Narain Gir, Chela Baba Hardial Gir, Dera Sarsti Gir vs The Punjab State

N.C. Jain, J.—This judgment of mine will dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1577 of 1979 and 3098 of 1985 as bota the appeals relate to the property situate in Sultanpur Lodhi, Habitpur; Sarai Jattan and Dera Saidan of Dharamsala Sarasti Gir, Sultanpar Lodhi-may be, that the parties to both the cases were not the same. In R. S. A. No. 1577 of 1979 the appellant is plaintiff Narain Gir who filed a suit, by impleading the Punjab State as a defendant for a declaration to the effect that he is owner-in-possession of the property of the Dera situate in Sultanpur Lodhi being successor to the Gdddi having been adopted as Chela of Baba Hardial Gir on the basis of a registered will dated 27-6-1945. It was averred in the plaint that the order of the Collector Kapurthala dated 10 2 1974 by virtue of which Muafi was cancelled and the land was reverted to the Punjab Government was illegal, mala fide, ultra vires and without jurisdiction. In the afore mentioned suit Jagdish Gir Plaintiff-appellant in Regular Second Appeal No. 3098 of 1985 was not impleaded as a defendant The lis remained between the plaintiff Narain Gir and the Punjab State only as the application of Jagdish Gir under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P.C. was dismissed by he trial Court upholding the execution of the will by Baba Hard al Gir. The Punjab State filed an appeal before the first appellate Court which was allowed after holding that the execution of the will in favour of the plaintiff Narain Gir was subsequently cancelled by another will dated 3rd Jane, 1958, which will was executed in favour of Jagdish Gir the other plaintiff in R. S. A. No. 3098 of 1985. At this stage, it is necessary to notice the factual position emerging from the suit culminating into the filing of the Regular Second Appeal No. 3098 of 1985. The plaintiff in this case is Jagdish Gir who filed a suit which may be called the ''later suit'' by impleading the Punjab State and Narain Gir claiming that he was successor to the Gaddi of Dera on the basis of a will dated 3 6-1958. This suit has been dismissed by both the courts below. The plaintiff Jagdish Gir feeling dissatisfied with the judgments and decrees of the courts below filed Regular Second Appeal No. 3098 of 1985.

At the very out set, Mr. L. M. Suri, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant in R. S. A. No, 1577 of 1979 has argued that even if the will in favour of Narain Gir does not confer any right of succession upon the appellant, the property in dispute belonging to the Dera can surely not escheat to the Government It has been urged that the property in dispute belongs to the Dera and even if no successor has been appointed by Baba Hardial Gir, the Bhaik would have the right to elect and appoint another Mahant according to the custom of Dara and under no circumstances the finding of the appellate court that the property in such circumstances would escheat to the Government, can be sustained in law. Mr. P K Palli, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for Jagdish Gir in Regular Second Appeel No. 3098 of 1985 also adopts this argument. This argument of the counsel for the plaintiffs in both the appeals merits acceptance. The property, admittedly, belongs to the Dera, Simply because none of the plaintiffs could prove the custom to the effect that they were entitled to succeed on the basis of the will does not and cannot mean that the property of the Dera, would escheat to the Government At the roost, in such circumstances, the court can issue directions that a well deserving person can be elected and appointed as Mahant by the Bhaik. Both the counsel for the parties are agreed on the point that this Court may not declare any one out of the two to be the successor on the basis of will but any one out of the two or any other person would ultimately be entitled to be elected and appointed as Mahant of the Gaddi by Bhaik.

In view of the aforesaid discussion and since it has been found that] the property does not escheat to the Government, it has become necessary to observe in these appeals that the Bhaik would be entitled to elect and appoint any one as the Mahant including the one out of the two plaintiffs before this Court whosoever is found to be more competent. To these observations, the counsel for the plaintiff appellants in both the appeals have got no objection. Consequently, in both the appeals it needs to be observed that the property in dispute would not escheat to the Government and it would remain with the Dera and such. Mahant would be entitled to succeed to the Gaddi as well as orbnerty of the institution whosoever is elected and appointed by the Bhaik.

In consequence of the above mentioned discussion, the appeals are partly allowed and the judgments and decrees of the courts below are rectified to this extent that the property would not escheat to the Government. The suits on the basis of the will would, however, remain dismissed with no costs throughout (sic) plaintiff would be entitled to succeed on the basis of the will alone To be more clear, the Bbaik would be entitled to elect and appoint any Mahant on the basis of recitals in the Will or in accordance with the custom of the Dera either out of the plaintiffs in these courts or any other person other than the plaintiffs The appeals are accordingly disposed of.