NIRMAL YADAV, J. - (1.) THE appellant/defendant-Dharam Dass has challenged the judgment and decree dated 19.3.1987 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Rajpura and judgment and decree dated 16.1.1993 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which the respondent's suit for declaration, to the effect that he is Mohatmim in possession of the Dera Khir Ka Khera and agricultural land measuring 126 bighas 16 biswas situated within the revenue estate Harpalan, Tehsil Rajpura and is also entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 8400/- lying deposited in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.; also for correction of the entries in the revenue record and restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession of the property belonging to the Dera has been decreed.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Mahant Mansa Dass @ Mansa Ram Chela Kishan Dass, an Udasi Sadhu and Mohatmom of Dera (Khir Ka Khera), adopted the respondent-plaintiff as Chela according to customs of Udasi Bheikh and a writing to this effect was also executed on 7.1.1954. Plaintiff being the eldest Chela of Mahant Mansa Dass, was appointed as successor to Mahant Mansa Dass. According to the custom of Udasi Bheikh the eldest Chela was to succeed his Guru as Mohatmim. Mahant Mansa Dass himself admitted this fact in Civil Suit No. 129/90-T of 28.1.1969 decided on 31.10.1970 relating to a dispute over succession to the Dera. Even in a previous suit relating to succession of Dera, decided by the Nazam, District Patiala on 31.1.2004-BK it was held that the eldest Chela was to succeed. Accordingly, Mahant Mansa Dass had succeeded the previous Mahant Kishan Dass and claim of another Chela Puran Dass was rejected. Likewise, respondent-Didar Dass being appointed as Chela by Mahant Mansa Dass succeeded him as Mohatmim of the Dera. He was also in actual physical possession of the land in dispute. It was pleaded that appellant- Dharam Dass cannot succeed as Mohatmim of Dera, as well as, has no concern with the land belonging to Mahant Mansa Dass as he is not even a Sadhu of Udasi Bheikh. He is a married person and addicted to several vices. The Sadhus of Udasi Bheikh remain unmarried and observe celibacy. The appellant-defendant on the basis of some forged and fabricated documents in collusion with the revenue officials got the mutation of the land of the dera sanctioned in his favour from the Assistant Collector. Mahant Mansa Dass during his life time never adopted Dharam Dass as his Chela nor executed any Will in his favour. Defendant-Dharam Dass controverted the pleadings and averred that plaintiff-Didar Dass was not in actual physical possession of the land of the Dera. The land had been attached by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and a Receiver was appointed to manage the same. The proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were decided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in favour of the defendant directing the Receiver to deliver possession to Ishwar Singh and Bant Singh, the tenants under the defendant. The defendant further averred that he succeeded to Mahant Mansa Dass after his death, as Mohatmim of the Dera on the basis of registered Will and election held by Udasi Bheikh. The plaintiff was never appointed as Mahant on the basis of writing dated 7.1.1954. The said writing is a false and fictitious document. It was further pleaded that Mahant Mansa Dass expelled (plaintiff) Didar Dass from the Dera during his life time as he had disobeyed him. It was further submitted that Mahant Mansa Dass had filed a suit against plaintiff Didar Dass, which was decided on 31.10.1970 and Mahant Mansa Dass had expelled him from the Dera. It was categorically pleaded that plaintiff was never appointed as Mohatmim of the Dera nor he was in actual physical possession of the suit land, whereas, it was the defendant who was appointed as Mohatmim of the Dera by the Bheikh of the Udasi Sadhus. It was further pleaded that defendant-Dharam Dass had served Mahant Mansa Dass as his Chela and performed his last rites. He also acted as his attorney during his life time.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : "1. Whether the plaintiff is Chela of Mahant Mansa Dass-deceased Mohatmim of Dera Kheer-Ka-Khera, Harpalan ? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff has succeeded Mansa Dass as Mohatmim of Dera Kheer-Ka- Khera ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is in actual physical possession of the land in dispute and Dera Kheer-Ka-Khera ? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 8400/- lying deposited in the Court of S.D.M., Rajpura, in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. ? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for ? OPP 6. Whether mutation of suit property in favour of the defendant is illegal and wrong ? OPP 7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 8. Whether the suit in the present form is not legally maintainable ? OPD 9. Whether the defendant is the Mohatmim Mahant of Dera Kheer-Ka- Khera on the basis of Will, dated 23.7.1979 executed by Mansa Dass, Mahant Dera Kheer-Ka- Khera ? OPD 10. Whether the defendant is the testamentary heir of Mohatmim of Dera Kheer- Ka-Khera on the basis of Will dated 23.7.1979, executed by Mansa Dass Mahant, Dera Kheer-Ka-Khera ? OPD 11. Whether the defendant was adopted as 'Chela' By Mansa Dass Mohatmim Dera Kheer-Ka-Khera ? OPD 12. Whether the plaintiff has filed a false, frivolous and vexatious suit, to his knowledge, and the defendant is entitled to compensatory costs, under Section 35-A CPC ? OPD 13. Whether S.D.M., Rajpura, had declared defendant as Mohatmim entitled to possession of the suit land, vide his order, dated 31.3.1983, in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., if so, its effect ? OPD 14. Relief." ;