchayat and Saints of Udasian Beikh. On the basis of the said tests, it was found that the plaintiff is claiming appointment as Mohtmim on the basis of writing dated 10.10.1989, Exhibit RSA No.531 of 2006 ( 3) P1/B and Exhibit PW7/A. The said document does not satisfy the requirement of appointment of Mohatmim, as delineated by the plaintiff himself in the plaint. On the other hand, it was found that Gram Sabha, Juner passed a resolution, whereby Dhunni Dass was appointed as a Mahant. It was on 25.5.1995, the Resolution Exhibit D.3, the defendant No.1 was appointed as a Mahant in a meeting of the Gram Sabha and in the presence of the respectables of the village and Mahants of other Deras Udasian. The learned first Appellate Court found that the appointment of defendant No.1 as a Mahant is proved in terms of customs of the Dera as culled out by the plaintiff himself. The argument that defendant No.1 is a devout Sikh and he is a cashier of Gurdwara is of no consequence. Any person can be appointed as a Mahant, provided he has a belief and faith in the tenets of that particular Dera. Therefore, there is no embargo in defendant No.1 being appointed as Mahant. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 29-07-2009 ds