A plaintiff in an ejectment suit must prove their own title. A suit for possession cannot be converted into a suit for the administration of a public charity if the plaintiff is not a "person interested" in the institution.

Sir George Rankin:-

In this case the original plaintiff was one Mahabir Das, mahunt of a thakardwara at Peshawar and Chiniot. By his suit, brought on 3rd August 1926, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Sheikhupura in the Punjab, he claimed to eject defendant 1 Sham Das from a thukardwara situate at a village called Bhikhi and from the properties belonging thereto. On 22nd August 1927 he succeeded before the trial Judge in obtaining a decree declaring that Sham Das was a trespasser and that he (the plaintiff) was entitled to possession of the property attached to the Bhikhi temple. Thereafter he obtained possession in execution of the decree. The High Court at Lahore however on 27th Tune 1933 set aside this decree and dismissed the suit. While the appeal was pending in the High Court, viz. on 10th July 1930, Mahabir Das died and was succeeded on the gaddis of Peshawar and Chiniot by one Ram Lakhman Das. On an application made by Sham Das on 14th October 1930 the High Court substituted Ram Lakhman Das as plaintiff-respondent to the appeal- an order which is objected to before their Lordships on the ground that the application was four days out of time, that the appeal had abated on 10th October, and that no sufficient cause was shown under O. 22, R. 9 (2) for setting aside the abatement. On 18th January 1935 Ram Lakhman Das executed a deed of relinquishment whereby he relinquished his various gaddis including that of Bhikhi to the present appellant, mahunt Shatrugan Das, and authorized him to prosecute this appeal to His Majesty.

The institution at Bhikhi, which is the subject of dispute, is admittedly a thakardwara of the Bairagis of Rama Nand. It goes by the name of one Bawa Prahlad Bhagat Sahib as its founder. Before Sham Das attained the gaddi in 1923, the mahunt was one Dharm Das, said by both parties to have been a descendant of Prahlad Bhagat. Dharm Das died on 25th June 1923, but he had been long afflicted with insanity. It seems now to be clear, though it was at one time disputed by the plaintiff, that Dharm Das had a chela called Dial Das who acted as mahunt during the absence and incapacity of Dharm Das. Dial Das however predeceased Dharm Das, and on the latter's death Sham Das, defendant 1 claiming to be chela of Dial Das, applied to the Revenue Court for mutation and obtained mutation on 2nd November 1924. Sham Das is admittedly a ghrihisti or householder, having been married twice, though he is now apparently a widower. According to the plaintiff's case, Sham Das cannot lawfully succeed to the gaddi as only an ascetic (verkatta bairagi) can be mahunt of Bhikhi. The plaintiff's case as pleaded by his amended plaint is anything but clear. The defendants number 26: of these 20 seem to be tenants of land belonging to the Bhikhi institution and five are mahunts of other bairagi thakardwaras. The suit is framed in ejectment and asks a declaration negativing the right of Sham Das. One relief claimed is:

(d) I may be accepted as lawful mahunt with full powers in place of defendant 1, and possession of moveable and immovable property . . . may be warded to me from him.

On the footing that Mahabir, the original plaintiff, was the true and lawful mahunt of Bhikhi, the suit is simply one wherein he is claiming possession of his own property. But if this ground has to be abandoned, it is not, in their Lordships' view, possible to alter the character of the suit so as to regard it as one brought by a person interested in the institution to obtain due administration thereof and the appointment of a proper mahunt. It does not appear that the plaintiff is on this hypothesis a person interested in the Bhikhi institution. He is not one of its sewaks nor a resident of Bhikhi. Moreover, according to the plaintiff's case, the institution would seem to be a public charity so as to attract the provisions of S. 92 of the Code. What then is the case made by the plaintiff to show that he is entitled to possession of the Bhikhi temple? He m