9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appointment of Sital Das as Mahant. 2. Validity of the appointment of Ishar Das as Mahant. 3. Validity and binding nature of the lease executed by Kishore Das. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Appointment of Sital Das as Mahant: The primary contention was whether Sital Das was legally appointed as the Mahant of the Thakardwara after the death of Kishore Das. The plaintiff, Sital Das, claimed his appointment by the 'Bhek' of Bairagi Mahants and 'Sewaks'. The trial judge found in favor of Sital Das, holding that he was a spiritual collateral of Kishore Das and was duly appointed by the 'Bhek' and 'Sewaks'. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, stating that Sital Das failed to prove his spiritual lineage and the legitimacy of the meeting where he was appointed. The Supreme Court re-evaluated the evidence, including testimonies from various Bairagi Mahants and a judgment from a previous suit (Ex. P-3) which indicated Kishore Das and Mangal Das shared a common spiritual ancestor. The Court concluded that the custom of the institution allowed the 'Bhek' and 'Sewaks' to appoint a Mahant from among the spiritual family of the deceased Mahant, and found that Sital Das was indeed a spiritual collateral and was validly appointed by the 'Bhek' and 'Sewaks' on 23rd July 1945. 2. Validity of the Appointment of Ishar Das as Mahant: The defendants argued that Ishar Das was the rightful Mahant, appointed by Kishore Das through a will and ratified by the 'Bhek'. The trial judge found that Ishar Das was not a 'chela' (disciple) of Kishore Das and had not renounced worldly life. The High Court did not address this issue directly. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, including the alleged wills of Kishore Das, and found significant inconsistencies. The Court noted that the 1911 will was not properly proved, and the 1945 will, executed just before Kishore Das's death, appointed Ishar Das and Lachman Das as joint managers, not Mahants. The Court concluded that Ishar Das was not a 'chela' of Kishore Das and was not validly appointed as Mahant by the 'Bhek' and 'Sewaks'. 3. Validity and Binding Nature of the Lease Executed by Kishore Das: The lease in question, executed by Kishore Das just before his death, was challenged by Sital Das on the grounds of being a colorable transaction without consideration and not supported by legal necessity. The trial judge found the lease invalid, noting that the premium stated was fictitious and the rent grossly inadequate. The High Court did not address this issue, as it dismissed the suit based on the invalidity of Sital Das's appointment. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the trial judge's findings, emphasizing that the lessees failed to provide evidence supporting the lease's validity. The Court concluded that the lease was not a prudent act of management and was not binding on the institution. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decree. The Court held that Sital Das was validly appointed as Mahant, Ishar Das was not a 'chela' of Kishore Das, and the lease executed by Kishore Das was invalid. The plaintiff, Sital Das, was entitled to recover possession of the leased lands, and the defendants were ordered to bear the costs of all courts.
|
