S.D.KHARE,J. - (1.) JUDGEMENT An interesting point of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a gift or dedication of movable property (Rs. 23,038 cash) could be made by a Satsangi of the Radha Swami faith (in the present case the Sant Sad Guru himself) to Radha Swami Dayal, the impersonal deity of Radha Swami Satsangis, and, if so, in whom would that property vest. It is also in dispute whether any such gift or dedication had, in fact, been made.
(2.) THE property in dispute is a residential building, known as "Tej Punj" constructed in the year 1934 inside the Dayal Bagh Colony at Agra. It is the admitted case of the parties that the entire cost of the construction of the building was borne by Sir Anand Swarup (hereinafter described as "Shri Sahabji Maharaj". The construction became complete in the year 1935, and Shri Sahabji Maharaj along with other members of his family shifted to that building. Shri Sahabji Maharaj departed from this world on 24-6-1937. Thereafter his widow Lady Sohandei and other members of the family lived in that house. In the year 1953, when the suit, giving rise to this appeal was instituted, Lady Sohandei (defendant No. 1) and her son, Shanti Swarup (defendant No. 2), along with other members of the family, were living in that house. The suit was instituted by the Radha Swami Satsang Sabha, Dayal Bagh, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the Sabha) a society registered under the Societies Registration Act No. 21 of 1860, through its Secretary, Sri Babu Ram Jadon, M.A., and the only two defendants were Lady Sohandei and Shanti Swarup. The plaintiffs case was that the plaintiff is a society registered under Act No. 21 of 1860, and is a representative body of that section of the followers of Radha Swami faith, which is popularly known as the Dayal Bagh group. The followers of the Radha Swami faith used to make bhents (gifts or dedications) to the impersonal deity, Radha Swami Dayal. Such bhents and the properties acquired therefrom and their income vested in the plaintiff Sabha and was held by it for application wholly to religious and charitable purposes of the Sabha. The bhents were offered for various purposes, one of them being the construction of houses inside Dayal Bagh Colony. Like every other bhent, the bhent made for the construction of houses also vested in the plaintiff Sabha and the Satsangi offering the bhent retained no interest in the money. The Sabha constructed houses for the temporary stay of pilgrims within Dayal Bagh and the residence of Satsangis residing there including such other persons as are entitled under the rules framed by the Sabha to reside in Dayal Bagh. The persons who offer bhent for the construction of houses are granted rights of occupancy in houses, in law amounting to licence, limited to the lifetime of the offerer, subject to the observance of rules for the time being in force with absolute discretion vesting in the Sabha to grant similar rights after the death of the offerer to a nominee or heir of such person in case such nominee or heir is considered fit for residence in Dayal Bagh. Shri Sahabji Maharaj was the founder of the Dayal Bagh Colony and the rules mentioned above and the principles on which such rules were based emanated from him. Shri Sahabji Maharaj was a rigid observer of all rules and regulations of the Sabha and insisted to be bound and governed by the same rules as applied to any common Satsangi. Like every other Satsangi, Shri Sahabji Maharaj offered bhent for the construction of a house and made an application in that connection on 21st April, 1934, and voluntarily undertook to be bound by all the rules and conditions relating to houses and residence in Dayal Bagh then in force or that might thereafter be made and put into force. The building known as "Tej Punj" was constructed in those circumstances for Shri Sahabji Maharaj, and he finally accepted the licence to occupy the same in pursuance of the rules mentioned above. During his lifetime Shri Sahabji Maharaj voluntarily accepted the position of a licensee for occupation of "Tej Punj" like a common Satsangi offering bhent for construction of houses, and nominated his wife, Lady Sohandei (defendant No. 1) for Sabhas consideration for being granted a licence on termination of his own licence at his demise. After the death of Shri Sahabji Maharaj on 24th June, 1937 Lady Sohandei (defendant No. 1) applied for the grant of licence for residence in "Tej Punj", and the same was granted to her by resolution No. 4 (a), dated 10th October, 1937, passed by the Executive Committee of the Sabha. The Sant Sad Guru, who succeeded Shri Sahabji Maharaj, was Mehtaji Maharaj, who was accepted as such by a vast majority of the Satsangis. Shanti Swarup (defendant No. 2), however, did not recognise Mehtaji Maharaj as the Sant Sad Guru. On the other hand, he for sometime declared Rajji Maharaj as the Santsad Guru succeeding Shri Sahabji Maharaj. Defendant No. 2 and his elder brother, being the sons of Lady Sohandei, continued to live in "Tej Punj" and committed several breaches of the rules of the Society. No action was, however, taken against them becausa some consideration was shown to them as they were the sons of the late Sant Sad Guru and also because Mehtaji Maharaj, the present Sant Sad Guru pleaded for them in the hope that they would, in future, mend their conduct. Shanti Swarup (defendant No. 2), however, started proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C., in respect of the land around "Tej Punj" claiming the same to be appurtenant to "Tej Punj", and on 10th July, 1953, the second officer of Hariparbat police station called the Secretary of the Sabha to sign an incomplete report of attachment of a plot of land lying to the east of "Tej Punj". Defendant No. 2 alleged during the course of Section 145, Cr.P.C. proceedings that defendant No. 1 was the owner of "Tej Punj". That assertion cast a cloud on the title of the plaintiff to the building known as "Tej Punj" , and, therefore, a declaration was sought that the plaintiff Sabha is the owner of "Tej Punj" in which the defendants had no proprietary interest and that defendant No. 1 alone was holding it as licensee for her life. A further declaration was sought that the strip of land to the east of "Tej Punj" and the land on the other three sides of "Tej Punj" was not appurtenant to that building.
(3.) BOTH the defendants filed separate but similar written statements. They did not admit any of the material allegations made in the plaint, and pleaded that Shri Sahabji Maharaj had not made a gift of money for the construction of "Tej Punj" but had got that building constructed for his residence and for the residence of the members of his family after the executive committee of the plaintiff Sabha had fixed a reasonable ground rent for the land to be occupied by him. It was further pleaded that the theory of bhent as propounded in the plaint was entirely false and that the memorandum (Exhibit 8) did not bear the signature of Shri Sahabji Maharaj. It was also pleaded that no girt or bhent could legally be made or presumed to be made by Shri Sahabji Maharaj to himself, he himself being the Sant Sad Guru and, according to Radha Swami tenets, the manifestation of impersonal deity in human form. It was further pleaded that the intent and purport of the memorandum dated 21st April, 1934 (the genuineness of which was denied), only implied creation of some contractual obligations of purely financial nature. It was also pleaded that after the death of Shri Sahabji Maharaj the members of his family had temporarily left Dayal Bagh after locking their belongings in the "Tej Punj". It was in the month of December, 1938, that the defendants and Prem Swarup returned to Dayal Bagh, but their entry was blocked. They, however, used force in order to reach up to their residence, namely, "Tej Punj", and on finding that the plaintiff Sabha had put its own locks in place of the locks which had originally been put by the defendants they broke open the locks of the Sabha and occupied their own house, and since then they have been not only in proprietary possession but (in case their ownership was not proved), in adverse possession of that building. It was also pleaded by them that the plaintiff Sabha could not be registered as a charitable society under Act 21 of 1860 and that it had ceased to function inasmuch as no Sant Sad Guru had reappeared within two years of the death of Shri Sahabji Maharaj. The other pleas raised by them were of bar of limitation and of Section 42, Specific Relief Act. They also contended that the suit was barred by estoppel and acquiescence. ;