Case: Brahma Nand Puri Vs. Neki Puri

and not hereditary anyone who lays claims to the office on the basis of a hereditary title resting on Chelaship simpliciter or Gurbhaiship simpliciter must establish it. (See also Jiwan Das v. Hira Das, AIR 1937 Lah 311). Though, no doubt, the usage of one institution is no guide to that of another, it may be mentioned that in regard to the succession of the Mahantship, of a Thakurdwara belonging to the Ram Kabir Sect of Hindu Bairagis in district Jullundur in the Punjab this Court held in Sital Das v. Sant Ram, AIR 1954 SC 606 , that the usage required an appointment by the fraternity before a person could become a Mahant. On the basis, therefore, of the passage in Rattigans Digest, which we have extracted, it appears to us that the first of the submissions made by Mr. Chatterji cannot be upheld. In fact, the tenor of para 5 of the plaint we have extraced earlier itself shows a consciousness on the part of the plaintiff himself that he considered that an appointment by the Bhekh was necessary to clothe him with the title to the Gaddi besides his status as a Gurbhai. No doubt the plaintiff was a Gurbhai but he had not established that he had been appointed by the Bhekh or fraternity. In the absence of such appointment under the law and apart from any special custom pertaining to this institution the appellant could claim no title to the Gaddi by his being a Gurbhai.10. This takes us to the second point urged by Mr. Chatterji that on the evidence the plaintiff had made out the special custom pertaining to this institution that no appointment by the Bhekh was necessary before a Chela or Gurbhai could succeed to the Gaddi. We have been taken through the entire evidence in the case. In the first place; there are no documents on any thing in writing in support of the custom and the matter depends entrely on the testimony of witnesses produced before the Court. P.W. 4 who claimed to be a Bheky of this Dera stated in chief examination :"According to the custom of our Bhekh if a Mahant died without leaving a Chela his Gurbhai became the successor. If, however, there is Chela he is the successor."In cross examination he stated :"The custom of succession stated by me above is written nowhere; it is followed by us."and then he continued : ."In village Bata there is a Sanyasi Dera. There also Prabhi Puri Chela was not found to be a good man and Sunder Puri Gurbhai of the last Mahant was installed. In Guna there is a Sanyasi Dera. Lachhman Gir Sanyasi died without leaving a Chela. His Gurbhai Phag Gir succeeded him to the Gaddi."It would be seen that there was nothing specific in his evidence about the absence of an appointment by the Bhekh in those instances which is the special customs which the plaintiff sought to prove by this evidence. P.W. 11 is another witness to whose evidence reference was made. He stated in his chief examination :"According to the custom of the Bhekh if a Mahant leaves no Chela, his Gurbhai succeeds to the Gaddi."In cross examination he stated :"The custom of succession which I have deposed to above is at par with the General Hindu Customary Law ..... There might be many instances. But I cannot recall to my mind any such instance now. "P.W. 13 belongs to a different Dera but he claimed that the Dera at Kharak was similar to his institution and stated in his chief examination :"Amongst us if a Sadhu does not leave a Chela, the Gaddi goes to his Gurbhai. There is an instance in the Gurdwara of Kosli near my Dera of a Gurbhai succeeding a Mahant in the absence of a Chela. There is another such instance of Dera at Nangri in Rajasthan."The evidence of P.W. 16 was similar :"MY Guru succeeded to the Gaddi as Gurubhai of the last Mahant."Evidence of P.Ws. 17 and 18 was identical with that of the witnesses who precedent them :"According to custom of the Bhekh if a Mahant dies without leaving a Chela his Gurbhai succeeds."It would be seen from this evidence : (1) that it is lacking in particulars as regards the instances, and (2) there is nothing stated as to whether even in the instances referred to, there was no recognition, appointment or confirmation by the Bhekh which according to Rattigan is part of the customary law of the Punjab as the source of title for the Mahantship. We are, therefore, not prepared to hold that the appellant has established the custom which he put forward in paragraph 8 of his plaint in derogation of the ordinary law, viz., that without an appointment by the Bhekh or fraternity a Chela or, in his absence, a Gurbhai succeeds to the headship of a Dera. The plaintiffs suit was, therefore, in our opinion, properly dismissed.11. Mr. Naunit Lal-learned Counsel for the respondent urged that the learned single Judge was in error in reversing the finding of the first appellate Court that Neki Puri had proved that he was a Chela of Kishan Puri the deceased Mahant. It might be noticed that the Division Bench had concurred in the views expressed by the learned single Judge as regards the defects in the judgment of the first appellate Court on its findings on this issue. Learned Counsel submitted that the learned single Judge fell into serious errors in interfering with a finding of fact. Though we are satisfied that certain portions of the judgment of the learned single Judge had suffered from erros, we do not propose to examine this question as the same is wholly unnecessary for the disposal of this appeal. It is only in the event of our accepting the submissions of Mr. Chatterji that the correctness of the reversal of the finding of the Chelaship of Neki Puri would have become material.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Though, no doubt, the usage of one institution is no guide to that of another, it may be mentioned that in regard to the succession of the Mahantship, of a Thakurdwara belonging to the Ram Kabir Sect of Hindu Bairagis in district Jullundur in the Punjab this Court held in Sital Das v. Sant Ram, AIR 1954 SC 606  , that the usage required an appointment by the fraternity before a person could become a Mahant. On the basis, therefore, of the passage in Rattigans Digest, which we have extracted, it appears to us that the first of the submissions made by Mr. Chatterji cannot be upheld. In fact, the tenor of para 5 of the plaint we have extraced earlier itself shows a consciousness on the part of the plaintiff himself that he considered that an appointment by the Bhekh was necessary to clothe him with the title to the Gaddi besides his status as a Gurbhai. No doubt the plaintiff was a Gurbhai but he had not established that he had been appointed by the Bhekh or fraternity. In the absence of such appointment under the law and apart from any special custom pertaining to this institution the appellant could claim no title to the Gaddi by his being a Gurbhai.10. This takes us to the second point urged by Mr. Chatterji that on the evidence the plaintiff had made out the special custom pertaining to this institution that no appointment by the Bhekh was necessary before a Chela or Gurbhai could succeed to the Gaddi. We have been taken through the entire evidence in the case. In the first place; there are no documents on any thing in writing in support of the custom and the matter depends entrely on the testimony of witnesses produced before thewould be seen that there was nothing specific in his evidence about the absence of an appointment by the Bhekh in those instances which is the special customs which the plaintiff sought to prove by thiswould be seen from this evidence : (1) that it is lacking in particulars as regards the instances, and (2) there is nothing stated as to whether even in the instances referred to, there was no recognition, appointment or confirmation by the Bhekh which according to Rattigan is part of the customary law of the Punjab as the source of title for the Mahantship. We are, therefore, not prepared to hold that the appellant has established the custom which he put forward in paragraph 8 of his plaint in derogation of the ordinary law, viz., that without an appointment by the Bhekh or fraternity a Chela or, in his absence, a Gurbhai succeeds to the headship of a Dera. The plaintiffs suit was, therefore, in our opinion, properlywe are satisfied that certain portions of the judgment of the learned single Judge had suffered from erros, we do not propose to examine this question as the same is wholly unnecessary for the disposal of this appeal. It is only in the event of our accepting the submissions of Mr. Chatterji that the correctness of the reversal of the finding of the Chelaship of Neki Puri would have become material.Pausing here, we might mention that Mr. Chatterji referred us to the circumstance that during the pendency of the appeal in this Court Neki Puri had died and that certain others who, he stated, had even less claims to the Mahantship were in possession of the property and that seeing that the appellant was admittedly a Gurbhai it would be most inappropriate that his rights should be overlooked and a stranger permitted to squat on the property.We consider this submission is devoid of force. The plaintiffs suit being one for ejectment he has to succeed or fail on the title he established and if he cannot succeed on the strength of his title his suit must fail notwithstanding that the defendant in possession has no title to the property, assuming learned Counsel is right in thattherefore, dismiss this aspect of the case fromparagraph 85 it would follow that the office of Mahant being usually elective and not hereditary anyone who lays claims to the office on the basis of a hereditary title resting on Chelaship simpliciter or Gurbhaiship simpliciter must establish it. (See also Jiwan Das v. Hira Das, AIR 1937 Lah 311).Though, no doubt, the usage of one institution is no guide to that of another, it may be mentioned that in regard to the succession of the Mahantship, of a Thakurdwara belonging to the Ram Kabir Sect of Hindu Bairagis in district Jullundur in the Punjab this Court held in Sital Das v. Sant Ram, AIR 1954 SC 606  , that the usage required an appointment by the fraternity before a person could become a Mahant. On the basis, therefore, of the passage in Rattigans Digest, which we have extracted, it appears to us that the first of the submissions made by Mr. Chatterji cannot be upheld. In fact, the tenor of para 5 of the plaint we have extraced earlier itself shows a consciousness on the part of the plaintiff himself that he considered that an appointment by the Bhekh was necessary to clothe him with the title to the Gaddi besides his status as a Gurbhai. No doubt the plaintiff was a Gurbhai but he had not established that he had been appointed by the Bhekh or fraternity. In the absence of such appointment under the law and apart from any special custom pertaining to this institution the appellant could claim no title to the Gaddi by his being a Gurbhai.