Das, C.J. - (1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the Plaintiff, Respondent Raghunath Gir for possession of 75 kanals 5 marlas of land with a declaration that the Plaintiff -Respondent was entitled to receive three -fourth of a moiety of the produce of the land, from the tenants and that he was entitled to induct and eject tenants, and for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant -Appellants who are the proprietors of the land in suit from interfering with his right to induct or eject the tenants and to realize three fourth of a moiety of the rents from the tenants. It is alleged that the land in suit is attached to the institution known as Devi Talab in Tehsil Jullundur in dharamarth and the Mahant of that institution is the muafidar of the land in suit. This muafi is said to have been sanctioned fey the Government as far back as 31 -7 -1847. It is claimed that, the Mahant of Devi Talab as muafidar used to realize a moiety of the produce from the tenants upto 1884 when some disputes arose between the proprietors and the Mahant. Those disputes are said to have been amicably settled on or about 6 -8 -1884 in the following manner, namely, that" out of the moiety realised from the tenants a quarter thereof was to be taken by the proprietors and the remaining three -fourth of that moiety would be appropriated by the Mahant muafidar. In 1921, the then proprietors are alleged to have served notices of ejectment on the then tenants. In 1922, the then tenants instituted suits against the then proprietors contesting the latter's right to serve such notices of ejectment. Those suits were decreed and appeals filed by the proprietors were dismissed in 1923. The present Defendant -Appellants who were Defendants 1, 2 and 3 in the suit, purchased the proprietors' interest in the land in suit and after their purchase they in 1940 served the tenants with notices of ejectment. The then tenants filed suits challenging the validity of such notices. Those suits, however, were dismissed. After the dismissal of those suits Moti Gir, the last Mahant of Devi Talab, filed a suit for a declaration of his title to the land in suit as muafidar and for possession. Issues were framed in that suit in May 1943. After several days' hearing the suit was on 18 -8 -1943 fixed for hearing and recording of evidence. The hearing, however, was adjourned till 19 -10 -1943. Before that, however, on 4 -10 -1943 a compromise was recorded between Moti Gir and the proprietors whereby it was agreed that the Mahant would be entitled to only Rs. 11 per annum as muafidar and would have nothing to do with the land in suit of the tenants thereof. Moti Gir died in Jeth 1943. The present suit was filed by the Plaintiff -Respondent Raghunath Gir on 10 -7 -1946 against the proprietors and the tenants for the relief's I have mentioned.
(2.) IN para. 1 of the plaint, it is alleged that the land in suit had from olden times been muafi since the rule of Sikhs until the existence of Devi Talab and that the land had descended from Guru to Chela and that the Plaintiff is the last muafidar of the land in suit. In para. 2 it is averred that the muafidar had always been in possession of the land and had been realizing one -half of its produce from the tenants. In paras. 3 and 4 is pleaded the settlement of disputes between the then muafidar and the then proprietors which took place in August 1884. In para. 5 is set out the litigation between the tenants and the then proprietors which resulted in the cancellation of the notices of ejectment served; by the then proprietors on the tenants. In para. 7 are recited the fact of notices of ejectment served by the present proprietors and the suits instituted by the tenants for cancellation thereof and the fact of dismissal of those suite for default of appearance of the tenants. The litigation between Mahant Moti Gir and the present proprietors and the settlement thereof in 1943 are referred to in paras. 8 and 9 of the plaint. It is alleged that the last mentioned settlement was brought about by undue influence and Moti Gir's suit was withdrawn pursuant to such settlement. It was contended in para. 10 that that settlement brought about by inducement and undue influence exercised on Moti Gir was not binding on his successor, and in any event the previous muafidar bad no right to relinquish the rights to possess and recover the produce of the land and thereby injure the dharamarth property. Paragraph 11 of the plaint is important as formulating the right of the Plaintiff -Respondent and is in the following terms: The previous Mahant muafidar Moti Gir died in the month Of Jeth 1943. The Plaintiff, present Mahant, is his chela and by virtue of will and nomination is the muafidar from Government. He is, therefore, competent to sue. The proprietor -Defendants have contested the suit and have filed their written statement. In the preliminary pleas, the contesting Defendants deny that the Plaintiff has any cause of action. Paragraph 1 of the plaint is totally denied and it is averred that the Plaintiff has got no connation whatsoever with the land in dispute. The Defendants deny that any muafidar has been in possession of the land in suit or has realized any share of produce from the tenants. The alleged compromise of 1884 referred to in para. 3 of the plaint is denied. The Defendants do not admit the allegations in para. 5 of the plaint and contend that even if any proceedings took place between the then proprietors and the then tenants in 1921 the same has no effect as against those Defendants. The Defendants maintain that they were perfectly justified in serving notices of ejectment on the tenants in 1940 and the suits of the tenants had been properly dismissed. The Defendants maintain that the suit filed by Moti Gir was absurd and without foundation and that realizing that he had no chance of success Moti Gir in good faith and in the best interests of the institution effected a compromise which is binding on the institution and his successor. The Defendants deny that any inducement was held out to Moti Gir and maintain that Moti Gir was fully competent to effect the compromise. The Defendants contend that Moti Gir's suit having been dismissed or withdrawn as a result of the compromise, the Plaintiff, claiming to be his successor, is not entitled to bring the present suit. The last two sentences of para. 9 of the written statement are as follows: ...The Plaintiff is not a mahant nor is he competent to ignore the said compromise and institute this suit. The compromise is in all respects legal and enforceable. Paragraph 11 of the plaint is dealt with in para. 10 of the written statement as follows: The allegations in para. 11 with regard to the death of Moti Gir are admitted. The other allegations in this paragraph are quite incorrect and are denied. The Plaintiff is not at all competent to sue.
(3.) IT will appear from the pleadings as summarized above that the Plaintiff -Respondent founds his claim on the basis that the land descends from Guru to Chela (para. 1 of the plaint) and that on the death of Moti Gir the Plaintiff became the Mabant: (1) as his Chela, (2) by virtue of nomination by the will of Moti Gir and (3) as the muafidar from Government. (Paragraph 11 of the plaint.) There is no specific averment of any particular custom governing the devolution of the office of mahant of this particular institution. The only averment is that the Plaintiff claims to be the mahant by virtue of his being a chela or being nominated by the will of the last mahant or being recognized as muafidar by the Government. The contesting Defendants deny paras, 1 and 10 of the plaint in the way I have already mentioned.;