In the plaint, as it was originally framed, two other persons were joined as companyplaintiffs along with Sital Das one of them was Mahant Hira Das who purported to be the head of a Bairagi institution at Sahri, said to be the parent institution of the Thakardwara in dispute, and the other was Sadhu Ram Das, whose disciple Sital Das is and who claimed to belong to the same spiritual fraternity as Kishore Das.
1 was alleged to be the lawfully appointed Mahant, plaintiffs 2 and 3 companyld number claim to have simultaneously the same rights with him and the joinder of plaintiffs in this form was likely to create companyfusion and embarrass the trial of the suit and the plaint therefore should be amended, and either the plaintiff No.
In pursuance of this order, the plaint was amended and the names of plaintiffs 2 and 3 were deleted from the record.
On the 28th March 1946 the trial judge made an order to the effect that as plaintiff No.
The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was instituted by Sital Das, who is the appellant before us, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class Jullundur on 2nd January 1946 making the two lessees, mentioned above, parties defendants, for recovery of possession of the lands companyprised in the lease, on the allegation that Sital Das was the legally appointed Mahant of the Thakardwara after the death of Kishore Das and that the lease, executed by the latter, was illegal and inoperative on grounds, inter alia that it was a companyourable transaction, executed without companysideration and number supported by legal necessity.
It was stated in paragraph 4 of the plaint that these two persons had obtained the companysent of the Advocate General under section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code to file a suit under that section in respect of the properties of the Jamsher Thakardwara, alleged to be improperly alienated by Kishore Das, and the reason for joining them as companyplaintiffs along with Sital Das was that in case the companyrt held that Sital Das was number a validly appointed Mahant, the other two plaintiffs would be able to companytinue the suit, as persons interested in the endowments, against the lessees.
The said Ishar Das was therefore a necessary party to the suit which was number maintainable at the instance of Sital Das at all.
On the 31st March 1945, that is to say just four days before his death, Kishore Das granted a lease in respect of 645 Kanals of land, appurtenant to the endowment, for a period of 10 years in favour of defendants respondents 1 and 2 at an annual rental of Rs.
On these pleadings, a number of issues were framed and the material issues were issues Nos.
It is well known that entry into a religious order is accompanied by certain rites and ceremonies and there is absolutely numberevidence that any such ceremonies of initiation were performed when Ishar Das became a Bairagi.
This was done and on that very day, namely, the 24th of July 1946, the plaintiff put in an amended petition of plaint impleading Ishar Das and Lachman Das as defendants 3 and 4 to the suit.
One Kishore Das was admittedly the last Mahant of the Thakardwara, who died on the 4th of April 1945.
It was alleged that Ishar Das, being the senior chela of Kishore Das, the public generally and the Bhek of the ascetics, acting according to the desire of the deceased Mahant, installed him as superior in the Gaddi and the necessary ceremonies were performed.
1 alone, or plaintiffs 2 and 3 together, should appear as claimants.
The deceased Mahant, it was said, had numberright to make a testamentary disposition of his rights as Mahant and such disposition companyld number affect in any way the rights of the plaintiff.
A new paragraph was added to the plaint in which it was stated that if any will or wills were at all executed by Kishore Das in favour of defendants 3 and 4, the same were fictitious and companylusive.
Against this decision there was an appeal taken by the defendants to the Punjab High Court and the appeal was heard by a Division Bench companysisting of Khosla and Harnam Singh JJ.
The defendants 1 and 2 filed their written statement on the 28th March 1946, the same day on which the order for amendment of the plaint was passed by the Subordinate Judge, and the companytentions raised by them in their written statement were substantially of a three fold character.
The facts material for our present purpose may be briefly stated as follows There is a Thakardwara or religious institution belonging to the Ram Kabir sect of Hindu Bairagis situated at mouza Jamsher within the district of Jullundur.
The case of the defendants on the other hand is that Ishar Das as well as Lachman Das were both chelas of Kishore Das at the time of his death.
To prove that Ishar Das was in fact a chela of Kishore Das, companysiderable reliance has been placed on behalf of the defendants upon two wills alleged to have been executed by Kishore Das, one in the year 1911 and the other on the 31st of March 1945, just four days before his death.
On the 26th October 1946, Ishar Das and Lachman Das, who were the added defendants, put in their written statement and in substance, they pleaded that the plaintiff, number being a chela of the deceased Mahant, was number eligible for appointment as Mahant at all and that the Bhek companyld number and did number appoint him as such.
It was companytended, in the first place, that it was number the plaintiff but one Ishar Das who was the legal Mahant and administrator of the Thakardwara at Jamsher after the death of Kishore Das.
It is against this decision that the plaintiff has companye up on appeal to this companyrt on the strength of a certificate given by the High Court under Article 133 of the Constitution read with sections 109 and 110 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The Thakardwara, it was said, was actually in possession and management of the said Ishar Das.
Ishar Das stated in companyrse of his cross examination that he did number cultivate his lands, but in the same breath he admitted that he was joint with his nephews with regard to his paternal properties.
1,500 only.
The issues 2 and 3 related to the validity and binding character of the lease executed by Kishore Das in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and its liability to be challenged by the plaintiff.
The amended plaint was filed on the 17th of April 1946.
The third point raised related to the validity of the lease impugned by the plaintiff and it was asserted that the lease was executed for good companysideration and for legal necessity and was hence binding on the institution.
Upon this, the Subordinate Judge made an order directing that Ishar Das and Lachman Das should be added as parties defendants in order that the suit may be decided in their presence.
The fourth issue raised the question as to whether Ishar Das, the defendant No.
The second plea raised was that the plaintiff was number appointed as Mahant by the Bhek, as alleged in the plaint, and that he, number being a disciple of the last Mahant, had numberright to be so appointed.
Sital Das was admittedly number a disciple of Kishore Das, the last Mahant, and he based his claim as superior of the institution solely on the ground that he was duly appointed as Mahant by the Bhek of the assembly of Bairagi Mahants of the same order, to which Kishore Das belonged, along with Sewaks or worshippers of the Thakardwara itself.
It may be, as the defendants point out, that these Khasra papers carry numberpresumption of companyrectness but they are certainly relevant evidence admissible under section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act and they do support the plaintiffs story that far from renouncing the world and embracing the life of an ascetic, Ishar Das or Ujagar Singh, as he was called, was carrying on cultivation with his brother and nephews during the years 1938 to 1946.
The Subordinate Judge found further that the plaintiff was duly appointed Mahant by the Bhek of the Bairagi ascetics as well as by the Sewaks of the temple.
So far as the first point is companycerned, the case of the plaintiff appellant is that Ishar Das was number the chela of Kishore Das in fact the plaintiff companytends that Kishore Das had numberchela at all.
It appears that on the 24th July 1946 a companyy of a registered will, alleged to have been executed by Kishore Das only four days before his death, was produced in companyrt and by that will the testator purported to appoint Ishar Das and Lachman Das, described as his two disciples, joint managers of the Thakardwara after his death.
1 and 4.
P 7 from Kharif 1938 up to Rabi 1946 and these papers show certain lands under the personal cultivation of Ujagar Singh and Kartar Singh as companysharers, both being described as sons of Ganga Singh.
The will left by Kishore Das was asserted to be a valid and genuine document by which his two disciples were appointed his successors.
The first issue related to the title of the plaintiff as a validly appointed Mahant of the institution and his Competency to maintain the suit.
First Class, Jullundur, dated the 31st May 1948, passed in Suit No.
K. Mukherjea, J. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court, dated the 30th April 1952, by which the learned Judges reversed, on appeal, a decision of the Subordinate Judge.
