Back
1989 Supreme(J&K) 106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
K.K. Gupta, J.
Sukh Ramdas - Appellant
Versus
Ram Milandas & Ors. - Respondent
CSA No. 106/1981
Decided On : 04 October, 1989
Advocate For Appellant: R.P. Bakshi
Advocate For Respondent: S.P. Gupta
Advocate For Respondent: S.S. Nanda
Advocate For Respondent: K.L. Gupta
A married person is not competent to be appointed as the Mahant of a temple belonging to a sect of celibate and tyagi sadhus.
Headnote:
TEMPLE PROPERTY - SUCCESSION TO MAHANTHSHIP - COMPETENCY OF MARRIED PERSON - VALIDITY OF WILL - APPOINTMENT OF PUJARI - TRUSTEESHIP OF SHEVAIT - TEMPLE PROPERTY AS TRUST PROPERTY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff-appellant, claiming to be the chela of the last Mahant of a temple, brought a suit for declaration of his exclusive right to act as pujari and manage the temple property. The defendant-respondent, who was performing puja in the temple, contested the suit, claiming to be the duly appointed chela and successor of the last Mahant. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the findings, holding that the plaintiff-appellant, being a married person, was not eligible to become a Mahant of the temple.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiff-appellant, being a married person and leading a married life, was not competent to be appointed as the Mahant of the temple, which belonged to a sect of celibate and tyagi sadhus. The court also found that the defendant-respondent was the duly appointed chela and successor of the last Mahant and was performing puja in the temple during the lifetime of the last Mahant.
Issues: 1. Whether a married person can be appointed as the Mahant of a temple belonging to a sect of celibate and tyagi sadhus? 2. Whether the plaintiff-appellant was duly appointed as the chela and successor of the last Mahant? 3. Whether the defendant-respondent was appointed as a pujari on a monthly pay?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The office of Mahantship involves sacred duties, including adherence to celibacy and performance of daily puja. A married person, who has not performed the duties of a chela and is not a celibate, is not competent to be appointed as the Mahant of a temple belonging to a sect of celibate and tyagi sadhus. 2. The plaintiff-appellant failed to establish that he was duly appointed as the chela and successor of the last Mahant. The evidence showed that the defendant-respondent was the duly appointed chela and successor and was performing puja in the temple during the lifetime of the last Mahant. 3. The allegation that the defendant-respondent was appointed as a pujari on a monthly pay was not established by the evidence.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to become the Mahant of the temple and that the defendant-respondent was the duly appointed chela and successor of the last Mahant.
2Sukh Ramdas, plaintiff - appellant, brought suit for declaration that he was chela of Mahant Khemdas and thus exclusively entitled to act as pujari in the above said temple and to manage the entire property belonging to the temple, both movable and immovable, with consequential relief of prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from acting as pujaries in the temple and interfering with his management of the property. His case was that the temple was founded by Sadhu Bawa Bansidas and the above said land was dedicated in favour of the temple by late Maharaja Partap Singh Ji as Maufi, Idols kept in the temple were worshiped by people belonging to Sanatandharam faith of Hinduism. Bawa Bansidas acted as first Mahant of the temple who used to perform puja and was managing entire property of the temple. The founder of the temple also laid down the mode of succession to the office of Mahantship according to which the deceased Mahant was to be succeeded by a Chela duly appointed by him and he was succeeded on his death by his chela Bawa Khemdas who later on appointed him the chela according to the rites and ceremonies customary in such matters and also as a measure of abundant caution he executed a will in his favour on 14.10.1967 registered on 16.10.1967 All the Mahants appointed from time to time acted as pujaries in the temple and managed the property belonging to temple consisting of garden, agricultural land and kothas built on it. Defendants 3 to 10 in possession of the land were either tenants or lessees under the temple. He being young in years his predecessor-in-interest Bawa Khemdas had appointed Shakti parkash defendant-respondent as his attorney who used to manage the property of the temple and this defendant in turn engaged the services of Ram Milandss, defendant respondent No. 1 as pujari in the temple at a monthly pay of Rs. 30/-. Bawa Khemdas died, on 14.3.1969 leaving behind him as his sole heir entitled to succeed to the office of Mahantship of the temple. With the death of Bawa Khemdas, power of attorney issued in favour of Shakti Parkash stood automatically cancelled and further licence created in favour of Ram Milandas defendant revoked. Inspire of his asking both the abovesaid defendants not to act as pujaries in the temple or interfere with his management of the property they declined to do so.
3. The suit was only contested by Ram Milandas, defendant-respondent. Other defendants did not choose to appear and contest the suit and as such case was ordered to proceed ex-parte against them. Ram Milandas defendant No. 2 resisted the suit on various grounds. His plea was that the temple was not founded by Bawa Bansidas but it was founded by Bawa mahant Ajudadas who was followed by Bawa Bansidas as Mahant. According to him the mode of succession was that only person being Tayagi, Malang, Nihang and Brahamchari, was entitled to succeed to a Mahant of the temple with the condition that he should have served the Mahant and well-versed in puja and management of temple property and further that he ought to have been declared as successor in presence of a congregation and largely attended meeting of Tayagies, Sadhus and Bawas wherein all the ceremonies took place. Bawa Khemdas called such congregation and meeting of Sadhus which was largely attended and he was declared as
