Case: Mahant Amar Parkash and Others Vs. Parkasha Nand and Others

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirming that of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Nabha. The respondent plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that he was the Mahant of Dera Baba Khiali Das, Khansura, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, that he was entitled to manage the properties of the Dera and that the alienations made by Mahant Krishan Das and Amar Parkash were not binding on him. It was alleged by the plaintiff that Amar Parkash who held power of attorney from Mahant Krishan Das, the previous Mahant of the Dera, had mismanaged the properties and had granted leases of lands belonging to the Dera to his mistress and his brother-in-law. Mahant Krishan Das came to know about the mismanagement by Amar Parkash and cancelled the power of attorney which he had previously executed in favour of Amar Parkash. Mahant Krishan Das summoned the general assembly of the Udasi Ghekh and held a meeting, with the help of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and the Police, on 23rd July 1961. The meeting was attended by other Mahants of Udasi Bhekh. In the general assembly of the Udasi Bhekh, Mahant Krishan Das tendered resignation of office of Mahant on the ground of old age and ill health and appointed the plaintiff as his successor Mahant. This was accepted by all the Mahants of Udasi Bhekh. Mahant Krishan Das, treating the plaintiff as his Sadaq Chela, applied Tilak, performed Pagri ceremony with his own hand and duly installed the plaintiff as the Mahant. The visiting Mahants also performed the Pagri ceremony. Despite the installation of the plaintiff as Mahant of the Dera, Amar Parkash continued his activities and started obstructing the plaintiff from discharging his obligations as Mahant. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for a declaration that he was the Mahant of the Dera and for other reliefs. The defendant Amar Parkash raised the plea that the was the chela of Mahant Krishan Das and that Mahant Krishan Das who died on 30th December, 1961, had executed two Wills on 17th July, 1955 and 24th September, 1961, appointing him as the Mahant to succeed him. It was alleged that the proceedings which took place on 23rd July 1961 were the result of fraud and undue influence exercised over Mahant Krishan Das.On the pleadings of the parties the primary question which arose for consideration was whether the plaintiff was validly appointed as Mahant of Dera Baba Khiali Das. The learned Subordinate Judge. Nabha framed two principal issues.Issue No. 1 was:"What was the particular custom or usage prevailing in the Dera in dispute for the appointment of a Mahant on the relevant date ?"Issue No. 1-A was:"whether the plaintiff was validly appointed the Mahant of the Dera in accordance with the prevalent custom ?"The learned Subordinate Judge noticed that neither party pleaded or referred to any particular usage or custom for appointing a Mahant for the disputed Dera. He also noticed that the documentary evidence showed that the final appointment of Mahants for Deras in the Nabha State was required to be approved by the Ruler of the State. Leaving the matter there, the learned Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff was duly and validly installed as Mahant of the Dera by Mahant Krishan Das in the presence of and with the approval of Udasi Bhekh. He held that the plea of fraud and undue influence raised by the defendant was not established. On those findings the suit was decreed. The first defendant Amar Parkash preferred an appeal to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. During the pendency of the appeal the plaintiff sought an amendment of the plaint in order to enable him to expressly plead the particular custom relating to succession to the office of the Mahant of Dera Baba Khiali Das. The amendment was allowed and the High Court directed the Subordinate Judge to record additional evidence and submit a report giving his finding on the question whether the custom pleaded by the plaintiff was established and if so, whether the plaintiff was appointed in accordance with such custom. After recording additional evidence the learned Subordinate Judge submitted a report to the effect that the custom alleged by the plaintiff was not established and that upto 1948 the practice was for the Ruler of Nabha State to appoint the Mahant. After receiving the report of the learned Subordinate Judge, the High Court heard the appeal. It was conceded by the learned Counsel for the appellant before the High Court that in view of the report of the learned Subordinate Judge, the appeal should be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced before the Trial Court prior to the order of the High Court cal ling for a report from the Trial Court. On that basis the learned Counsel for the appellant attacked the finding on issue No. 1-A only and did not assail the findings on the other issues. The High Court confirmed the finding of the Trial Court that there was no undue influence exercised over Mahant Krishan Das and that the plaintiff was validly appointed and installed as Mahant of the Dera.

Reasoning: On the question whether late Mahant Krishan Das was subjected to any pressure to appoint the plaintiff as Mahant, both the Courts below have concurrently found that he was subjected to no such pressure. The finding is one of fact and we are unable to see any ground justifying our interference with a concurrent finding of fact. Shri Hardyal Hardy submitted that the High Court failed t o consider the complaint said to have been made by late Mahant Krishan Das a few days after the installation of the plaintiff as Mahant in which he stated that he had been coerced into appointing the plaintiff as Mahant. Shri Hardyal Hardy also submitted that the evidence showed that the services of the Police had been requisitioned to pressurise late Mahant Krishan Das. The submission that the High Court did not consider the complaint said to have been made by late Mahant Krishan Das is without basis since we find that the High Court did refer to the complaint. The High Court confirmed the finding of the Trial Court that late Mahant Krishan Das who was previously under the influence of Amar Parkash had again come under the influence of Amar Parkash when he made the complaint. With regard to the presence of the Police at the installation ceremony we are of the view that the presence of the police, at the ceremony, far from advancing the appellants case, destroys the case that Mahant Krishan Das acted under coercionWe are satisfied that late Mahant Krishan Das accepted the plaintiff as his Chela and appointed him as his successor Mahant. We may also mention here that the learned Subordinate Judge in his report mentioned that Pandit Bhagtanand who was previously a Mahant of the Dera was not a Chela of his predecessor Mahant Sunder Das and that Mahant Krishan Das himself was not a Chela of his predecessor Mahant Bhagtanand.