Mahant Hardial Singh vs Mahant Gurnam Singh etc.

A.P. Choudhri, J.—This order will dispose of Civil Misc. No. 1762/Cl of 1991 dated 14-8-1991 filed by Jarnail Singh claiming to be Chela of Mahant Hardial Singh and Civil Misc. No. 2444/C-l of 1991 dated 8.8.1991 made by Mahant Mohan Singh.

The facts giving rise to these Misc. petitions are that one Mahant Gurnam Singh and two others instituted a suit u/s 92 of the CPC against Mahant Hardial Singh and others, in which he claimed three reliefs, namely, (i) for removal of Mahant Hardial Singh defendant from the office of Mahant of Dera Thakran, Amritsar, (ii) for appointment of Mahant Gurnam Singh plaintiff as the Mahant of that Dera, and (iii) to hand over property of the Dera and render accounts. The suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed. The decree was for removal of Mahant Hardial Singh from the office of Mahant. The plaintiff was, however, not found suitable for appointment as Mahant A direction was given to Nirmal Bhek the body which is responsible for electing a suitable person to the office of Mahantship to elect the next Mahant. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, Hardial Singh defendant No. 1 instituted R.F.A. No. 1096 of 19-9, which is pending in this Court. During the pendency of the RFA, Mahant Hardial Singh appellant died on August 1, 1991. S. Mahant Gurnam Singh respondent in the appeal also died on July, 13, 1990. Mahant Mohan Singh set up a Will and claimed to be substituted for Mahant Gurnam Singh. The application was contested and it has been sent to the Senior Subordinate Judge Amritsar for a report under the proviso to Rule 5 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Civil Misc. No. 2444-CI of 1991 has been moved by the said Mahant Mohan Singh for dismissing the appeal as having abated The application is resisted by Jarnail Singh claiming to have succeeded Mahant Hardial Singh deceased appellant. Jarnail Singh has moved Givil Misc. No. 1762-CI of 1991. He has also set up a Will dated April 3, 1978, alleged to have been executed by Mahant Hardial Singh in his favour. He has further stated that in compliance with the order of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, Mahant Jarnail Singh had been elected as successor of Mahant Hardial Singh by Nirmal Maha Mandal (Registered) Amritsar vide resolution dated August 10, 1991 Annexure P-l, with CM No. 1762-CI of 1991. The application has been resisted by Mahant Mohan Singh claiming to be successor of Mahant Gurnam Singh deceased.

The contention of Mr. R.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for Mahant Jarnail Singh, is that this was a case of devolution of interest during the pendency of the appeal and the relevant provision which is applicable is Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further contended that even though the office of Mahantshiri was held by the individual Mahant Hardial Singh the right to sue survived, in that one of the prayers made against Maham Hardial Singh was that he should render accounts with regard to the property and income of the Dera of which he remained Mahant

The Contention of Mr. R. S. Bindra, learned counsel for Mahant Mohan Singh, claiming to be successor of Mahant Gurnam Singh, on the other hand, is that office of Mahantship was not hereditary that he office was held by Mahant Hardial Singh in his individual capacity and that the right to came to an end with the death of Mahant Hardial Singh and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed as having abated.

I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the both parties have gone through the case law cited by them.

In paragraph 85 of the Rattigan''s Digest of Customay Law (1989 Edition) it is laid down that office of Mahant is usually elective and not hereditary but a Mahant may nominate a successor subject to confirmation by his fraternity. This proposition is not disputed by Mr. Mittal He however, invited my attention to the averments made by Jarnail Singh in Civil Misc. No. 1762/CI of 1991 namely, that in his Will dated April 3, 1978, Mahant Hardial Singh had nominated Mahant Jarnail Singh as his successor and furthermore Mahant Jarnail Singh had been duly elected by Nirmal Maha Mandal (Regd.).

The matter appears to be covered by the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shri Rikhu Dev, Chela Bawa Harjug Dass Vs. Som Dass (Deceased) through his Chela Shiam Dass, . It was held that the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC inter alia cover all cases of devolution where the devolution of interest takes place during the pendency of a suit or appeal as a consequence of death of a party or for any other reason. It was further held that Order 22, Rule 10 is not confined to devolution of interest of a party by death. It also applies if the head of� or the Manager of the temple resigns his office or is removed from Ms office. In such a case the successor to the head of the Mutt or to the manager of the temple may be substituted as a party under the said rule. It was further held that the word ''interest'' which is mentioned in Order 22 Rule 20 means interest in the property i.e. the Subject matter of the suits and the interest is the interest of'' the person who was the party to the suit. Though there is hardly any need to add to the authorities once a direct decision of the Supreme Court is available, in fairness to Mr. Mittal, reference may also be made to Shri Shiv Idol Shiv Mandir v. Sanatan Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha (Punjab) (1976) 78 P. L. R. 589 and Roshan Lal Kunja Mal and Others Vs. Kapur Chand and Others, , in which the same view as laid down by the Supreme Court was expressed.

Mr. R. S. Bindra has relied on a Division Bench judgment of Lahore High Court in Gulzar Shah and Ors. v. Sarad Ali Shah and Ors. A. I.R. 1920 Lah. 703, in which it was held that right to the office of Sajjada Nashin or Mutwali of a religious institution was strictly persona and Suit by a person to establish the right abated on his death The above authority is distinguishable, firstly, on the ground that the point in question was with regard to the personal right for appointment to the said office by the plaintiff and the plaintiff had died, where as in the case in hand it was the defendant who had died, and, secondly, the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 on which the point in question was decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court was cot considered. Another reason for distinguishing the above authority is that amongst other relief reliefs the relief sought against the defendant-appellant Mahant Hardial Singh was to render accounts with regard to the property and income of the Dera.

For the foregoing reasons, Civil Misc. No. 1762-CI of 1991 is allowed and Mahant Jarnail Singh is brought on record in substitution of Mahant Hardial Singh deceased. Civil Misc. No. 2444-CI of 1991 for dismissing the appeal as having abated is dismissed.