Charan Dass vs Mahant Ram Dass

G.R. Majithia, J.—This judgment will dispose of R.S.A. No. 1377 of 1980 Mahant Charan Dass v. Mahant Ram Dass and R.S.A. No. 2013 of 1980 Mahant Ram Dass v. Mahant Charan Dass.

The parties will be referred to in the body of this judgment as they were described in the plaint.

The solitary question arising for determination is, whether any of the parties to the litigation has been validly elected as mahant of mandir Chhatri Wala (for short "the mandir") belonging to Vaishno Ramanandir Bairagi sect (for short "the sect"). The Plaintiff is a mahant of mandir Brahmdas Wala. Polhardas Wala and Jamnadas Wala, situate in village Chhainsa, Tehsil Ballabgarh. He claims that he is the only eligible person to be elected as mahant of the mandir. Siri Ram was the last mahant of the mandir. On his death the Defendant was nominated as the mahant by Nawal Kishore under the alleged delegated authority of the Bhek. Mutation was sanctioned in his favour giving rise to the filing of the suit whereby its validity was challenged. The principal ground of challenge was that the Defendant was not validly elected as a mahant of the mandir. The Defendant controverted the plea of the Plaintiff and, inter alia, pleaded that he was elected as a mahant in the meeting of the Bhek held on January 25, 1970. Mutation was entered in his favour thereafter and the Plaintiff gave his consent that the compensation amount of the land which belonged to the mandir be paid to him.

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to be the Mahant of Mandir Chkatrivsala Ballabgarh O.P.P.

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for? O.P.P.

Whether the suit has become infructuous as alleged? O.P.P.

Whether the suit is barred by res judicata? O.P.D.

Whether the Plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his own acts and conduct? O.P.D.

Whether the Plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit? O.P.D.

Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? O.P.D.

Whether the plaint is not properly verified? If so, its effect? O.P.D.

Whether the Defendant is not properly described? If so, its effect? O.P.D.

Whether the impugned mutation is liable to be set aside as alleged? O.P.P.

Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction O.P.D.

Whether the Defendant is entitled to special costs? O.P.D.

Relief.

Under issues Nos. 1 and 10, which were disposed of together, it was held that the Defendant was appointed as a mahant of the mandir by Nawal Kishor, who was first appointed as a mahant of the mandir by the Bhek and was authorised to nominate his successor. It was held that the mutation was validly sanctioned in favour of the Defendant. Issues Nos. 2 and 3 were also answered in favour of the Defendant. Issues 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 were not pressed by the Defendant and these were answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment and decree of the trial Judge, which was disposed of by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. The learned Judge found that the appointment of the Defendant was not in conformity with the settled principle of law governing the appointment of a mahant of the mandir. He further found that Nawal Kishore was authorised to select the mahant of the mandir not only by the Raman sect alone but by all the four sects of the bairagis. The participation of the other sects in authorising Nawal Kishor to nominate a mahant rendered invalid the election of Nawal Kishor, who was authorised to nominate his successor. The authorisation being itself invalid, nomination made by Nawal Kishor also stands vitiated. The mutation was set aside and it was directed that the Defendant was a de facto mahant and a mahant has to be appointed in accordance with the settled rule. This judgment gave rise to two appeals referred to above at the instance of the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

During the pendency of the appeals, important events took place. A meeting of the Bhek was convened Civil Misc. No. 1973-C of 1980 in R.S.A. 1377 of 1980 was moved by the Defendant for staying the election of the mahant by the Bhek. In the application, the Defendant specifically averred that he is the duly elected mahant of the mandir and the election be not allowed to be held. This application was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Civil Misc. No. 332-C of 1980 in R.S.A. 1377 of 1980 was moved by the Defendant for injuncting the Plaintiff from interfering in his peaceful possession over the properties in dispute during the pendency of the appeals. In reply thereto, the Plaintiff pleaded that after the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, the position had changed and the Defendant has ceased to be a de facto mahant of the institution. On April 1, 1980, in the meeting of the Bhek held in the mandir, the Plaintiff was elected as a mahant of the dera in accordance with the custom governing the election of the mahant of the institution On April 7, 1981, a learned Single Judge of this Court observed that status quo be maintained till the disposal of the appeal. However, the fact remained that positive averment was made that in the meeting of the Bhek held on April 1, 1980, the Plaintiff was validly elected as a mahant of the mandir by the Bhek. Mutation No. 2019 was sanctioned in his favour on May 6, 1981. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff produced a certified copy of the mutation at the time of the hearing of the appeal. The learned Counsel for the Defendant did not controvert the fact that the mutation was sanctioned in favour of the Plaintiff. It was also not controverted that this mutation was not assailed before any competent authority in accordance with law. However, his only submission was that this mutation had been sanctioned during the pendency of the appeal in this Court and his client had already been elected as a mahant.

As stated supra, the first appellate Court had set aside the mutation sactioned in favour of the Defendant. Resultantly, there was no mahant of the institution. A mahant had to be elected in accordance with the custom governing the institution and in the absence of any specific custom, according to the general custom governing the election of the mahant incorporated in Para 418 of Mulla''s Hindu Law which reads as under:

Devolution of office of mohunt: Nomination (1) The succession to the office of mohunt depends on the usage of each particular math. As observed by their Lordships of the Privy Council, "the only law as to mohunts and their office functions and duties, is to be found in custom and practice, which is to be proved by testimony" The custom that prevails in the majority of cases is that the mohunt nominates his successor by appointment during his lifetime or by will. Where there is no such custom, or where no nomination has been made, the usage of some institution is to have a successor appointed by a system of election by all the mohunts of the sect in the neighbourhood. In some cases, the succession depends upon election by the disciple and followers of the math. In the under-mentioned case the Supreme Court has noticed the position about appointment or nomination of a successor by the reigning mohunt. Reference may also be made to the, undermentioned decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Garvaghat Math of the Satmat Sampradaya. The appointment as a general rule is to be made from among the disciple of the deceased mahant and failing disciples from among his spiritual kindred. Where mahant has the power to appoint his own successor, he cannot delegate or transfer that power to a mohunt of neighbouring math or to any other person.

For a nomination to be valid, performance of religious ceremonies are not mandatory unless, of course, the usage of the institution has made it absolutely necessary that there should be ceremony relating to installation.

(2) It is now well established that religious offices can be hereditary and that the right to such an office is in the nature of property. In Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endownments Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar, the Supreme Court reiterated and extended the rule to the office of a Mohunt.

(3) Partition. The headship of a math is not a matter of partition; nor is the property of the math.

In the earlier litigation relating to succession of mahantship, it was so held by the predecessor of this Court in R.F.A. 149 of 1940 and R.F.A. 115 of 1940, decided on May 8, 1942.

A mahant can nominate a successor and where he fails to do so the successor is appointed by a system of election by all the mahants of sect which is popularly called Bhek. Bhek comprises of important mahants of the sect, well-conversant with the usage and customs governing the appointment of mahant and in the instant case, the mahant has been appointed by the Bhek as averred by the Plaintiff in his pleadings referred supra Pursuant to election of the Plaintiff as mahant by the Bhek, mutation was sanctioned in his favour. This was not assailed by the Defendant. He will be deemed to have acquiesced in the order passed by the revenue officer. The learned first appellate Court having already set aside the election of the Defendant as a mahant of the institution, the office became vacant and fresh elections had to be held in confirmity with the usage and custom governing the institution and it was so held. No meaningful argument could be advanced by the learned Counsel for the Defendant that the Plaintiff could not be appointed as a manant of the institution or that the meeting of the Bhek in which he was elected as a mahant was in any way invalid or that the mutation sanctioned in favour of the Plaintiff was not warranted. It is well settled that the appellate Court can take subsequent events into consideration. In order to bring litigation to a final end, I think it will be appropriate if I do so and I hold that the Plaintiff has been validly elected as mahant of the mandir by the Bhek and the mutation has validly been sanctioned in his favour. The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is modified to this extent and the declaration is granted that the Plaintiff has been validly elected as mahant of the mandir and he is entitled to control the affairs of the mandir in that capacity and he is also granted the relief of injunction to the effect that the Defendant cannot interfere in the management of the institution by the Plaintiff in his capacity as mahant.

R.S.A. 2013 of 1980 is allowad as observed supra and R.S.A. 1377 of 1980 is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.