MURTI SHIVJI MAHARAJ BIRAJMAN ASTHAL MOHALLA vs MATHURA DAS CHELA NAVAL DAS BAIRAGI

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(All) 880

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SIDDHARTH, J.
MURTI SHIVJI MAHARAJ BIRAJMAN ASTHAL MOHALLA AND OTHERS ....Appellants
Versus
MATHURA DAS CHELA NAVAL DAS BAIRAGI AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Second Appeal No. 737 of 2007, decided on 30th July, 2018)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Virendra Kumar for the Appellants; Pankaj Agarwal for the Respondents.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Law—Religious endowments—Alienation of, by Mahant—Held, are void or voidable depending upon character of transaction—Where an alienation is of some items of endowed properties for valuable consideration however for purposes that are not for legal necessity or benefit to institution—Same enures for lifetime of Mahant and becomes voidable at instance of succeeding Mahant—When alienation is of entire endowment with all its properties same is void ab initio—Since Mahant has no right to sell property of temple unless it is shown that there was legal necessity of same to manage temple—Hence cancellation of void document is not necessary since sale-deed in dispute is without title and authority executed by Mahant. [Paras 53, 71 and 73]
       (B) Religious Endowments—Status of—Law on point summarized—Held, a gift to Almighty is neither a gift nor a conveyance under Transfer of Property Act, 1882. [Paras 19 to 22]
       (C) Mahantship—What is—Discussed—Held Math is an institutional sanctum presided over by a superior who combines in himself dual office of being religious or spiritual head of particular cult or religious fraternity—And of manager of secular properties of institution of Math—‘Estate for life’ and a ‘life-tenant’ is not vested in Mahant because properties are vested in Math—Mahants and their Maths are governed only by custom and practice of their Maths. [Paras 23 to 34, 37]
       (D) Succession—Mahantship—Determining factors—Held, three aspects have to be borne in mind in connection with issue of succession to office of a Mahant—If grantor has laid down any particular rule of succession that is to be given effect to—In absence of any grant, usage of particular institution is to be followed—And party who lays claim to office of a Mahant on strength of any such usage must establish it affirmatively by proper legal evidence. [Para 38]
       (E) Succession—Mahantship—Chela—Who is—Held normal practice and rule is to have one chela who will be nominated sisya. [Para 40]
       (F) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 9—Suit—Removal of Mahant—When Mahant cannot faithfully discharge his function without danger to endowment—Suit for his removal from offices maintainable. [Paras 58 and 59]
       (G) Civil Suit—Appeal—Maintainability—Appeal decided without deciding issue whether appellants have locus to prefer first appeal—Late Mahant died after passing of decree of trial Court and before filing of first appeal—Hence issue of legal representative of Mahant was required to have been decided by lower appellate Court before proceeding to decide First Appeal—Held first appeal preferred by appellants was not maintainable. [Para 76]
       Result; Appeal Allowed.

JUDGMENT

Order on Civil Misc. Application No. 71362 of 2015

Order on Civil Misc. Application No. 60315 of 1998

Order on Civil Misc. Application No. 77972 of 2007

Hon’ble Siddharth, J.—Learned counsel for the parties state that they do not want to press these applications and have requested that appeal may be finally heard.

2. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the parties the above noted applications are dismissed as not pressed.

Order on Appeal

Heard Sri Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anuj Agarwal holding brief of Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is plaintiffs’ second appeal against the judgement and decree dated 31.3.1998 passed by Shri V.K. Jain, IInd Additional District Judge, Saharanpur in First Appeal No. 225 of 1978 (Umesh Das and others v. Murti Shivji Maharaj and others) decreeing the original Suit No. 5 of 1972 which was partly decreed by judgement and decree dated 7.4.1998 by Shri Gangu Ram, Civil Judge, Saharanpur.

3. Plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration that plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are owners of the property mentioned in Schedule ‘Aa’, ‘Ba’ and ‘Ja’ detailed at the foot of the plaint and defendants have no right to transfer the property in anyway. Alternative prayer for possession of disputed property of Schedule ‘Ja’ to the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 through the plaintiff Nos. 3 to 6. was made. Finally prayer for injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 from transferring the property of Schedule ‘Aa’ and ‘Ba’of plaintiff No. 1 and 2 or any part thereof to the defendant No. 6 or any other person in anyway was prayed.

4. The plaintiffs’ case in brief is that about 200 years ago there was one Ramanandi Vaishnav Hari Das in Bindravan, who had a large number of disciples and followers in all over India; that his followers and disciples established large number of Maths in various places for his followers and followers of Baba Haridas dedicated the property for construction of the Asthal and Kutis; that for promotion and advancement of spiritual knowledge of Baba Hari Das Mission several Asthals were constructed at different places by disciples and followers of Hari Das and idols of deities were also installed therein and were maintained from income of endowed properties and offering.

5. The Charan Paduka of Baba Hari Das was established in Gangoh about 100 years back and a Kuti was constructed and an idol was established. The people of Gangoh were worshiping Charan Paduka and idol and the concerned land was donated by the persons who were ancestors of plaintiff Nos. 3 to 6. This Kuti was situated in outskirt of Kasba Gangoh. There was fear in night hence an Asthal was constructed in Abadi of Kasba Gangoh. That land was also donated by the ancestors of plaintiff Nos. 3 to 6. In this Asthal an idol of Shivji Maharaj was established and Samadhi of Baba Hari Das was also established. For Pooja and stay of other worshipers, a house was constructed for their living. Whatever money and other things received in offerings are utilized as expenses on Pooja, Bhog, Batti etc., of the Idol. In Sambat 1966 one Smt. Mathuri wife of Banwari Lal and grandmother of plaintiff Nos. 3 and 6 constructed a big Chabutara and a temple in which the Idol of Shivji Maharaj was established and there is an inscription over the door of the temple. With this temple towards north and west two shops were constructed from the money received from worshipers. All expenses were incurred in construction of shops by Smt. Mathuri and other people of Gangoh. In 1962 from public money five shops were also constructed. The people of Kasba Gangoh are doing worship in the temple day to day. Hence all properties including house, shops belong to Idol Shivji Maharaj and Kuti Baba Hari Dass. The Kuti and Asthal were established by one Har Sukh Das in 1867 and Jai Ram Das and Badri Das Bairagi were Pujari and Administrator; respectively thereof. This work was continued by inheritance by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(All) 880

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTBEFORE : SIDDHARTH, J.MURTI SHIVJI MAHARAJ BIRAJMAN ASTHAL MOHALLA AND OTHERS ....AppellantsVersusMATHURA DAS CHELA NAVAL DAS BAIRAGI AND OTHERS ....Respondents(Second Appeal No. 737 of 2007, decided on 30th July, 2018)

Cases Referred (30)

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SIDDHARTH, J.
MURTI SHIVJI MAHARAJ BIRAJMAN ASTHAL MOHALLA AND OTHERS ....Appellants
Versus
MATHURA DAS CHELA NAVAL DAS BAIRAGI AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Second Appeal No. 737 of 2007, decided on 30th July, 2018)