The importance of prima facie evidence in appointing a receiver and the validation of the appointment for proper management of assets and offerings.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J —The plaintiff, claims succession, to the Guru Gaddi Baba Jhalla Ji. He has prayed, for rendition of a declaratory decree, qua his being entitled to inherit, the Guru Gaddi Baba Jhalla Ji, besides has sought a declaration, qua, defendant No.2, being disentitled to declare himself, as, the Mahant (Jhalla Ji) . The substratum, of the claim reared, in the plaint, by the plaintiff, is, squarely rested, upon, there existing customs and traditions, whereunder, succession, to, the Guru Gaddi Baba Jhalla Ji, is bestowable only upon the eldest surviving son, of the preceding Mahant, of, Guru Gaddi Baba Jhalla Ji. Furthermore, the plaintiff avers, of, one Gurdiyal Singh, erstwhile Mahant, of, Guru Gaddi Baba Jhalla Ji, executing a will, on 26.07.2008, in consonance, with, the apt customs and usages, whereunder, he appointed, the plaintiff, being his eldest grand son, to succeed vis-a-vis, the Guru Gaddi Baba Jhalla Ji, upon, occurrence, of, demise of one Virender Sharma. However, Virender Sharma, upon, occurrence of his demise, on, 22.09.2012, is, disclosed to be survived, by only female issues, and, his widow one Indra Sharma, rather collusively appointing, and, declaring defendant No.2, one Varun Sharma, the youngest grand son, of, one Gurdiyal Singh, to be the Mahant, of, Guru Gaddi Baba Jhalla Ji. In sequel, the plaintiff, avers qua hence derogation vis-a-vis the customs enjoined to be revered, qua succession, to the spiritual seat of Mahant of Guru Gaddi, Baba Jhalla Ji, hence, occurring, derogation whereof, is comprised in the plaintiff, despite, being the eldest grand son, of, Gurdiyal Singh, also, his being bequeathed, the Guru Gaddi Baba Jhalla Ji by his grand father, one Gurdiyal Singh, who, during his life time held the spiritual seat, of, Guru Gaddi Baba Jhalla Ji, rather his youngest grand son, defendant No.2 Varun Sharma, declaring himself, to be the Mahant, of, Guru Gaddi Baba Jhalla Ji.

2. Written statement to the plaint, was, instituted by defendants No.2 to 5, wherein they denied the claim, of the plaintiff, especially, the one occurring, in, the apposite paragraph No.2, contains, a denial, of, their existing custom, tradition, and, usages, vis-a-vis, the succession to the spiritual seat, of Mahant to Guru Gaddi Baba Jhalla Ji, comprised, in the eldest male concerned, being alone entitled to occupy the seat of Mahant of Guru Gaddi Baba Jhalla Ji. It is also contended, in the apposite paragraph No.2, of, the written statement furnished, to, the corresponding paragraph thereof, qua the Guru Gaddi Baba Jhalla Ji, being a spiritual seat, and, succession thereto being only, on, spiritual merit.

The learned trial Court, during, the pendency of the suit, on an application cast under the provisions of Order 40, Rule 1 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-

"1. Appointment of receivers.- (1) Where it appears to the court to be just and convenient, the court may by order-

(a) appoint a receiver of any property, whether before or after decree;

(b) remove any person from the possession or custody of the property;

(C) commit the same to the possession, custody or management of the receiver; and

(d) confer upon the receiver all such powers, as to bringing and defending suits and for the realization, management, protection, preservation and improvement of the property, the collection of the rents and profits thereof, the application and disposal of such rents and profits, and the execution of documents as the owner himself has, or such of those powers as the court thinks fit.

(2) Nothing in this rule shall authorise the court to remove from the possession or custody of property any person whom any party to the suit has not a present right so to remove." by the plaintiff/petitioner herein, for hence appointing, a receiver for managing the funds of the apposite Guru Gaddi Baba Jhalla Ji, allowed the apposite application, whereas, the learned Appellate Court, upon the defendant instituti