http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: MAHANT AMAR PARKASH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PARKASHA NAND & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/01/1979

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH

CITATION:  1979 AIR  845            1979 SCR  (2)1012  1979 SCC  (3) 221

ACT:      Hindu  Law-Succession   to  Mahant   of  a  Dera-Mahant resigning during his life time and installing his successor- Notice of  Mahants’ intentions  to the  gentral assembly  of Mahants and  confirmation by  it-Successor treated as ’Sadaq Chela’-Validity of appointment.

HEADNOTE:      In his suit for declaration that he was the Mahant of a Ders, the  plaintiff  (respondent)  claimed  that  the  late Mahant who  had previously executed the power of attorney in favour  of   the  defendant  (appellant)  cancelled  it  and summoned the  General Assembly  of the Udasi Bhekh which was attended by  other Mahants  of the  Udasi Bhekh and tendered his resignation  on the  ground of  old age  and ill health, that the  late Mahant treated him as Sadaq Chela and that he made him a Mahant by applying Tilak and performing the Pagri ceremony at the Udasi Bhekh. The defendant on the other hand claimed that  it was he who was the chela of the late Mahant who, before  his passing  away executed two wills appointing him as  the successor  to the gaddi and that the proceedings making the  plaintiff as Mahant were the result of fraud and undue influence  exercised by  the plaintiff  over the  late Mahant.      Decreeing the  suit the  Subordinate  Judge  held  that neither party  referred to any particular usage or custom of appointing a Mahant, that upto 1948 the practice was for the Ruler of  the erstwhile  State of Nabha to appoint a Mahant, but that  in this  case the  plaintiff was  duly and validly installed as  the Mahant  in the  presence of  and with  the approval of  the Udasi  Bhekh and  that no  fraud  or  undue influence alleged by the defendant was established.      The High  Court confirmed all the findings of the trial court.      On  further   appeal  to   this  Court   the  defendant (appellant) contended  that (1)  the late Mahant was coerced into appointing  the plaintiff  as his successor and (2) the appointment of  plaintiff was  invalid in  that he was not a chela of the late Mahant.      Dismissing the appeal, ^      HELD: 1 (a) On the question whether the late Mahant was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

subjected to  any  pressure  to  appoint  the  plaintiff  as Mahant, both  the courts have concurrently found that he was subjected to  no such  pressure.  There  is  no  reason  for interference with  a concurrent  finding of  fact by the two courts below.[1017 A-B]      (b) The submission that the High Court did not consider the complaint said to have been made by the late Mahant that he had  been coerced into appointing the plaintiff as Mahant is without basis. The High Court did refer to the complaint. It confirmed  the finding  of the  trial court that the late Mahant  who  was  previously  under  the  influence  of  the appellant had  again come  under his  influence when he made the complaint. The presence 1013 of  the   police  at  the  installation  ceremony  far  from advancing the  appellant’s case,  destroys the case that the Mahant acted under coercion. [1017 C-D]      2(a) In  the matter  of succession  to  the  office  of Mahant the  custom prevalent in various institutions is that in order to entitle a chela to succeed, he must be appointed or nominated  by the reigning Mahant during his life time or shortly before  his death  and this  may be done either by a written declaration  or some  sort of testamentary document. Even where  a Mahant has the power to appoint his successor, it is  customary in  various  Mutts  that  such  appointment should be  confirmed or  recognised by  the members  of  the religious fraternity to which the late Mahant belonged. When a Mahant  resigns during  his life  time  and  installs  his successor, on  the gaddi the fraternity is made aware of the proposed vacancy  in the  office and is given an opportunity of confirming  or refusing  to confirm the nominee. [1016 D, E, G]      In the  instant case  the document executed by the late Mahant on  the date  of the installation of the plaintiff as Mahant was attested by all the visiting Mahants of the Udasi Bhekh who assembled at the Dera. The plaintiff was described as Sedaq Chela of the late Mahant. This document showed that the  late   Mahant  accepted  the  plaintiff  as  chela  and appointed him as his successor. [1017 E-1018 A]      (b) The  Subordinate Judge found that none of the three earlier Mahants of the Dera who succeeded to the gaddi was a chela of each of his predecessors. [1018 B]      Mahant Satnam Singh v. Bawan Bhagwan Singh, AIR 1938 PC 216; referred to.      Mukherjea’s Hindu  Law of Religious & Charitable Trusts (Third Edition) referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2153 of 1969.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and Decree dated 12-8-69 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.F.A. No. 357 of 1963.      Hardayal Hardy, P. H. Parekh, C. B. Singh and M. Mudgal for the Appellants.      M. N. Phadke, Mohan Behari Lal for Respondent No. 1.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of  the High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirming that  of   the  Subordinate  Judge  1st  Class,  Nabha.  The respondent plaintiff  filed a suit for a declaration that he was the  Mahant of  Dera Baba  Khiali Das,  Khansura, Tehsil Nabha, District  Patiala, that he was entitled to manage the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

properties of  the Dera  and that  the alienations  made  by Mahant Krishan Das and Amar Parkash were not 1014 binding on  him. It  was alleged  by the plaintiff that Amar Parkash who  held power of attorney from Mahant Krishan Das, the  previous   Mahant  of  the  Dera,  had  mismanaged  the properties and  had granted leases of lands belonging to the Dera to  his mistress and his brother-in-law. Mahant Krishan Das came to know about the mismanagement by Amar Parkash and cancelled the  power of  attorney which  he  had  previously executed in  favour of  Amar  Parkash.  Mahant  Krishan  Das summoned the  general assembly of the Udasi Ghekh and held a meeting, with  the help  of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and the  Police, on 23rd July 1961. The meeting was attended by other  Mahants of Udasi Bhekh. In the general assembly of the Udasi  Bhekh, Mahant Krishan Das tendered resignation of office of Mahant on the ground of old age and ill health and appointed the  plaintiff as  his successor  Mahant. This was accepted by  all the  Mahants of Udasi Bhekh. Mahant Krishan Das, treating  the plaintiff  as his  Sadaq  Chela,  applied Tilak, performed  Pagri ceremony  with his own hand and duly installed the  plaintiff as the Mahant. The visiting Mahants also performed  the Pagri ceremony. Despite the installation of the  plaintiff  as  Mahant  of  the  Dera,  Amar  Parkash continued  his   activities  and   started  obstructing  the plaintiff from  discharging his  obligations as  Mahant. The plaintiff, therefore,  filed the suit for a declaration that he was  the Mahant  of the  Dera and  for other reliefs. The defendant Amar  Parkash raised  the plea  that the   was the chela of  Mahant Krishan Das and that Mahant Krishan Das who died on  30th December, 1961, had executed two Wills on 17th July, 1955  and 24th  September, 1961, appointing him as the Mahant to  succeed him.  It was alleged that the proceedings which took  place on 23rd July 1961 were the result of fraud and undue influence exercised over Mahant Krishan Das.      On the  pleadings of  the parties  the primary question which arose  for consideration was whether the plaintiff was validly appointed  as Mahant  of Dera  Baba Khiali  Das. The learned  Subordinate   Judge.  Nabha  framed  two  principal issues. Issue No. 1 was:           "What  was   the  particular   custom   or   usage      prevailing in  the Dera  in dispute for the appointment      of a Mahant on the relevant date ?" Issue No. 1-A was:           "whether the  plaintiff was  validly appointed the      Mahant of  the Dera  in accordance  with the  prevalent      custom ?" The learned  Subordinate Judge  noticed that  neither  party pleaded or  referred to  any particular  usage or custom for appointing a Mahant 1015 for the  disputed Dera. He also noticed that the documentary evidence showed  that the  final appointment  of Mahants for Deras in  the Nabha State was required to be approved by the Ruler of  the State.  Leaving the  matter there, the learned Subordinate Judge  found that  the plaintiff  was  duly  and validly installed  as Mahant  of the  Dera by Mahant Krishan Das in the presence of and with the approval of Udasi Bhekh. He held that the plea of fraud and undue influence raised by the defendant  was not  established. On  those findings  the suit was decreed. The first defendant Amar Parkash preferred an appeal  to the  High Court  of Punjab and Haryana. During the pendency of the appeal the plaintiff sought an amendment of the  plaint in order to enable him to expressly plead the particular custom  relating to  succession to  the office of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

the Mahant  of Dera  Baba  Khiali  Das.  The  amendment  was allowed and the High Court directed the Subordinate Judge to record additional  evidence and  submit a  report giving his finding on  the question  whether the  custom pleaded by the plaintiff was  established and  if so, whether the plaintiff was  appointed   in  accordance   with  such  custom.  After recording additional  evidence the learned Subordinate Judge submitted a  report to the effect that the custom alleged by the plaintiff  was not  established and  that upto  1948 the practice was  for the  Ruler of  Nabha State  to appoint the Mahant.  After   receiving  the   report  of   the   learned Subordinate Judge,  the High  Court heard the appeal. It was conceded by the learned Counsel for the appellant before the High Court  that in  view  of  the  report  of  the  learned Subordinate Judge, the appeal should be decided on the basis of the  evidence adduced before the Trial Court prior to the order of  the High Court calling for a report from the Trial Court. On  that basis  the learned Counsel for the appellant attacked the  finding on  issue No.  1-A only  and  did  not assail the  findings on  the other  issues. The  High  Court confirmed the  finding of  the Trial Court that there was no undue influence  exercised over  Mahant Krishan Das and that the plaintiff  was validly appointed and installed as Mahant of the Dera.      In the  first instance  Shri  Hardayal  Hardy,  learned Counsel for the appellant invited us to explore the evidence and the  case  law  to  find  out  the  custom  relating  to succession to  the office  of Mahant of Deras in Nabha State in  general   and  Dera   Baba  Khiali  Das  in  particular. Ultimately, however,  he conceded  that if the plaintiff was shown to have been validly appointed and installed as Mahant by late Mahant Krishan Das at the ceremony held on 23rd July 1961, the  plaintiff was entitled to succeed. He argued that late Mahant  Krishan Das  was covered  into  appointing  and installing the plaintiff 1016 as Mahant and therefore, the appointment of the plaintiff as Mahant of  the Dera  was invalid.  He also  argued that  the plaintiff was  not  a  chela  of  Mahant  Krishan  Das  and, therefore, he  could not  have  been  validly  appointed  as Mahant of the Dera in question.      As pointed  out in  Mukherjea’s Hindu  Law of Religious and Charitable  Trusts (Third  Edition), succession  to  the office of  Mahant is  a matter  of some  complexity and  the custom  varies  greatly  from  institution  to  institution. Generally speaking,  it is pointed out, Mutts may be divided into three  classes: Mourasi, Panchayati and Hakimi. "In the first, the  office of  the Mohunt is hereditary and devolves upon the  chief disciple of the existing Mohunt who moreover usually nominates  him as  his successor; in the second, the office is dective, the presiding Mohunt being selected by an assembly of  Mohunts. In  the third,  the appointment of the presiding Mohunt  is vested  in the  ruling power  or in the party who  has endowed  the temple".  It is  also  said  "In various institutions  the custom is that in order to entitle a chela to succeed, he must be appointed or nominated by the reigning Mohunt  during his  life time or shortly before his death and  this may  be done either by a written declaration or some  sort of  testamentary document". It is further said "Even  where  the  Mohunt  has  the  power  to  appoint  his successor, it  is  customary  in  various  Mutts  that  such appointment should be confirmed or recognised by the members of the religious fraternity to which the deceased belonged". In Mahant  Satnam Singh v. Bawan Bhagwan Singh(1), the Privy Council while  noticing that  succession to  the  office  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

Mahant was  to be  regulated by the particular custom of the Math, observed  as follows: "In the normal case of the death of a  Mahant, the  members of  the fraternity  will be fully aware of  the vacancy  in the office, and the usual practice will be  for  the  installation  of  his  successor  usually nominated by him, to take place on the seventeenth day after the death. On the other hand, when the Mahant resigns during his life  and installs  his successor  on the  gaddi, it  is obvious that  the fraternity  should be  made aware  of  the proposed vacancy  in the  office and  should  be  given  the opportunity  of   confirming  or  refusing  to  confirm  the nominee". It  is unnecessary  for us  to  make  any  further investigation into the custom relating to the appointment of Mahant since,  in the  light of  the submissions made before us, two  questions  alone  arise  for  consideration  namely whether Mahant  Krishan Das  was coerced into appointing the plaintiff  as   his  successor   Mahant  and   whether   the appointment of  the plaintiff  was invalid  on the ground of his not being a Chela of Mahant Krishan Das. 1017      On the  question whether  late Mahant  Krishan Das  was subjected to  any  pressure  to  appoint  the  plaintiff  as Mahant, both  the Courts  below have concurrently found that he was  subjected to no such pressure. The finding is one of fact and  we are  unable to  see any  ground justifying  our interference with a concurrent finding of fact. Shri Hardyal Hardy submitted  that the  High Court failed to consider the complaint said  to have been made by late Mahant Krishan Das a few days after the installation of the plaintiff as Mahant in which  he stated that he had been coerced into appointing the plaintiff  as Mahant.  Shri Hardyal Hardy also submitted that the evidence showed that the services of the Police had been requisitioned  to pressurise  late Mahant  Krishan Das. The submission  that the  High Court  did not  consider  the complaint said  to have been made by late Mahant Krishan Das is without basis since we find that the High Court did refer to the  complaint. The  High Court  confirmed the finding of the Trial  Court  that  late  Mahant  Krishan  Das  who  was previously under  the influence  of Amar  Parkash had  again come under  the influence  of Amar  Parkash when he made the complaint. With  regard to the presence of the Police at the installation ceremony  we are  of the view that the presence of the  police, at  the ceremony,  far  from  advancing  the appellant’s case,  destroys the case that Mahant Krishan Das acted under coercion.      The question  that remains for consideration is whether the plaintiff  was the  Chela  of  Mahant  Krishan  Das  and whether he  could be  validly appointed,  if he  was not the Chela. In  Exhibit  P-7  dated  23rd  July  1961  which  was executed by  Mahant Krishan Das and attested by all visiting Mahants the  plaintiff Parkasha Nand was described as ’Sadaq Chela’ of  Mahant Krishan Das. The ceremony which took place on 23rd  July 1961  was described  by Parkasha  Nand in  the following words:           "The congregation  sat on the durries on the first      floor of  the Dera.  About  25  Mahants  and  about  30      villagers sat  on those  durries.  Mahant  Krishan  Das      offered a  Tilak on  my forehead.  Mahant  Bikram  Dass      collected turbans  from the  Mahants who  were  present      there and  tied five  turbans on  my head.  Mahant  Som      Parkash offered  me  a  Doshala  and  sugar-cakes  were      distributed. All  these proceedings  were gone  through      with the  free and  voluntary consent  of  late  Mahant      Krishan Das and no pressure was brought to bear on him.      Mahant Krishan  Das was not confined. Exhibits P6 to P8

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

    were written at that time and the people who 1018      were  present   had  affixed   their   signatures   and      thumbimpressions thereon". We are  satisfied that  late Mahant Krishan Das accepted the plaintiff as  his Chela  and appointed  him as his successor Mahant.  We   may  also   mention  here   that  the  learned Subordinate  Judge  in  his  report  mentioned  that  Pandit Bhagtanand who was previously a Mahant of the Dera was not a Chela of  his predecessor  Mahant Sunder Das and that Mahant Krishan Das  himself was  not a  Chela  of  his  predecessor Mahant Bhagtanand.      We are unable to see any ground for inteference and the appeal,is accordingly dismissed with costs. N.V.K.                                     Appeal dismissed. 1019