Back
2000 Supreme(P&H) 117
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L.Singhal, J.
Laj Dass
Versus
Parkash Muni, Chela Swami Shankra Nand Ji And Ors.
Civil Revision No. 80 of 1990,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 1, 2000
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment of pleadings should be allowed if it does not negate the original defense and the relief claimed is divisible, even if the new plea sought to be raised is inconsistent with the original plea.
Headnote:
Inheritance - Religious Property - Hindu Succession Act - Amendment of Pleadings : [Inheritance] - [Religious Property] - [Hindu Succession Act] - [Amendment of pleadings]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, injunction, and possession of land and a dera, claiming to be the chela of Swami Sankranand Ji and the exclusive owner of the property. The defendants contested the suit, claiming that the property devolved upon them as the natural heirs of Shankranand Ji under the Hindu Succession Act. The defendants sought to amend their written statement to include a plea that one of them was in possession of the land as a tenant, which would affect the plaintiff's claim to possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the proposed amendment to the extent mentioned in the application, but not the additional amendment sought by the defendants. The defendants were ordered to pay costs to the plaintiff.
Issues: The main issue was the inheritance of the property, with the plaintiff claiming as the chela of Shankranand Ji and the defendants claiming as his natural heirs under the Hindu Succession Act. The proposed amendment raised the issue of the defendant's possession as a tenant affecting the plaintiff's claim to possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proposed amendment should be allowed as it did not negate the original defense and the relief claimed was divisible. The court also considered the belated nature of the application and the need for the defendants to address all aspects of the plaintiff's claim.
Final Decision: The court allowed the proposed amendment to the written statement to the extent mentioned in the application and ordered the defendants to pay costs to the plaintiff.
M.L.Singhal, J.
1. Parkash Muni chela Swami Shankranand Ji filed suit for declaration against Harsarup Brahamcharje son of Laj Dass son of Bachan Dass, Laj Dass, Krishna Kumar, Surjit Kaur and Sukhdev Dass who are son, daughters and son of Bachan Dass to the effect that he (plaintiff) being the chela of Swami Sankranand Ji inherited land measuring 68 kanal 19 marla as recorded in jamabandi for the year 1979-80 situated in village Latala, Tehsil and District Ludhiana and a dera built on the said land and that mutation sanctioned in favour of Laj Dass and others defendants 2 to 5 by Assistant Collector, First Grade, Ludhiana vide order dated 6.2.85 was illegal, ineffective so far as his rights are concerned and that he is the exclusive owner of the property on the same terms and conditions is held by Swami Shankranand Ji. He sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating any portion of the property in any manner whatever. He also sought possession of the property.
2. It was alleged in the plaint that this property was donated by the proprietors of the village about a century ago to the Udasin sect. This property was treated as religious dedicated property thereafter. Daya Ram was holding this property as owner on behalf of the Udasin sect. On his death, which took place in 1912, the property devolved upon Shri Bishan Dass as chela and spiritual son of Daya Ram. Bishan Dass also held the property on behalf of Udasin sect. The character of the property was religious endowment property subject to inheritance by Chela of Bishan Dass. Property devolved upon Bishan Dass being chela as according to the tenets and practices of Udasin sect, chela is equivalent to spiritual son and inherits property of guru as son. Bishan Dass executed gift deed in favour of his chela Ramsarup dated 2.1.1918. Execution of the gift deed was in acceleration of succession in favour of his chela Ramsarup. On 13.11.1946, Ramsarup executed gift deed in favour of his chela Shankranand and that was in acceleration of succession. Mutation was entered in favour of Shankranand on 6.3.1948. Shankranand died on 17.12.1983 when he was on a religious mission to Calcutta. Plaintiff Parkash Muni claiming himself to be chela of Sahnkranand Ji claimed to have inherited the entire property. He was accepted and acknowledged as chela by Shankranand Ji in the trust deed and also purchase deed executed by him during his lifetime. Last rites of Shankranand Ji were performed by the plaintiff. He thus claimed succession to Shankranand Ji being his chela. Harsarup Brahamcharji defendant set up a will dated 6.4.1983 alleged to have been executed by Shankranand Ji in his favour. He applied for mutation of the property in suit in his favour. Plaintiff contested his prayer for mutation of the property in his favour. Revenue Officer did not accept the will but he held the property to be the personal property of Shankranand Ji and ordered the mutation to be effected in favour of defendants 2 to 5 being the legal heirs of Shankranand Ji. It was alleged in the plaint that the order mutating the property in favour of defendants 2 to 5 by the revenue officer was illegal and void as the plaintiff was the only legal heir being the spiritual son and chela of late Shankranand Ji in whom the property vested being the chela of Ramsarup. It was property dedicated for religious purpose in which dera has been built where Udasin sadhus come and stay. It could not be termed to be personal property of Shankranand Ji.
3. Defendants 2 to 5 contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that Shankranand and his relations are Hindus. They are governed by the Hindu Succession Act in matters of succession. Shankranands real name was Baldev Dass son of Bachan Dass son of Sahib Dass. Shankranand alias Baldev Dass was unmarried. He left behind Laj Dass etc. Defendants 2 to 5 who are his brothers and sisters. Defendants 2 to 5 are the only heirs of Shankranand Ji and as such they had th
