- (1.) THIS appeal, preferred under Sec tion 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13-10-1977, passed by learned III Additional District Judge, Saharanpur (earlier Hardwar was part of District Saharanpur) in civil appeal No. 117 of 1976 and civil appeal No. 118 of 1976, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in original suit No. 85 of 1968, between the parties, is confirmed.
(2.) PLAINT case:- According to the PLAINT, Mahant Tahal Dass was Chela of Mahant Shobha Dass. He was Udasin of Panth of Revered Shri Chand, the eldest son of Revered Guru Nanak Dev Ji. In said Panth, there is a custom that Mahant cannot marry and he is entitled to initiate (make a relationship with) a Chela. And after death of such Mahant, his eldest Chela succeeds to all the rights and interests in the property of his Guru. It is also a custom of the above Panth that on the tenth day of death of Guru, there is a ceremony call 'dassehra' when Akhand Path of Guru Granth Sahab is performed and Bhog is offered and the eldest Chela of the deceased Guru is acknowledged as heir of the deceased where after he is known as Mahant. Mahant Tahal Dass initiated PLAINTiff- Dooj Dass, as his eld est Chela on Purnima day of Asar Sambat 1994 (i. e. 23rd July, 1937) at the Dera of Bhitiwala, Tehsil- Muktasar, District Firozpur, according to the cus tom in the presence of respectable per sons and Choti (Tuft) of the PLAINTiff was cut by Mahant Tahal Dass, and sacred Mantra was whispered into the PLAINTiff's ears and PLAINTiff took Charan Marai, i. e. water by which the foot of Guru is washed, which is also known as Charan Ghol and a Langot (black) and Bhagwa Chaadar (saffron sheet) was offered to the PLAINTiff who wore it. Thereafter, Prasad was distributed. On that day, PLAINTiff became Chela of Mahant Tahal Dass and was sent ac cording to custom, here and there for begging. Mahant Tahal Dass died at Bhitiwala on 5-12-1957. His kriya-karam (last rites) was performed by PLAINTiff as his eldest Chela and on tenth day i. e. Dassehra, after Akhand Path of Guru Granth Sahab, Prasad was distributed. The PLAINTiff was rec ognized and acknowledged thereafter as successor of the deceased and there after known as Mahant Dooj Dass. As such, he succeeded all the rights, prop erties and assets of Mahant Tahal Dass. Meanwhile, before the death of Mahant Tahal Dass, defendants Prag Dass, Ishwar Dass and Hari Dass, were also initiated as Chelas by him. He had no other Chela (disciple) except these four. Mahant Tahal Dass had Deras and properties at Bhitiwala, Sheikhan, Govind Garh, Kararwala, Rampura, Dhuri and Bhupatmala (Hardwar ). PLAINTiff being the eldest Chela suc ceeded all these properties according to the custom. Out of the properties in question, Mahant Tahal Dass, got trans ferred lease rights over certain land in his favour on 18-03-1925. He also got transferred 21 Bigha, 8 Biswa kachhi land of Khasra Plots No. 27 M and 28 M, situate in Bhupatwala Kalan, Hardwar from one Shri Birbal Sharma. He constructed rooms, kotharis and erected tinsheds apart from digging well and installed an oil engine, tube-well over said land. Mahant Tahal Dass further got permanent lease of 1 Bigha, 3 Biswa and 10 Biswansi of Khasra Plots No. 27 m and 28 M of the same village from Mahant Sadhu Dass through lease deed dated 17-08-1954 (registered on 25-08-1954 ). Subsequently, by other deeds dated 14-04-1955 (registered on 29-04-1955), and 26th June, 1955 (registered on 29-06-1955), got 30 Bighas kachha land of Khasra Plot No. 4 M and 19 Bighas, 3 Biswa, 15 Biswansi from Mahant Sadhu Singh. Mahant Tahal Dass was permanent les see and in occupation of aforesaid land and was getting the land cultivated with the help of his men and Sewaks. He used to pay lagaan also. The area of aforesaid entire land consisted of two parts, one on the east of Hardwar-Rishikesh Road and other on the west of the said road. According to the PLAINTiff, he got seven years Akhand Path performed from the year 1958 to 1965 in Kararwala, Bhatinda and observed 12 Akhotaris (each akhotari takes six months ). Meanwhile, he had no suspi cion about the transfer of any of the properties, succeeded by him. When the PLAINTiff came to Hardwar on 11-04-1968, for Ardh Kumbhi, after the death of his Guru to take a dip in holy Ganges, on that day he went to stay in Kutiya (hut) of his Guru. On his visit there he came to know that one Buddh Dass, alleging himself to be the Chela of Mahant Tahal Dass, has transferred the rights through sale deed dated 5-05-1962 (registered on June, 1962) in respect of the property to defendant No. 1 Udasin Panchayati Bara Akhara through his Mahant-defendant No. 2-Gopal Dass. PLAINTiff Dooj Dass, ob tained certified copy of the sale deeds in April 1968 and found that defendants No. 1 and 2, in collusion with Buddh Dass had illegally occupied the above property described at the foot of the PLAINT. Apart from seeking relief of possession over the property in suit, the PLAINTiff has sought cancellation of sale deed challenging the aforesaid sale deed on the grounds namely: (a) Buddh Dass was never initiated as Chela by Mahant Tahal Dass. (b) Buddh Dass never succeeded property from Mahant Tahal Dass. (c) Buddh Dass had no right to transfer the property in suit. (d) Consideration shown in sale deed is fictitious. (e) Sale deed in question is result of collusion between Buddh Dass and defendants No. 1 and 2, as such not binding on the PLAINTiff. Case setup by the contesting de fendants in their written statements: Defendants No. 1 and 2 denied the custom alleged by the Plaintiff. These defendants also disputed that Plaintiff was ever initiated as Chela by Mahant Tahal Dass. They also denied that last rites of Mahant Tahal Dass was per formed by the Plaintiff. However, these defendants admitted that Mahant Tahal Dass had properties in Bhitiwala, Sheikhan, Govind Garh, Kararwala, Rampura and Bhupatwala (Hardwar ). It was also admitted that Mahant Tahal Dass died in the year 1957. The execu tion of the lease deeds in favour of Mahant Tahal Dass, mentioned in the Plaint, are also admitted and it is not disputed that Mahant Tahal Dass was a permanent lessee in respect of the land mentioned in the lease deed. In addi tional pleas, these defendants namely - Udasin Panchayati Bara Akhara, Kankhal, Hardwar (defendant No. 1) and its Mahant- Gopal Dass (defendant No. 2) have pleaded that the property in question is governed by U. P. Urban Ar eas Zamindari Abolition and Land Re forms Act, 1956, and the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is fur ther pleaded that the answering defend ants have purchased the property in suit bona fide for consideration (Rs. 32,000/-) from Buddh Dass who has died about three years before the insti tution of the suit. It is further pleaded in the written statement that the suit against the dead person is not main tainable (initially Buddh Dass was impleaded in the Plaint as defendant No. 3 but later his name was deleted by way of amendment ). It is alleged in the written statement of these answering defendants that Plaintiff-Dooj Dass is Chela of Mangal Dass. It was Buddh Dass, Chela of Tahal Dass, who suc ceeded property situated at Bhupatwala on the death of his Guru (Mahant Tahal Dass ). Lastly, it is pleaded that the rights of the contesting respondents are protected under Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Defendant No. 5- Hari Dass also contested the suit by filing separate written statement in which only this much is admitted that Mahant Tahal Dass was Chela of Mahant Shobha Dass and was Udasin of the Panth es tablished by Shri Chand Ji, elder son of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. It is also admitted in this written statement that Mahant Tahal Dass owned the properties in various places including the property in question. It is also not disputed that Mahant Tahal Dass has died. In the additional pleas, this defendant (who filed separate second appeal wrongly numbered as 1507 of 2001, old No. 2713 of 1977, dismissed already as withdrawn on 16-12-1996) has pleaded that Plaintiff. Dooj Dass is Chela of Mangal Dass who was in fact disciple of Mahant Tahal Dass. This defendant has also stated that Buddh Das (transferor in disputed sale deed) was Chela of Mahant Tahal Dass who has died before the institution of the suit. It is further pleaded that initially impleading Buddh Dass (even after his death) in the Plaint itself shows that the Plaintiff had no knowledge of the de velopments in respect of the property in suit after the death of Mahant Tahal Dass. Defendant No. 5 further pleaded in his written statement that Mahant Tahal Dass has property in several places but his headquarter was at Sheikhan, Tehsil Burnal, Sangrur, Pun jab, and property situate at Hardwar, was being looked after by one Prem Dass. It is alleged that Prem Dass infact became Mahant after the death of Mahant Tahal Dass and he appointed Buddh Dass to manage the properties in suit at Hardwar. It is also pleaded that at the time of death of Mahant Tahal Dass, Buddh Dass had gone for Tapasya (penance ). Lastly, it is pleaded by defendant No. 5 that Buddh Dass had no right to transfer the property in suit but since Prem Dass had no objec tion to it, as such no one else has any right to object to it.
(3.) UNDISPUTED facts: From the above pleadings, it is admitted to the contesting parties that Mahant Tahal Dass was permanent lessee in respect of the land in suit. It is also not disputed that Mahant Tahal Dass died in the year 1957. Lease deeds of the year 1925, 1951, 1954 and 1955, executed in fa vour of Tahal Dass, are also not in question. It is also admitted fact that Mahant Tahal Dass owned properties in many places, namely- Bhitiwala, Sheikhan, Govind Garh, Kararwala, Rampura, Dhuri and Bhupatwala (Hardwar ). There is no dispute as to the plot numbers and the areas of the land mentioned in the Plaint. Issues framed by trial court: Trial court framed the following issues during the trial: 1. Whether In view of U. P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 2. Whether the suit is undervalued? If so, its effect? 3. Whether the Plaintiff was initi ated as eldest chela of Mahant Tahal Dass (deceased) according to the custom alleged in paras No. 1 and 2 of the Plaint? If so, its effect? 4. Whether the Plaintiff, being eld est Chela, became heir and successor in respect of the property of Mahant Tahal Dass? If so, is he entitled to the property in suit? 5. Whether Buddh Dass succeeded the property at Bhupatwala at Hardwar owned by Mahant Tahal Dass and if so, was he competent to transfer the prop erty in suit to defendants No. 1 and 2? 6. Whether Shri Prag Dass (defend ant No. 3) succeeded to property of Mahant Tahal Dass situated at Sheikhan, Dhuri and Govind Garh?;