Mahant Dooj Das (Dead) Through Lr vs Udasin Panchayati Bara Akhara & Anr

respondent No.1 (for convenience hereinafter referred to as "defendant No.1") to be void and cancelling the same. The suit was filed on the allegations that Mahant Tahal Dass was Udasin of Panth of Revered Shrichand. In the said Panth there is a custom that Mahant cannot marry and he is entitled to initiate a 'Chela'. After the death of Mahant, his eldest chela Dooj Das succeeded to all rights and interests in the properties of his Guru. It is also a custom in the Panth that on the tenth day of the death of Guru there is a ceremony called Dassehra. Akhand Path of Guru Granth Saheb is performed and Bhog is offered and eldest chela of the deceased Guru is acknowledged as the heir of the deceased, whereafter he is known as 'Mahant'. Mahant Tahal Dass initiated the plaintiff-Dooj Das as his chela on 23.7.1937 at the Dera of Bhetiwala, Tehsil Muktasar, District Ferozpur in accordance with the custom, in the presence of respectable persons and from that day the plaintiff became the chela of Mahant Tahal Dass. Mahant Tahal Dass died on 5.12.1957 and the plaintiff being the eldest chela was recognized and acknowledged as successor of the deceased Mahant and thereafter was known as Mahant Dooj Dass. The plaintiff succeeded to all rights, properties and assets of Mahant Tahal Dass. Meanwhile, before the death of Mahant Tahal Dass, defendants Prag Dass, Ishwar Dass and Hari Dass were also initiated as chelas by him. The plaintiff being the eldest chela, succeeded to all the properties left by his Guru, according to the custom. Mahant Tahal Dass acquired the suit properties by permanent leases measuring 71 Bighas, 15 Biswa and 15 Biswansi Kachi situated at Bhupatwala Kalan, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil Roorkee, Distt. Saharanpur within the limits of Municipal Board, Hardwar. Mahant Tahal Dass was the permanent lessee of these lands and he was in occupation thereof. He was cultivating the same through his men and sewaks. He was paying lagan also. After the death of Tahal Dass, the plaintiff became the permanent lessee of all the lands. He also had right therein as being the eldest chela, heir and successor of Mahant Tahal Dass. On the occasion of Ardh Kumbhi, the plantiff went to Hardwar for the first time on 11.4.1968 after the death of his Guru to have a dip in the holy Ganges on the sacred day along with his sewaks and there he learnt that one Budh Dass (since deceased) claimed himself to be the chela of Mahant Tahal Dass and transferred the rights under the leases to defendant No.1 through defendant No.2/respondent No.2 (for convenience hereinafter referred to as "defendant No.2") and, therefore, he obtained a certified copy of the sale deed on 19.4.1968. Budh Dass was never initiated as chela by Mahant Tahal Dass and, therefore, he had no right, title and interest over the suit lands. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did not derive any right or title in the suit properties by the sale deed. The sale deed was in collusion with defendants Nos. 1 and 2.

2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement denying the custom alleged in the plaint. As per the defendants, the plaintiff was never initiated as the chela of Mahant Tahal Dass. The last rites of Mahant Tahal Dass were denied to have been performed by the plaintiff. However, the defendants admitted that Mahant Tahal Dass had properties at Bhittiwala, Sheikha, Govindgarh, Karamwala, Rampura and Bhupatwala (Hardwar). It is also admitted that Mahant Tahal Dass died in the year 1957 and the suit property belonged to Tahal Dass on permanent leasehold rights. It is alleged that U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 is applicable to the suit lands and under the Act, proceedings in respect of the lands cannot be initiated in civil court and as such civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is further pleaded that the defendants had purchased the suit properties bonafide for a consideration of Rs.32,000/- from Budh Dass, who died three years before the institution of the suit. In the written statement, it was alleged that Budh Dass, the transferor who was the chela of Tahal Dass, succeeded to the properties situated at Bhupatwala, Hardwar after the death of his Guru Mahant Tahal Dass.

17. Thus, from the aforesaid decisions, it is now well established principle of law that the ouster of jurisdiction of a civil court is not readily accepted and heavy burden of proof lies on the party who asserts that the civil court's jurisdiction is ousted and some other court, tribunal or authority has been vested with jurisdiction.

26. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the civil court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in deciding the matter and the High Court after holding all the issues in favour of the plaintiff has erroneously dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that it was beyond competence of the civil court. The judgment of the High Court so far as it holds that the civil court has no jurisdiction and reversal of the decree passed by the appellate court, is therefore required to be set aside. Accordingly, the High Court's judgment is set aside and the decree passed by the first appellate court is confirmed. The appeal is allowed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-.