MAHANT JAMNA DASS Vs. DADU DAYALU MAHA SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from interfering in the management of the Gaddi of Dadu Dawara Kalanaur, has been dismissed by the two Courts below.

(2.) There is a Gaddi of Dadu Dawara, Kalanaur in village Kalanaur. It is said to be a religious institution. Certain agricultural land and landed properties belong to that Gaddi. Those properties are situated at different places like Rohtak, Kalanaur and Delhi. The last Mahant of the Gaddi was Mahant Nitaya Nand who died on 11.12.1963 without leaving any Chela. It is the common case that he as the Mahant of the Ganddi was entitled to the management of the properties of the Gaddi. He, however, executed a will Exhibit DW 6/1 on 4.8.1963 handing over the management of the entire properties of the Ganddi to Dadu Dayalu Maha Sabha Jaipur, defendant No. 1 after his death. It is a registered body. Swami Jai Ram Dass is the Secretary thereof. The plaintiff-appellant Jamuna Dass claimed himself to be the Chela of Lehar Dass and grand Chela of Mahant Mani Ram and thus claims himself to the Gurbahai of Mahant Nitaya Nand being the Chela of Mohant Mani Ram. According to the plaintiff he was appointed as a Mahant of this by the Bhaik of Dadu in accordance with the prevailing custom and usage on 17th day of the death of Mahant Nitaya Nand in Kalanaur. He therefore, maintains that it is he who is entitled to manage the properties of the Gaddi as its Mahant. It is further alleged that Mahant Nitaya Nand could not supersede the powers of the Bhaik in the matter of appointing the Mahant of the Gaddi and that it is the Mahant of the Gaddi who is always entitled to manage the properties of the Gaddi. Thus the present suit for permanent injunction was brought against the legatee i.e. Dadu Dayalu Maha Sabha, Jaipur, through its Secretary as not to interfere in the management of the properties by him. On behalf of the defendant-respondant Society, it was denied that the plaintiff is the grand Chela of Mahant Mani Ram as claimed by him. It was further asserted that the plaintiff was never appointed as the Mahant of the Gaddi by the Bhaik, let alone in accordance with the prevailing custom and usage. A plea was also taken that since the appellant is not in possession of any of the properties, a suit for mere injunction is not competent. It was further pleaded that it was always in the competence of Mahant Nitaya Nand to hand over the management of the properties to the defendant-society after his death which he has done by means of this validly executed Will Exhibit DW 6/1. On the pleadings of the parties, the trail Court framed the following issues :-

(3.) As regards the maintainability of the suit for mere permanent injunction, the finding of the trial Court was reversed as it was held that a suit for mere permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from interfering with the management of the properties of the Gaddi, is competent in view of the judgment in D.A.V. College, Hoshiarpur Society, Hoshiarpur v. Sarvada Nand Anglo Sanskrit Higher Secondary School Managing Committee, 1972 AIR(P&H) 245 Thus the decree of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit was maintained. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff has come up in second appeal.