Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Laxmi Narain (defendant No. 1) filed Civil First Appeal No. 108 of,1968 before the District Judge, Merta. The District Judge, by his judgment and decree dated August 23, 1974, allowed the appeal of the defendant No. 1 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The District Judge, in dis-agreement with the trial court, held that the defendant No. 1 had been in fact nominated Chela of Mahant Prem Das. The District Judge, however, agreed with the trial court that the defendant No. 1 was appointed Pujari of the temple and as such, he was managing the "Bagichi" under the general suprevision of the trustees. The fact that he was Chela of Mahant Premdas did not confer any right upon him in the year 1951 because, even according to the defendant No. 1, he was appointed Mahant in the year 1961 and not in March, 1951. The District Judge was of the opinion that the facts that the defendant No. 1 was Chela of Mahant Premdas and was appointed as a Pujari by trustees were compatible with each other and were not mutually destructive. It was further held by the District Judge that the defendant No. 1 was installed as Mahant by the leading Mahants of the religious fraternity. He observed that once it was held that the defendant No. 1 was installed as Mahant, it was difficult to see how de facto Managers like plaintiffs, whose appointment was invalid, could eject the defendant No. 1. With regard to the findings of the trial court that a married person could not be installed as Mahant, the District Judge stated that this point was not at issue between the parties and there were no pleadings to that effect. He was of the view that the trial court should have refrained from considering the stray and casual admission of the defendant No. 1 and his witnesses. It was held that the trial court was not right in holding that a married person could not be installed as Mahant. On the basis of these findings, the District Judge reversed the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Nagaur and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit holding that the plaintiffs, though de facto Managers of "Bagchi", were not entitled to eject the defendant No. 1 who was initially their servant, but by change of circumstances had been validly installed as 'Mahant' of the "Bagichi". The legal representatives of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3, defendants Nos. 2, 4, 5 & 6 have come up in second appeal to this court against the appellate decree of the District Judge, Merta dated August 23, 1974.

10 Mr. Murli Manohar Vyas, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that both the courts below have concurrently held that Laxmi Narain (defendant No. 1) was appointed Pujari by the trustees after the former Pujari Nanakdas (his own father) had expired. Services of the defendant No. 1 were terminated on November 9, 1950 and from that date he became a trespasser. On November 13, 1960, the defendant No. 1 assembled some other Mahants and declared himself Mahant and refused to vacate the 'bagichi' and the temple. It was urged that a person who has come into possession under a licence or permission of another cannot deny the right of that person to grant licence or permission. The rule that a tenant cannot deny his Landlord's title, it was argued, extends also to the case of a person coming in by permission as a mere lodger, a servant or under a licence. It was contended that Section 116 of the Evidence Act does not contain the whole law of estoppel. When the defendant No. I had been handed over possession of the 'bagichi' and the temple as pujari, then without openly surrendering back the possession to the de facto trustees, he cannot assert in him any other title. The next contention of Mr. Vyas was that this "Asthan" was always a "Nanga Gaddi." Only celibates could be Mahant in Ramchandra Das-ji-ki Bagichi. Since the defendant was a married person, he could not be installed its Mahant. It was pointed out that the defendant No. I has admitted that all Mahants before him were celibates. Apart from that, the trial court after thoroughly considering various circumstances had held that Laxmi Narain Was not adopted as chela of Prem Das. The defendant No. 1 has also been describing himself as son of Nanu Ram and not as chela of Ram Das. The plaintiffs had proved several documents including Ex. 75 PW 1'6 wherein the defendant No. 1 had described himself as son of Nanu Ram and it was for the latter to explain his admissions, ft was urged that the trial court had exhaustively enumerated the conduct of the defendant No. 1 and his father Nanu Ram which was inconsistent with the defendant No. 1 being chela of Mahant Prem Das. Apart from that, it was neither pleaded nor proved that in the case of Ramchandas ji-ki-Bagichi there was a custom that the Mahant was installed by the fraternity. Even the "bhandara" ceremony takes place on the 17th day of the death of the Mahant. It was the nomination by the previous Mahant which gave the right and not merely the installation by the fraternity. On the basis of the above arguments, Mr. Murli Manohar Vyas urged that the District Judge, Merta was wrong in reversing the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Nagaur.

The fact that he was 'chela' of Mahant Premdas did not confer any right upon him in the year 1951 because, even according to the defendant No. 1, he was appointed Mahant in the year 1961 and not in March 1951. The facts that the defendant No. 1 was 'chela' of Mahant Premdas and was appointed "poojari" by trustees were compatible with each other and were not mutually destructive.

The District Judge further held that the defendant No. 1 was installed as Mahant by the leading Mahants of religious fraternity and once he was installed as Mahant, it was difficult to see how de facto Managers like plaintiffs whose appointment was invalid, could eject the defendant No. 1. The trial court, on the other hand, had held that the adoption of defendant No. 1 as a disciple by Mahant Premdas was extremely improbable and that the defendant No. 1 was never adopted as a Chela by Mahant Premdas. How ever, the trial court held that it was amply proved that the defendant No. 1 was installed as a Mahant on Miti Migsar Budi 10, Samvat 2017. How ever it was held that since it had been decided by him that defendant No. 1 was never adopted as Chela to Mahant Premdas, he could not succeed to him because the custom regarding succession to this Math was that a Chela succeeded to his Guru and also for the reasons that the defendant No. 1 was "grahasti" and not a celibate. The District Judge in appeal held the a question whether a married person could be installed as a Mahant or not was not an issue between the parties and there were no pleadings to that effect and, therefore, the trial court should have refrained from considering the stray and casual admissions of the defendant No. 1 and his witnesses. The trial court was accordingly held to be wrong by the District Judge in holding that a married person could not be installed as Mahant of this Bagichi.

23. I may next examine the question about the custom or usage in this religious institution about successor on the death of Mahant The defendant No. 1 in his written statement, after pleading that he was adopted as Chela by Mahant Premdas, did not assert that only by virtue of that he became Mahant of this religious institution on the death of Mahant Premdas On the other hand, in para 15 of the written statement he pleaded that on hearing about the death of his father in S.Y. 2007 he came back to Nagaur from out-side and took over the management of the Bagichi as the disciple of Mahant Premdas. On November 13,1960, the other Mahants of the religious fraternity customarily and lawfully installed him on the 'gaddi' of Mahant by covering his body with the "Chadar" of deceased Mahant Premdas and since then he has all the rights of the Mahant in respect of the Bagichi Thus the case of the defendant No. 1 was that the assembly of Mahant of the same religious fraternity elected and installed him as Mahant of the Bagichi because he was disciple of late Mahant Premdas. In other words, what the defendant No. 1 pleaded was that although a disciple of the Mahant succeeds him as Mahant but a ceremony of installation by the community of Mahantas of the same religious fraternity is required to make, him the Mahant of the Math As has been observed in Krishna Singh's case (supra), there are instances of maths in which Mahantship descends from Guru to Chela but the general rule is that the maths of the same sect in district or Maths having a common origin are associated together-the mahant of these acknowledging one of their members as a head who for some reason is prominent; and on the occasion of the death of one the others assemble to elect a successor out of the disciples of the deceased, if possible or if there be none of them qualified then from the Chelas of another Mahant.