Case: Sital Das Vs. Sant Ram &amp; Others

The facts material for our present purpose may be briefly stated as follows: There is a Thakardwara or religious institution belonging to the Ram Kabir sect of Hindu Bairagis situated at Mouza Jamsher within the district of Jullundur. One Kishore Das was admittedly the last Mahant of the Thakardwara, who died on the 4th of April 1945. On the 31st March 1945, that is to say just four days before his death, Kishore Das granted a lease in respect of 645 Kanals of land, appurtenant to the endowment, for a period of 10 years in favour of defendants respondents 1 and 2 at an annual rental of Rs.1,500 only. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was instituted by Sital Das, who is the appellant before us, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class Jullundur on 2nd January 1946 making the two lessees, mentioned above, parties defendants, for recovery of possession of the lands comprised in the lease, on the allegation that Sital Das was the legally appointed Mahant of the Thakardwara after the death of Kishore Das and that the lease, executed by the latter, was illegal and inoperative by the latter, was illegal and inoperative on grounds, inter alia that it was a colourable transaction, executed without consideration and not supported by legal necessity.Sital Das was admittedly not a disciple of Kishore Das, the last Mahant, and he based his claim as superior of the institution solely on the ground that he was duly appointed as Mahant by the Bhek of the assembly of Bairagi Mahants of the same order, to which Kishore Das belonged, along with Sewaks or worshippers of the Thakardwara itself.2. In the plaint, as it was originally framed, two other persons were joined asalong with Sital Das; one of them was Mahant Hira Das who purported to be the head of a Bairagi institution at Sahri, said to be the parent institution of the Thakardwara in dispute, and the other was Sadhu Ram Das, whose disciple Sital Das is and who claimed to belong to the same spiritual fraternity as Kishore Das.It was stated in paragraph 4 of the plaint that these two persons had obtained the consent of theunder section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code to file a suit under that section in respect of the properties of the Jamsher Thakardwara, alleged to be improperly alienated by Kishore Das, and the reason for joining them asalong with Sital Das was that in case the court held that Sital Das was not a validly appointed Mahant, the other two plaintiffs would be able to continue the suit, as persons interested in the endowments, against the lessees.3. On the 28th March 1946 the trial judge made an order to the effect that as plaintiff No. 1 was alleged to be the lawfully appointed Mahant, plaintiffs 2 and 3 could not claim to have simultaneously the same rights with him and the joinder of plaintiffs in this form was likely to create confusion and embarrass the trial of the suit; and the plaint therefore should be amended, and either the plaintiff No. 1 alone, or plaintiffs 2 and 3 together, should appear as claimants. In pursuance of this order, the plaint was amended and the names of plaintiffs 2 and 3 were deleted from the record. The amended plaint was filed on the 17th of April 1946.4. The defendants 1 and 2 filed their written statement on the 28th March 1946, the same day on which the order for amendment of the plaint was passed by the Subordinate Judge, and the contentions raised by them in their written statement were substantially of acharacter. It was contended, in the first place, that it was not the plaintiff but one Ishar Das who was the legal Mahant and administrator of the Thakardwara at Jamsher after the death of Kishore Das. The said Ishar Das was therefore a necessary party to the suit which was not maintainable at the instance of Sital Das at all. The second plea raised was that the plaintiff was not appointed as Mahant by the "Bhek, as alleged in the plaint, and that he, not being a disciple of the last Mahant, had no right to be so appointed. The third point raised related to the validity of the lease impugned by the plaintiff and it was asserted that the lease was executed for good consideration and for legal necessity and was hence binding on the institution.5. It appears that on the 24th July 1946 a copy of a registered will, alleged to have been executed by Kishore Das only four days before his death, was produced in court and by that will the testator purported to appoint Ishar Das and Lachman Das, described as his two disciples, joint managers of the Thakardwara after his death. Upon this, the Subordinate Judge made an order directing that Ishar Das and Lachman Das should be added as parties defendants in order that the suit may be decided in their presence.This was done and on that very day, namely, the 24th of July1946, the plaintiff put in an amended petition of plaint impleading Ishar Das and Lachman Das as defendants 3 and 4 to the suit. A new paragraph was added to the plaint in which it was stated that if any will or wills were at all executed by Kishore Das in favour of defendants 3 and 4 the same were fictitious and collusive. The deceased Mahant, it was said, had no right to make a testamentary disposition of his rights as Mahant and such disposition could not affect in any way the rights of the plaintiff. On the 26th October1946, Ishar Das and Lachman Das, who were the added defendants, put in their written statement; and in substance, they pleaded that the plaintiff, not being a chela of the deceased Mahant, was not eligible for appointment as mahant at all and that the Bhek could not and did not appoint him as such. The will left by Kishore Das was asserted to be a valid and genuine document by which his two disciples were appointed his successors. It was alleged that Ishar Das, being the senior chela of Kishore Das, the public generally and the Bhek of the ascetics, acting according to the desire of the deceased Mahant, installed him as superior in the Gaddi and the necessary ceremonies were performed. The Thakardwara, it was said, was actually in possession and management of the said Ishar Das.6. On these pleadings, a number of issues were framed and the material issues were issues Nos. 1 and 4.The first issue related to the title of the plaintiff as a validly appointed Mahant of the institution and his competency to maintain the suit.The fourth issue raised the question as to whether Ishar Das, the defendant No. 3 was a valid chela of the deceased Mahant and was duly appointed as successor by him or the Bhek, or was otherwise entitled to succeed?This issues 2 and 3 related to the validity and binding character of the lease executed by Kishore Das in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and its liability to be challenged by the plaintiff.7. The trial judge, by his judgment dated the 31st of May 1948, decided all these issues in favour of the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge took the view that according to the custom prevailing in the institution, the ultimate authority to appoint a Mahant rested with the "Bhek and the "Sewaks, irrespective of the fact whether the claimant was a chela or in any other way spiritually connected with the last incumbent.It was found as a fact however that the plaintiff Sital Das was a spiritual collateral of the late Kishore Das and came within the description of what is called a Bhatija chela The Subordinate Judge found further that the plaintiff was duly appointed Mahant by the Bhek of the Bairagi ascetics as well as by the Sewaks of the temple. As regards Ishar Das, it was held that his original name was Ujagar Singh and he was never a Chela of the late Mahant, nor had he renounced the world. There was also no proper evidence to show that he was appointed Mahant by the Bhek or the Sewaks. Lastly, it was held that the lease was not executed for legal necessity and was not binding on the institution. The recital of payment of Rs. 5,000/as premium for the lease was found to be fictious and the rent reserved to be grossly inadequate. On these findings, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the plaintiffs claim and passed a decree in his favour as prayed for.8. Against this decision there was an appeal taken by the defendants to the Punjab High Court and the appeal was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Khosla and Harnam Singh JJ.The only points canvassed before the High Court were those covered by issues 1 and 4. The learned Judges held differing from the trial Court, that Sital Das was not able to prove that he was a spiritual agnate of the deceased Mahant, nor was it established that the meeting held at Jamsher on the 23rd July 1945, at which Sital Das was said to have been appointed was a proper meeting of the Bhek and the Sewaks. The result was that Sital Das was held to have failed in establishing his title as a validly appointed Mahant and on this ground alone the learned Judges allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. It was considered unnecessary to decide the other points which were raised in the suit.It is against this decision that the plaintiff has come up on appeal to this court on the strength of a certificate given by the High Court under Article 133 of the Constitution read with sections 109 and 110 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Court's reasoning:
12. In our opinion the custom that is proved to exist in this Bairagi institution, in matters of succession to Mahantship, is that the Bhek of the Bairagis and the worshippers of the temple together appoint the successor, but the appointment has got to be made from the disciples of the deceased Mahant, if he has left any and failing disciples, any one of his spiritual kindred like a Gurubhai, Bhatija chela or a Pota chela could be appointed. The defendants case is true to this extent that if a disciple of the Mahant exists he has the first right to be appointed, except in case of proved disability; but it would not be correct to say that none but a disciple is eligible to become a Mahant. In that case if the Mahant does not leave a chela behind him no appointment could at all be made. It cannot also be disputed that the Mahantship is not hereditary in the sense that on the death of an existing Mahant his chela; succeeds to the office as a matter of course. He can acquire rights only by appointment and the authority to appoint is vested in the Bhek and the Sewaks. This has been judicially noticed in the caseA number of witnesses have been examined by both sides on this point and while the plaintiffs witnesses assert that Ishar Das, who was Sikh Jat by birth, never became a Bairagi and never was adopted as a chela by Kishore Das, the defendants witnesses say that he was in fact a chela and lived with Kishore Das. We cannot place much reliance upon oral evidence of such a character and basing our conclusion on the documentary evidence referred to above, we have no hesitation in holding in agreement with the Subordinate Judge, that it has not been proved in this case that Ishar Das was the Chela of Kishore Das or that any chela was left by Kishore Das at the time of his death. This being our conclusion it is not necessary to go in the other question as to whether Ishar Das was at all appointed a Mahant by the Bhek and Sewaks as alleged by him.19.The points that now require consideration are: whether the plaintiff Sital Das was eligible for a appointment as Mahant of the Thakardwara in accordance with the custom of the institution and whether in fact he was so appointed.As has been said already, although the authority to appoint the successor of a Mahant rests with the Bhek and the Sewaks the appointment could be made only of a person who was the disciple of the last Mahant and, failing that, was one spiritually connected with him.It is well known that entrance into a 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. The other disciples of his Guru are regarded as his brothers, while theof his Guru are looked upon as uncles and in this way a spiritual family is established on the analogy of a natural family.The plaintiffs case is that he is a Bhatija chela of Mahant Kishor Das he being a descendant of the fourth degree from Ram Krishna Das through whom Kishore Das also traced his spiritual lineage. Kishore Das was admittedly a disciple of one Behari Das whose Guru Chetan Das was the disciple of Ram Krishna Das. On the other hand Ram Krishna Das is said to have another disciple named Brahm Das whose disciple Mangal Das was the Guru of Sadhu Ram Das and the plaintiff Sital Das is admittedly a disciple of Sadhu Ram.If this story is believed to be true, it is not disputed that Sital Das would rank as a Bhatija chela or spiritual collateral of Kishore Das. The trial judge accepted this story as correct and in support of his decision relied upon the evidence of the plaintiff and some of the Mahant witnesses examined by him. Reliance was also placed upon a judgment (Ex.given in Civil Suit No. 24 of 1912 of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Jullundur in which Kishore Das along with one Vidya Das figured as plaintiffs and Mangal Das, who was so to say the spiritual grandfather of Sital Das, was one of the defendants. The High Court has rejected the case of the plaintiff on this point substantially on two grounds.According to the learned Judges, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff falls short of establishing that Ram Krishna Das was the common spiritual ancestor of Kishore Das and the plaintiff. The other ground assigned is that the judgment (Ex.is not admissible in evidence under any of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and no reliance could consequently be placed upon it.In our opinion neither of these grounds appears to be sound. Two of the Mahant witnesses examined by the plaintiff said in their deposition that Sital Das was the Bhatija Chela of Kishore Das. They mentioned the names of some of the spiritual ascendants of both of them, though Ram Krishna Das was not specifically mentioned as the common spiritual ancestor. Mahant Hira Das says in his deposition:"Sital Das is not a Chela of Kishore Das. He is his Bhatija chela ...... Kishore Das was chela of Behari Das. Behari Das was the chela of Chetan Das .... The Guru of Chetan Das was Ram Krishna Das".According to this witness, Ram Krishna was the spiritual ascendant of Kishore Das. He does not specifically say that Ram Krishna was a spiritual ancestor of Sital Das also and no such question seems to have been put to him. He says however definitely that Sital Das was a Bhatija Chela of Kishore Das. Mahant Balak Das (C/P.W. 3) also says that Sital Das is the Bhatija chela of Kishore Das. He mentions the name of Sadhu Ram as the Guru of Sital Das but could not say who was the Guru of Sadhu Ram or of Kishoreplaintiffs case really was that Ram Krishna Das was the spiritual ancestor of both himself as well as of Kishore Das and the only omission in his statement was that he did not say in so many words that Ram Krishna Das was the Guru of Brahm Das. We think that this slight lacuna in the evidence upon which so much stress has been laid by the learned Judges of the High Court could very well be deemed to have been filled up by the judgment (Ex.This judgment, it is to be noted, was given in a suit instituted by two plaintiffs to wit, Kishore Das and Vidya Das to set aside the alienation of property made by Mangal Das who was the Mahant of a Thakardwara in Jullundur city. This Mangal Das was admitedly the Guru of Sadhu Ram Das whose disciple the plaintiff is. Kishore Das, the succession to whose office is theof dispute in the present litigation was one of the plaintiffs in the suit and he as well as Vidya Das based their right to impeach the alienation of property made by Mangal Das on the ground of their being the spiritual collaterals of the latter. In his judgment the Subordinate Judge of Jullundur set out a pedigree which shows the relationship between Kishore Das and Vidya Das on the one hand and Mangal Das on the other and this relation is traced through Ram Krishna Das, the common ancestor.We agree with the High Court that in the absence of any evidence to show as to who propounded this pedigree which the subordinate Judge acted upon, it is not possible to say that it was an admission by Kishore Das through whom Ishar Das lays his claim and consequently the pedigree would not be an admission relevant under section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act. But the judgment itself, we think can be received in evidence under section 13 of the Evidence Act as a transaction in which Kishore Das, from whom Ishar Das purports to derive his title, asserted his right as a spiritual collateral of Mangal Das and on that footing got a decree. The decree also recognised the right of Kishore Das to institute the suit as such collateral. We think therefore that the judgment could be received in evidence and although it is not by any means conclusive and has got to be weighed and appraised for what it is worth, it can be used in support of the oral evidence adduced in the case. It is to be noted that this part of the plaintiffs story was not challenged by the defendants in their evidence at all. In our opinion therefore on the evidence on the record it is fully established that Sital Das was a spiritual collateral of Kishore Das.21.Coming now to the question as to whether the plaintiff was appointed a Mahant by the Bhek of the Bairagis and the Sewaks of the Thakardwara, it seems to us that the decision arrived at by the learned Judges of the High Court proceeds upon a misappreciation of the evidence onfull description of the events, that happened from the date of the death of Kishore Das which took place on 4th of April 1945 down to 23rd July 1945 when Sital Das was said to have been elected as Mahant, by the Bhek and the Sewaks contained in a register kept by Mahant Ram Charan Das P. W. 3 which has been proved by him and made an exhibit in this case. Ram Charan Das is a Shri Mahant and is the head of a Bairagi Thakardwara at Nakodar.It is true that he belongs not to the Ram Kabir sect of Bairagis but to an allied order called Ram Thamman, but it is not disputed that he is a Shri Mahant of Ramanand Doaba Mandal which is a Mandal of Bairagis of Jullundur. It is admitted by Mathura Das, a witness for defendants, that in the absence of the Shri Mahant of ones own Sampradaya Ram Charan was competent to give the Turban, that is to say to appoint a Mahant. The story as told by Ram Charan Das in his deposition and which is supported by the entries in the register (P. W. 3/2) is briefly as follows : Kishore Das died on the 4th of April 1945. The Chautha ceremony was performed by Mahant Hira Das of Sahri Thakardwara and on the 16th of April 1945 the Kirya Karam was solemnised. Hira Das then proceeded to Hardwar with the earthly remains of Kishore Das to immerse them in the Ganges. On the 17th of July 1945 Hira Das presented a petition to the Mandal praying that a Mahant might be appointed forthwith and it was not proper to keep the Gaddi vacant so long.It may be stated here that Hira Das himself was a candidate for the office of the Mahant. On the 23rd July 1945 the Bhek of the Bairagis and the Sewaks assembled at the Thakardwara at Jamsher appointed the plaintiff Sital Das as Mahant. The report shows that Sital Das was a Sadhu from his boyhood upwards and there was absolutely no complaint against him. Ten or twelve Mahants of the Bairagis of the locality were present at the gathering and so also were a large number of worshippers. After Havan, the ceremony in connection with the Pagri (Turban) was performed and the whole congregation touched the Pagri and Hira Das tied it on the head of Sital Das.22. There is a complete record of these proceedings which was signed by the worshippers present there and we do not think that its genuineness can be seriously questioned. Besides Ram Charan Das, three other Bairagi Mahants, who have been examined by the plaintiff,fully support the story. One of these is Hira Das of Sahri institution who performed the last rites of Kishore Das and took a leading part in the subsequent proceedings. The learned Subordinate Judge on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs story was true and that he was validly appointed a Mahant at the meeting held on the 23rd July 1945.23. The High Court however differed from the view taken by the Subordinate Judge. In the opinion of the learned Judges of the High Court, the meeting held on 23rd July 1945 was not a proper meeting of the Bhek and the Sewaks entitled to appoint a Mahant of the Jamsher Thakardwara. It is pointed out first of all that Ram Charan Das, who presided at the meeting, did not belong to Ram Kabir sect to which the Thakardwara in dispute belongs but to another sect known as Ram Thamman. The second thing said is this that no notice was given to the parent institution at Jaipur or to the Bairagis belonging to the said locality. It is said in the third place that the three Bairagi Mahants, who were examined on behalf of defendant No. 3, were certainly not invited. Lastly, it is pointed out that the assembly did not apply their minds properly to the claim put forward on behalf of Ishar Das who was appointed as successor in the last will of Kishore Das.24. In our opinion, none of these reasons appear to be convincing. It may be stated at the outset that there is no evidence to show that the head institution of this particular sect is at Jaipur. All that Ram Charan Das Says is this that there is a Gaddi of Ram Kabir Math also at Jaipur.On the other hand there is evidence adduced by the plaintiff to show that the head institution was at Sahri of which Hira Das was the Mahant and Hira Das admittedly performed the funeral rites of Kishore Das and took a leading part in the subsequent transactions. It is true that Ram Charan Das did belong to the sect of Ram Thamman but that was also a Bairagi sect of an allied order Ram Charan Das was admittedly the Shri Mahant of the Doaba Mandal and it is clear from the evidence of the defendants own witnesses that he was held in high esteem by all the Bairagis and was deemed quite fit to give the Pagri to a newly appointed Mahant. The three Mahants who deposed in favour of defendant No. 3 and stated that they took part in appointing him as Mahant at a meeting held on the seventeenth day after the death of Kishore Das may or may not have spoken the truth. If they really took part in appointing Ishar Das as Mahant, they were not certainly present at the gathering of the 23rd July 1945 but leaving aside these three Bairagi Mahants the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff clearly shows that 10 or 12 Bairagi Mahants of the locality as well as vast number of Sewaks were present at the meeting held on the 23rd July 1945. It cannot be disputed therefore that the majority of the Bairagis took part in appointing the plaintiff.We are not told whether there is a practice in this institution to issue formal invitations on such occasions and none of the witnesses examined on the defendants side have spoken to the issuing of formal notices before defendant No. 3 was said to have been appointed. In our opinion, on the evidence as it stands the decision of the Subordinate Judge appears to be correct and we would prefer it to that of the learned Judges of the High Court. We hold there that Sital Das, the plaintiff, was eligible for appointment as a Mahant and in fact was so appointed by the Bhek and the Sewaks assembled at Jamsher Thakardwara on the 23rd of July 1945.25.In view of these findings it remains for us to consider whether the lease in favour of defendants 1 and 2 which has been challenged in this suit is supported by legal necessity and is binding on the institution.On this point the finding of the Subordinate Judge was clearly against the lessees and it appears from the judgment of the High Court that this finding of the trial judge was not challenged before the learned Judges of the High Court at all. As the lease was not a permanent one but was only for a period of 10 years, it could certainly be supported on the footing of a transaction entered into in the ordinary course of management. The Subordinate Judge found however that the document contained an untrue recital regarding the payment of consideration and as a matter of fact the sum of Rs. 5,000/stated to be paid as premium for the lease was not paid at all. The Subordinate Judge further found that the rent reserved was grossly inadequate and it was not evenof the profits which the properties would ordinarily fetch.27. The defendants 1 and 2 did not adduce any evidence in support of their case and did not make any attempt to show whether having regard to the profit which could normally be realised from the property the rent secured by the lease was a proper one. The lessees avoided the witness box and in these circumstances we are bound to hold that they failed to discharge the burden which admittedly lay upon them of showing that the transaction was prudent act of management on the part of the Mahant which it was within his competence to enter into.