Jai Singh vs Shri Guru Granth Sahib, Chhoti and Lambi Dhab and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is Defendant''s second appeal against whom suit for possession has been decreed by the two Courts below

The Plaintiff Sri Guru Granth Sahib Chhoti and Lambi Dhab filed the suit through Thana Singh and others who claimed themselves to be the members of the Parbandhak Committee of the said Dera. According to the averments in the plaint, the Plaintiff was the owner of the suit property, that Atma Nand Chela of Bhagat Ram was Mohtamin of the Plaintiff''s Dera and he died on June 17, 1962. Atma Nand had two Chelas nemaly Ram Dass and Parmatma Nand and after the death of Atma Nand his Chelas Ram Dass and Parmatma Nand had inherited his property. Since both of them were not residing at village Neor, where the Dera is situated, so they found it difficult to manage the same. In May, 1963 they gathered the people following Sikh religion of Village Neor and with their consent, they decided to give the property in dispute to Thana Singh Lal Singh, Mal Singh and Jangir Singh for management and since that time they have been managing the property on behalf of the Plaintiff and Defendant Jai Singh had no connection of any sort with the suit property. According to the plaint in May, 1974, the Defendant Jai Singh had taken illegal and unlawful possession of the suit property and after conniving with the revenue authorities, had got mutation No. 1838 entered and sanctioned in his name, which according to the Plaintiff was null and void and did not affect the rights of the Plaintiff.

The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that Defendant Jai Singh was Mohatmim of the Plaintiff Dera after the death of Atma Nand as he was appionted as Chela during his life time and was managing the same since the death of Atma Nand. He further pleaded that he was appointed Chela by Atma Nand in his life time and after his death also he was in possession of the suit property. The Plaintiff Thana Singh and others had no concern with the same nor there was any registered society of Thana Shigh, Lai Singh and others; and as such they had no locus standi to file the present suit. It was no disputed that Atma Nand had died in the year 1962 but it was stated that the possession of the Defendant over the suit land was there even before the death of Atma Nand and was, thus, open and continuous. It was stated that the Plaintiff was not Dera Gurdwara but was Dera Udasiah.

The trial Court, after framing the issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence, came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff Sri Guru Granth Sahib Chhoti and Lambi Dhab is the owner of the property in dispute and it has been admitted even by the Defendant. Even in the revenue record the Plaintiff Dera is recorded as owner of the suit property. The main contest before the trial Court was that whether the Defendant is the Chela of Atma Nand and if so what is its effect. The trial Court found that the Defendant has failed to prove that he was the Chela of Atma Nand. As regards the competency of the suit having been filed through Thana Singh and others, the trial Court took the view that since they are the worshippers of the Dera, the suit on their behalf as such was competent. Consequently, the Plaintiff''s suit was decreed vide judgment dated September 16, 1981.

In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and, thus, maintained the decree passed in favour of the Plaintiff.

The learned Counsel for the Defendant-Appellant submitted that Sri Guru Granth Sahib was not a juristic person and, therefore, the suit as such was not maintainable. In support of his contention, reference was made to a judgment of this Court in F.A.O. No. 449 of 1978 decided on April 19, 1985 wherein it was held that Sri Guru Granth Sahib is not a juristic person. However I do not find any merit in this contention as the suit has not been filed on behalf of Sri Guru Granth Sahib as such. The suit has been filed on behalf of "Sri Guru Granth Sahib Chhoti and Lambi Dhab". This is the name of the Institution/Dera on whose behalf the suit has been filed.

The learned Counsel next contended that issue No. 5 has been wrongly decided by the Courts below. The whole documentary evidence has been misread and, therefore, the finding arrived at was vitiated According to the learned Counsel in Exhibit P-2, the mutation order, presence of one Thana Singh is mentioned whereas according to the lower appellate Court presence of Thana Singh in Exhibit P-2 is not mentioned. He further submitted that the date of death mentioned in Exhibit P-2 has been wrongly taken and, in any case, the date of death even if wrongly mentioned therein, will not vitiate the mutation order as such. In support of this contention, he referred to Dalpat Singh etc. v. Rajwant Singh etc. AIR 1954 P&H 33.

The mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat was rejected vide Exhibit D-4 dated October 31, 1969 and, therefore, any entry in the Jaraabandi Exhibit P-3 for the year 1969-70 showing the Gram Panchayat as Manager of the suit property was of no consequence. At no stage, argued the learned Counsel, the Gram Panchayat or the Plaintiffs through whom the suit has been filed, came into possession of the Dera of the suit land Atma Nand died in the year 1962 and since then, and rather prior thereto, the Defendant has been in possession of the suit land as Mohatmim of the Dera being Cheif of Atma Nand. Even in the pedigree table Exhibit D-2 Jai Singh Defendant is shown to ba Jai Singh Chela Atma Nand, which has not been considered by the Courts below. Thus argued the learned Counsel, the whole approach of the Courts below in this case was wrong, illegal and the finding arrived at is vitiated because of the misreading of the documentary evidence.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondents submitted that it being a finding of facts could not be interfered with in Second Appeal, howsoever erroneous the finding may be. In support of this contention, he referred to Deity Pattabhiramaswamy v. S. Hanymayya and Ors. AIR 1959 S.C. 57, and E. Mahboob Saheb Vs. N. Sabbarayan Chowdhary and Others, .

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the documentary evidence. I am of the considered view that the whole approach of the Courts below was wrong and illegal. According to the lower appellate Court, the presence of Thana Singh is not mentioned in Exhibit P-2 which is apparently wrong. Name of Thana Singh is very much mentioned in the mutation order. According to the lower appellate Court the perusal of this mutation shows that Atma Nand died three and a half years ago and the mutation was sanctioned on March 21, 197(Sic). According to the lower appellate Court this clearly shows that the mutation was not rightly sanctioned. This approach is wholly misconceived. In the mutation order itself it has been made clear that earlier mutation was sanctioned on March 24, 1975 which file was not traceable and, therefore, this mutation order was passed for the second time with the observation that it will be deemed to have been passed on March 24, 1975. The trial Court misread this document when it was observed that, "in Exhibit P-2, what is stated that Atma Nand had died about 34 years prior to the sanction of the mutation i.e. March 21, 1977. This fact by itself is sufficient to reveal that there was something wrong at some level." As observed earlier, this is clearly misreading of the evidence. There is nothing in the mutation order that Atma Nand died 34 years back. It states that he died 34 years earlier. In any case, date of death of Atma Nand in the mutation order will cot make any difference as there is no presumption of correctness attached to a mutation as to the date of death of the last holder as held by the Division Bench of this Court is Dalpat Singh''s case (supra).

The Defendant produced copy of resolution Exhibit D-3 dated September 19, 1955 wherein he has been described as Chela of Atma Nand. The said entry has been overruled by the lower appellate Court with the observation that the question of appionting him as Chela did not arise as Atma Nand was alive and Defendant in no way claimed that he was appointed Chela by Atma Nand by that period. This whole apporach is wrong and illegal Chelas are appointed by the Mahants during their life time. Jai Singh was appointed Chela by Atma Nand much earlier and this fact is recited in the said resolution of September 19, 1955. Apart from that the Defendant also produced the copy of the Shajra Nasab Exhibit D-2 wherein he is shown to be the Chela of Atma Nand. Even in the Jamabandi for the year 1979-80 Exhibit D-1 the entry in the column of ownership is:

Sri Guru Granth Sahib Vakia Lambi Dhab Bahetamen Jai Singh Chela Atma Nand Chela Bhagat Ram.

Thus throughout in the revenue records the Defendant has been shown to be the Chela of Atma Nand and, as such, managing the property and is in cultivation thereof. Even prior thereto in the Jamabandi for the year 1974-75, copy Exhibit P-1, entries are to the same effect. There is no entry anywhere in the revenue record showing Thana Singh and others to be the managers of the suit property belonging to the Plaintiff-Dera nor they have been shown to be in cultivation thereof at any stage after the death of Atma Nand who died in the year 1962. The present suit has been filed by them in September, 1981 i.e. after more than 17 years of the death of Atma Nand. Apart from that, there is no evidence produced on behalf of the Plaintiffs that how they were appointed as managers of the Dera in the presence of Jai Singh who was the Chela of the deceased Mahant Atma Nand and was in its cultivating possession since the year 1962 when Atma Nand died. Thus, the findings of the Courts below in this case being against the record are liable to be set aside in Second Appeal.

According to the Supreme Court Notes in Bithail Das Khanna and Anr. v. Hafiz Abdul Hai (1969) 11 S.C.N. Item No. 481. Item No 481, a finding of the lower Court cannot be reopened and reversed in a second appeal in the absence of grounds which are well settled which justify interference u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the appreciation of the evidence made by the lower appellate Court is patently erroneous and the finding of fact is grossly wrong that cannot be said to introduce a substantial error or defect in procedure which would justify interference u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As regards the present case, as observed earlier, the documentary evidence led by the parties has been misread by the Courts below and the whole approach was wrong and illegal; and, therefore, the findings arrived at arc vitiated and do fall within the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Apart from that the Plaintiff''s could only succeed if it could be shown they were ever appointed as Mohatmims of the suit property for which there is absolutely no evidence. The Defendant Jai Singh being the Mohatmim on the suit property could be removed only by filing a suit as contemplated u/s 92 of the CPC and not otherwise. The present suit as such was misconeived. It is made clear that the Dera/lnstitution known as Sri Guru Granth Sahib Khhoti and Lambi Dhab is the owner of the suit property and the Defendant is only its Mohatmim. The present suit filed by Thana Singh and others is liable to be dismissed as they have no locus standi to file the present suit as such.

Consequently this appeal succeeds, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the Plaintiff''s suit is dismissed as not maintainable with no order as to costs.