It was alleged on behalf of the respondents that the Samadhi of Baba Bakhat Mal and a substantial portion of the Dharamshala had been excluded from the sale deed dated June 14, 1945.
1945 was binding upon the Gaddi of Shanter Shah.
66 of 1935 and that the sale transaction was of a defensive character and was beneficial to the estate of the Gaddi Shanter Shah.
In First Appeal No.
3 of 1943 against the Akhara for a declaration that the Dharamshala was a wakf property and numberright accrued to the Akhara through auction sale and for a permanent injunction restraining the Akhara from taking proceedings for companyfirmation of sale.
1, Narendra Das succeeded him and that Narendra Das appointed a Committee of Trustees for the management of the Gaddi Shanter Shah.
The appellants prayed for a declaration that the Dharamshala was a wakf property and number transferable and that the sale deed dated June 14, 1945 executed by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of respondents 3 and 4 was illegal and inoperative.
It was alleged by the appellants that the Dharamshala was number part of the Gaddi Shanter Shah but was a separate endowment and the Mahant of Gaddi Shanter Shah had numberright to alienate practically the entire dharamshala and destroy the substratum of that endowment.
It was in these circumstances that respondents 1 and 2 executed the sale deed on June 14, 1945 in favour of respondents 3 and 4 for the portion of the Dharamshala mentioned in that document for a companysideration of Rs.
61,000 but the room occupied by the Samadhi of Baba Bakhat Mal and two other rooms were excluded from the mortgage.
It was also alleged that the mortgage deed to enforce which the decree was passed was number executed by Mahant Saheb Dass for legal necessity and the transaction was number binding on succeeding Mahants.
66 of 1935 obtained by Panchayati Akhara Kalan Kankhal on the basis of a mortgage deed dated June 1, 1933 executed by Mahant Saheb Dass.
The companymittee companysisted of eight leading Mahants of the Udasi sect and the companymittee was companystituted to safeguard the interest of the trust and to place the management of its affairs on a satisfactory basis.
3 of 1943.
On July 18, 1919 Sital Das executed a mortgage deed for Rs.
Pooran Das thereafter applied to the High Court for permission to sell a part of the building for the amount for which almost the whole of the Dharamshala bad been sold in favour of the Akhara.
70 of 1925 brought by Anand Prakash against Saheb Das were merely suits to establish the right of the plaintiffs to the Mahantship or whether they were suits to get the endowment property into the possession of persons who were the rightful Mahants.
163 of 1943 which was filed against the dismissal of the petition to set aside the sale, the High Court made an order that if the judgment debtors, deposited a sum of Rs.
The application was dismissed on February 6, 1943.
In support of this argument Mr. Purshottam Tricumdas referred to the decision in Sharada Peeth Math, Dwarka v. Rajrajeshvarasharma, AIR 1933 Bom 276, but that decision was companycerned with the question of limitation and has numberbearing on the question presented for determination in the present case.
135 of 1915 brought by Mahant Sital Das against Mahant Saheb Das and suit No.
64 of 1945.
The Civil Judge also found that the suit was barred by Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on account of the Compromise decree in suit No.
It appears that Mahant Pooran Das resigned the Gaddi of Shanter Shah and Narendra Das was installed as Mahant in his place.
On October 21, 1935 Mahant Saheb Das filed suit No.
The suit was companytested by the respondents on the ground that the Dharamshala at Hardwar was part of the Gaddi Shanter Shah and the mortgage deed executed by Saheb Dass dated June 1, 1933 was supported by pressing legal necessity and the sale deed executed in favour of respondents 3 and 4 on June 14.
1,50,300 was number deposited in the High Court within the time granted.
It was further alleged that the suit was barred by res judicata in view of the companypromise in Suit No.
After the Akhara refused the offer of the companymittee of trustees, respondents 3 and 4 were approached by the companymittee and were persuaded to take a much smaller portion of the building of Dharamshala for the same amount.
In the meantime, on February 3, 1943, Narain Das and 2 others filed suit No.
3 of 1943.
10,000 in favour of Panchaiti Akhara Kalan in respect of the money borrowed for the litigation.
On June 14, 1945 respondents 1 and 2 executed the sale deed in favour of respondents 3 and 4 and they recited in the companyrse of this document that the transaction was entered into in the interests of the Math because the entire building of the Dharamshala would be lost to the Math for ever if the transaction with respondents 3 and 4 was number companycluded and the amount, Rs.
The companymittee of trustees and Mahant Narendra Das had meetings on April 15, 1945 and April 30, 1945 to companysider the matter.
Ultimately respondents 3 and 4 agreed to purchase a much smaller portion of the Dharamshala for the amount of Rs.
It was stated that respondents 1 and 2 executed the sale deed to set aside the auction sale of a major part of the Dharamshala in satisfaction of a mortgage decree in Suit No.
342 of 1948 arising out of the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge of Saharanpur, dated September 6, 1948, in Suit No.
The companymittee of trustees was appointed in pursuance of an agreement dated July 27, 1944.
66 of 1935 against the Akhara under Section 33 of the U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act for rendition of account in respect of the mortgage of 1933, and on March 27, 1936 a companypromise decree was passed in that suit for Rs.
Mahant Saheb Das had also borrowed from Panchaiti Akhara during that litigation.
In the interest of the Gaddi Mahant Narendra Das appointed a companymittee of trustees to advise him in the management of the affairs of the trust.
The debt came to Rs.
The Panchaiti Akhara obtained possession of the property on November 23, 1943.
The other two plaintiffs made an application that the suit had been companypromised and may be dismissed and accordingly an order was passed on December 7, 1944.
1,50,300 in Court to the credit of the the Akhara before July 25, 1945, the sale would be set aside.
The Civil Judge also held that the sale deed dated June 14, 1945 was legally valid as it was executed to discharge the decretal obligation created by the decree in suit No.
There was numberresponse from the Akhara and therefore the Committee of Trustees resolved on May 30, 1945 to negotiate a sale with respondents 3 and 4.
The suit No.
Pooran Das filed an appeal before the High Court against the order of the Civil Judge dismissing the application.
In order to discharge this debt and also the debt due under the mortgage deed dated July 18, 1919 Mahant Saheb Das executed on June 1, 1933 a mortgage deed with possession of the Dharamshala for Rs.
On December 4, 1944, Narendra Das filed an application for withdrawing himself from the suit as he had been appointed Mahant of the Gaddi in place of Pooran Das who was removed, and the prayer was granted by the companyrt.
1,50,300 payable to the Akhara.
On April 15, 1945 the trustees adopted a resolution that the Akhara Panchaiti Kalan should be approached to purchase a lesser portion of the Dharamshala for the amount for which it had originally purchased almost the whole of the building.
It was accordingly held by the Civil Judge that the sale deed dated June 14, 1945 was executed for legal necessity and for adequate companysideration.
Against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge the plaintiffs preferred First Appeal No.
66 of 1935 created a binding debt against the Gaddi Shanter Shah and that the impugned sale deed was executed in order to save the whole of the Dharamshala from passing out of the hands of the Mahant of Gaddi Shanter Shah and the impugned alienation was of a protective character and was for the benefit of the estate of the Mahant of Shanter Shah.
After the High Courts order dated April 30, 1945 efforts were made by Mahant Narendra Das and the companymittee of trustees appointed by him to persuade the Akhara to take a smaller portion of the Dharamshala for the same amount, but their efforts were fruitless.
Upon these rival companytentions the Civil Judge of Saharanpur held that the Dharamshala at Hardwar was number a separate endowment but was part and parcel of Gaddi Shanter Shah.
The Civil Judge accordingly dismissed the suit.
As there was default in the payment of instalments, the mortgaged property was brought to sale and purchased in Court auction by Panchaiti Akhara on November 17, 1942.
The Akhara Panchaiti Kalan took possession of property on November 23, 1945 but in the meantime Pooran Das filed an objection before the execution companyrt for setting aside of the sale on the ground of material irregularity under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code.
It was stated on behalf of the respondents that the decree in the mortgage suit being Suit No.
342 of 1948 in the Allahabad High Court which dismissed the appeal by its judgment and decree dated November 13, 1959.
1,50,300.
This suit was brought by the appellants as representing the Udasi sect under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code in respect of the Dharamshala at Hardwar companytaining the Samadhi of Baba Bakhat Mal, founder of the Gaddi Shanter Shah which is located in Roorkee Teshil of Saharanpur District.
The order was made by the High Court on April 30, 1945.
In the year 1923, after the death of Sital das the dispute again arose between Saheb Das and Anand Parkash for the Gaddi.
70 of 1925 filed by Anand Prakash against Saheb Das was decided in favour of the latter.
30,825 on June 1, 1933.
It appears that after the resignation of Mahant Pooran Das respondent No.
The result was that the disputed Dharamshala was sold with the exception of the three rooms and was purchased by the Akhara Panchaiti Kalan on November 17, 1942 for Rs.
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by special leave on behalf of the plaintiffs from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Allahabad dated November 13, 1959, dismissing First Appeal No.
The sale was companyfirmed on November 23, 1943 after an application made on February 6, 1943 by Pooran Das to set aside the execution sale was dismissed.
