Back
1983 Supreme(P&H) 560
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.
Iqbal Singh
Versus
Santokh Singh
Civil Regular First Appeal No. 144 of 1975,
Decided On : DECEMBER 19, 1983
A Mahant of a religious institution can alienate the endowment property only for legal necessity, and the alienee must prove the necessity.
Headnote:
RELIGIOUS PROPERTY - LEASE - LEGAL NECESSITY - VALIDITY OF LEASE - APPOINTMENT OF MAHANT - SUCCESSION - CUSTOM - ALIENATION OF PROPERTY - POWERS OF MAHANT - DEDICATION OF PROPERTY - VALIDITY - ESTOPPEL - LIMITATION - POSSESSION - OPTION TO DEPOSIT AMOUNT FOR IMPROVEMENTS - REMOVAL OF MALBA.
Fact of the Case:
Mahant Mehal Singh, the Mahant of Dharamsala Partap Singh, leased out a property belonging to the Dharamsala to the defendants for a period of 99 years. The plaintiff, who was appointed as the Mahant after Mahant Mehal Singh, filed a suit for possession of the property, challenging the validity of the lease.
Finding of the Court:
1. The plaintiff was validly appointed as the Mahant of Dharamsala Partap Singh by Mahant Mehal Singh during his lifetime, in accordance with the custom of the Nirmala Bhekh Sadhus. 2. The lease was without consideration as the defendants failed to produce any receipt for payment of the lease amount. 3. There was no legal necessity for Mahant Mehal Singh to lease out the property for a period of 99 years, as there was no evidence to show that the Mahant required the amount for any purpose, much less for any of the purposes recognized as legal necessities for alienation of religious property. 4. The alienation was not an act of good management as it was without consideration. 5. The property belonged to Dharamsala Partap Singh, which was established for religious and charitable purposes, and the property in dispute was being used for such purposes. 6. Mahant Mehal Singh was not competent to make the lease in favor of the defendants as he could alienate the property of Dharamsala Partap Singh only for legal necessity, which was not established in this case. 7. The dedication of the property in favor of Dharamsala Partap Singh was not void as it was used for a charitable purpose for a long time. 8. The plaintiff was not estopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit as he was appointed as the Mahant only in 1968 and had no right to challenge the alienation before that.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? 2. Whether the plaintiff has a locus standi to file the present suit? 3. Whether the lease in question was made for legal necessity and for consideration and as an act of good management? 4. Whether the Mahant was competent to make the lease in question in favor of defendants 1 and 2? 5. Whether the property in suit belongs to Dharamsala Partap Singh? 6. Whether defendants 1 and 2 have made any improvement in the suit property? If so, to what amount they are entitled? 7. Whether the dedication of the property in dispute to Dharamsala is void as alleged in para 2 of the additional pleas taken in the written statement? 8. Whether the plaintiff cannot challenge the alienation in question? 9. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A Mahant can appoint a Chela during his lifetime with the approval of the Bhekh, and such appointment is valid. 2. A Mahant of a religious institution can alienate the endowment property only for legal necessity, and the alienee must prove the necessity. 3. The powers of a Mahant regarding alienation of the properties of a Dera are similar to those of a Hindu Widow. 4. In considering whether the property acquired by a Jain Puj is religious or secular, in the absence of any direct evidence of dedication, the nature of the user of the property by the Jain community or Jain monks and whether such user, if any, was as of right or by permission and the length of time during which the user is suggested, have to be considered.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the building at his option on depositing the amount of Rs. 20,970.00 within a period of four months, but if he failed to deposit the amount within the said period, the defendants were entitled to remove the Malba within a period of four months thereafter.
1. This first appeal hay been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Amritsar, dated 10-10-1974.
2. Briefly, the case of the plaintiff is that the property in dispute was owned and possessed by Dharamsala Partap Singh situated in Amritsar. The property was debutter property dedicated to the Dharamsala for religious and charitable purposes, namely, for residence, maintenance and feeding of the Sadhus and other poor persons. Mahant Mehal Singh Chela Mahant Vir Singh was the Mahant of the Dharmsala. He became very weak on account of old age and generally remained ill. He, therefore, became disabled to perform the duties as a Mahant. Consequently, on 29-4-1968, he resigned from Mahantship and appointed the plaintiff as the Mahant of the Dharmsala in accordance with the custom of the Nirmala Bhekh Sadhus after performing the customary rights in the presence of gathering of Nirmala Sadhus. He therefore entered into the possession of Dharamsala and started performing the duties of the Mahant. Since then he has been managing the property. The case of the plaintiff further is that the defendants alleged that they took the property on lease. If any lease was proved in their favour, it was without consideration and legal necessity and, therefore, not binding on the plaintiff. There was no need for Mahant Mehal Singh to give it on lease for a period of 99 years for any purposes of the institution. The lease is consequently void and the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property. He, therefore, filed a suit for its possession.
3. The suit was contested by the defendants who inter alia pleaded that the suit did not lie in the present form, that the plaintiff had no locus standi to institute the suit, that the property was not owned and possessed by Dharamsala and that the property was given on lease for a period of 99 years by Mahant Mehal Singh for legal necessity. Some other pleas were also taken and they are reflected in the issues which are as follows:-
1. Whether the suit does not lie in the present form?
2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?
3. Whether the plaintiff has a locus standi to file the present suit?
4. Whether the lease in question was made for legal necessity and for consideration and as an act of good management?
5. Whether the Mahant was competent to make the lease in question in favour of defendants 1 and 2?
6. Whether defendants 1 and 2 have made any improvement in the suit property? If so, to what amount they are entitled?
7. Whether the property in suit belongs to Dharamsala Partap Singh?
Subsequently, the following additional issues were framed:-
Addl. Issue 1: Whether the alienation sought to be set aside is theka and is not a lease? If so, what is its effect?
Addl, Issue 2: Whether the dedication of the property in dispute to Dharamsala is void as alleged in para 2 of the additional pleas taken in the written statement? If so, its effect?
Addl. Issue 3: Whether the plaintiff cannot challenge the alienation in question?
Addl. Issue 4 : Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit? If so its effect?
4. Issue 2 was treated as a preliminary issue by the Court and the plaintiff was directed to make up the deficiency in the Court-fee, vide order dated 8-1-1973. The needful was done by him. The issue does not survive now. Issue 6 was not decided by the Court. With regard to additional issue 1, it was held that the alienation was theka and not a lease. All the other issues were decided against the plaintiff. Consequently the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff has come up in appeal to this Court.
5. The first question that arises for determination is whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form. The trial Court has held that the plaintiff should have filed a declaratory suit to get the lease-deed declared invalid with a consequential relied of possession and he could not fil
