1964 (11) TMI 117 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Claim to possession of properties belonging to the Dera of Sanyasi Sadhus.
2. Succession to the Mahantship of the Dera.
3. Validity of appointment by the Bhekh.
4. Customary law regarding succession in the absence of a Chela.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Claim to Possession of Properties:
The appellant claimed possession of the properties as the successor of the last Mahant, Kishan Puri, who died on February 15, 1951. The litigation had fluctuated through various courts, with the trial court initially decreeing in favor of the appellant, the first appellate court dismissing the suit, and the High Court of Punjab reversing the dismissal before the Letters Patent appeal reinstated the dismissal. The appellant sought a declaration of his title and an injunction against Neki Puri, who claimed possession based on his appointment by the Bhekh and villagers.

2. Succession to the Mahantship:
The appellant's claim to the Mahantship was based on being the Gurbhai (spiritual brother) of the deceased Mahant and being appointed by the Bhekh and villagers. Alternatively, he claimed that even without such an appointment, he was entitled to the Mahantship based on customary law. The trial court found that Neki Puri was not a Chela of the deceased Mahant and that there was no proof of his appointment by the Bhekh. However, the appellate court reversed this finding, holding that Neki Puri was a Chela and had been appointed by the Bhekh, thus having a superior title to the Gaddi.

3. Validity of Appointment by the Bhekh:
The trial court did not find evidence that the Bhekh could appoint a Mahant who was not a Chela or Gurbhai. The appellate court, however, found that Neki Puri had been appointed by the Bhekh and villagers. The High Court's Single Judge reversed this, finding that the appellate court had erred in its reasoning and that Neki Puri was not a Chela. The Division Bench agreed with the Single Judge on this point but held that the custom alleged by the appellant, that a Gurbhai could succeed without an appointment by the Bhekh, had not been proven.

4. Customary Law Regarding Succession in the Absence of a Chela:
The appellant argued that under the customary law of the Punjab, a Gurbhai could succeed to the Mahantship without an appointment by the Bhekh. The court referred to Rattigan's Digest of Customary Law, which states that each religious institution is governed by its own customs and practices, and that the office of Mahant is usually elective and not hereditary. The court found that the appellant had not established the custom he claimed, as the evidence was lacking in particulars and did not prove the absence of an appointment by the Bhekh in the instances cited.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant had not proven his title to the Gaddi based on either the general law or the specific custom he alleged. The court emphasized that the appellant's suit for ejectment must succeed or fail based on the title he established, and he could not succeed merely because the defendant in possession had no title. The appeal was dismissed with costs.