- (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 :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the Chela of Lehar Dass and Pota Chela of Mahant Mani Ram ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to succeed to Mahant Nitaya Nand according to the custom and law as applicable to the succession of Nitaya Nand as Mahant and owner of property ? OPD. 3. Whether Nitaya Nand made a valid Will in favour of defendant No. 1 ? If so, to what effect ? OPP. 4. Whether the suit lies in the present form ? OPP. 5. Whether defendant No. 3 or defendant No. 4 was the Chela of late Mahant Mani Ram and is now the present Mahant of the present institution ? 6. Relief. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were discussed together. It was held thereunder that the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed as Mahant according to the custom nor was he appointed as a Mahant by the Bhaik as alleged by him. Under issue No. 3, the trial Court found that Mahant Nitya Nand made a valid Will in favour of defendant No. 1. Issue No. 4 was decided against the plaintiff as it was held that the plaintiff is not in possession of the properties and thus could not bring the suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession. On these findings, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. In appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, it was stated on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that he was claiming the Gaddi as its Mahant not because he is grand Chela of Mahant Mani Ram, but because he had been appointed as Mahant of the Gaddi by the Bhaik on the given day in accordance with the prevailing custom and usage. However, the learned Additional District Judge found that plaintiff was the Chela of Lehar Dass who was the Chela of Mahant Mani Ram, but since the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was appointed Mahant by the Bhaik on the appointed day, his appeal was dismissed. It was further observed that the alleged document which was written on the day when the plaintiff was appointed Mahant by the Bhaik, was not produced and therefore, the inference was to be drawn against the plaintiff which means that no such writing was made or if made, it was not favourable to the plaintiff. Ultimately it was concluded that since that plaintiff has failed in proving that he was appointed as Mahant of the Gaddi by the Bhaik in accordance with the prevailing custom and practice, he shall be deemed to have no cause of action.
(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.;