Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned succession to the Mahantship of a Dera of Sanyasi Sadhus in Mauza Kharak, Tahsil Hansi, District Hissar, Punjab. The last Mahant, Kishan Puri, died on February 15, 1951. Immediately after his death, Neki Puri, claiming to be the Chela of the deceased Mahant, entered into possession of the Dera properties, asserting an appointment by the Bhekh and the villagers. Brahma Nand Puri, the appellant, claimed as the Gurbhai of the deceased and initially filed a suit for declaration and injunction, but that suit was dismissed because Neki Puri was found in possession. The present suit was then filed by Brahma Nand Puri for possession of movable and immovable properties belonging to the Dera, claiming that according to custom and Riwaj-i-Am, as Gurbhai he was entitled to the Gaddi; he also alleged that he had been appointed by the Bhekh and villagers after ceremonies on the 17th day after death, and in the alternative, that even without appointment, custom entitled a Gurbhai to succeed. The trial court found that Neki Puri was not proved to be a Chela, that the appellant was not appointed by the Bhekh, but held that under Punjab law a Gurbhai could succeed in the absence of a Chela without any appointment, and decreed the suit. The first appellate court reversed, holding Neki Puri was a Chela and had been appointed, but the Single Judge of the High Court restored the decree on the ground that a Gurbhai could succeed without appointment. In Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench agreed that Neki Puri was not proved to be a Chela but held that the custom pleaded by the appellant had not been established, and dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court considered two principal contentions: first, that under the general law applicable to Deras in Punjab, a Gurbhai was entitled to succeed without appointment by the Bhekh; second, that the custom had been established by evidence. The Court held that there is no general law for religious institutions in Punjab; each institution is regulated by its own custom and practice. A claimant to Mahantship based on custom must prove it affirmatively by proper legal evidence. The appellant had failed to establish the alleged custom. Further, in a suit for ejectment, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title, not on the weakness of the defendant's title. Reference was made to Rattigan's Digest, Jiwan Das v. Hira Das, Sital Das v. Sant Ram, and Mukherjea's Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the dismissal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Customary Law - Succession to Mahantship - General Law Applicable to Punjab Religious Institutions - No General Statutory Law; Each Dera Regulated by Its Own Custom and Practice - The appellant claimed as Gurbhai entitled to succeed without appointment by Bhekh. The Supreme Court held that there is no general law for religious institutions in Punjab, and each institution must be deemed to be regulated by its own custom and practice. Therefore, the appellant could not succeed as Mahant without reference to appointment by Bhekh or fraternity unless he could establish a custom entitling a Gurbhai to succeed. Held that the claimed general right did not exist. B) Customary Law - Proof of Custom - Burden to Establish Custom Affirmatively - The appellant failed to establish the alleged custom that a Gurbhai could succeed without appointment by Bhekh. The Court referred to Rattigan's Digest, Jiwan Das v. Hira Das, and Sital Das v. Sant Ram, and held that a party claiming office of Mahant based on usage must prove it by proper legal evidence. On the evidence, the custom put forward by appellant was not established. Held that the appellant could not succeed as Mahant without proving the particular usage. C) Civil Procedure - Ejectment Suit - Plaintiff Must Succeed on Strength of Own Title - In a suit for ejectment, the plaintiff must succeed or fail on the title he establishes. Even if the defendant in possession has no title, the suit must fail if the plaintiff cannot prove his title. The Court cited Mukherjea's Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust: a claimant must establish the particular usage affirmatively; defendant being a trespasser does not entitle plaintiff to succeed. Held that appellant's suit was correctly dismissed because he failed to prove his title.
Issue of Consideration
Whether under general law applicable to Deras in Punjab a Gurbhai is entitled to succeed to Mahantship without appointment by Bhekh or fraternity; whether the appellant established a custom to that effect; and whether in an ejectment suit the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there is no general law for religious institutions in Punjab; each institution is regulated by its own custom and practice. The appellant failed to establish the alleged custom that a Gurbhai could succeed without appointment by Bhekh. As the suit was for ejectment, the appellant had to succeed on his own title, not on the weakness of the defendant's title. The judgment of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal dismissing the suit was affirmed.
Law Points
- No general law applicable to religious institutions in Punjab
- each institution regulated by its own custom and practice
- claimant toMahantship based on custom must establish it affirmatively by proper legal evidence
- in an ejectment suit
- plaintiff must succeed on strength of own title
- not on weakness of defendant's title
