R.PRASAD,J. - (1.) JUDGEMENT This is a defendants first appeal. It is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Allahabad in original suit No. 6 of 1953 dated 28th September 1957.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent Mahant Yaduvansh Deo alias Gopinath filed the suit on certain facts to be narrated hereafter and prayed for the following reliefs - (a) That the deed dated 11th January, 1951 registered on the 18th January 1951, be suitably rectified or set aside in the light of the submissions made in this plaint which is valued at Rs. 31,320/- and the defendant be directed by an injunction to give up the management of the movable and immovable properties of the Sangat, mentioned in the First and the Second schedules of this plaint, and the administration of its other affairs to the plaintiff, and be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs administration and management of the Sangat, its properties valued Rs. 3,792/- being one-tenth of the total valuation of Rs. 37,920/-. (b) That the defendant may be ordered to render accounts of his agency period to the plaintiff from the date of his taking over as such till the date of handing over which is valued at Rs. 1,907/8/-, the profit from the properties for 15 months from the date the deed in question was registered i.e. 18th January, 1951 to the date of filing the suit. (c) That a receiver may be appointed to take charge of the administration and management of the affairs and properties of the Sangat pending the present litigation. A separate application is also being made for the same. No valuation for this relief is necessary as in the Court-fees Act only a fixed amount of Rs. 18/12/- is provided for the appointment of receiver. (d) That if the plaintiff be found to be out of possession of the Sangat properties, mentioned in the First and the Second Schedules of this plaint, then possession may also be given over the same which is valued at Rs. 37,920, and (e) That the costs of the suit may be granted to the plaintiff. The facts with which the plaintiff came to Court put briefly are as follows :- On the 25th December 1940, the plaintiff was installed as Mahant of Udasin Sangat, Daraganj, Allahabad city and from that time he administered the affairs of the Sangat till the 5th April 1950. On 5th April 1950, the plaintiff was arrested by the Daraganj Police, Allahabad city and was lodged in Naini Central Jail lockup as an under-trial prisoner in connection with certain criminal cases but was finally released on the 6th March, 1952 after obtaining acquittals. The defendant is the Mahant of another Udasin Sangat at Amritsar. When he heard of the arrest of the plaintiff, he came down to Allahabad and with the intention of usurping the plaintiffs Mahantship, interviewed him in Jail and made such representations to him as were calculated to create fear in the mind of the plaintiff. He represented to the plaintiff that the criminal cases against him were very serious and unless properly defended, they might end in conviction. He also offered financial help for the pairvi of the cases as well as to properly administer the affairs of the Sangat during the absence of the plaintiff in Jail. The plaintiff was extremely puzzled and on account of the distress in his mind, he could not exercise any foresight. The result was that he was readily led away by the representations of the defendant and reposed confidence in him. The defendant, however, played deception on the plaintiff. It was suggested by the defendant that with a view to raise money for the pairvi in the criminal cases and with a view to properly administer and manage the affairs of the Sangat and its properties, the plaintiff should appoint the defendant by means of a registered deed as his managing agent during his absence, and that he would render accounts to him when the plaintiff returned from jail and would further hand over the management to the plaintiff. Placed under the circumstances as the plaintiff was, he agreed to the proposal of the defendant and appointed him as his managing agent on the 11th January, 1951, by signing a deed of appointment which was got prepared by the defendant outside the jail on the 10th January 1951. The defendant never intended, in fact to help the plaintiff in the time of difficulty but his real intention was to usurup the gaddi. The signature of the plaintiff was obtained on the document without allowing the plaintiff to have knowledge of its contents or without allowing the plaintiff to appreciate the implications thereof. The recitals made in that document are false and fraudulent. At any rate, the clause in the deed which was to the effect that Mahant Mandeoji Mahant Akhara Kashiwala had all the rights and that he could manage the affairs of this institution in any way he liked, and that after the acquittal of the plaintiff, it would be in the option of Mahant Mandeoji either to return the Mahantship to the plaintiff or to decide the matter in any way he liked, was fraudulently inserted in the deed and was never brought to the knowledge of the plaintiff. The plaintiff never intended to relinquish or release his rights, title and interest relating to the office of Mahantship, Daraganj Sangat in favour of the defendant. Seven days after the document was prepared, it was presented for registration in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Allahabad on the 18th January, 1951. The plaintiff was brought from jail to the office of the Sub-Registrar in police custody. The Sub-Registrar read over the deed to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff found its language ambiguous and confusing he immediately made a statement before the Sub-Registrar and got the same incorporated in the registration endorsement, to the effect, that on being released from jail he would get back his right of ownership with power to keep the management in his own hands cr to appoint any other person for the purpose. When the plaintiff was released from jail on the 6th March 1962, he attempted to get back possession from the defendant but the defendant refused to hand over possession to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, thereafter, served a registered notice dated 12th April 1952 on the defendant. In reply to that notice, the defendant stated that he became full fledged Mahant of the Daraganj Sangat under the deed mentioned above. The deed did not express the real intention of the plaintiff and most of its contents are against the intention of the plaintiff.
(3.) ON such allegations, the plaintiff prayed for the reliefs which have teen mentioned above and filed the suit in forma pauperis.;