# MAHANT AMAR PARKASH & ORS v. PARKASHA NAND & ORS

- **Citation:** [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1012
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1979-01-19
- **Bench:** R. S. Sarkaria, 0. Chinnappa Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mahant-amar-parkash-ors-v-parkasha-nand-ors-7557
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

l/indu Luw-Successio11 to Mahan! of a Dera.--lvlal!a!J.f rcsig11i11g du.1i11g ili5
life ti111e ar.d installing his successor-Notfce of
1Ytal1ant~' intention.<; to the
~;tntrt..l
a.~stmbly of Mahants and confirmation by it·-S11cccsJor frenf(d as
'Sadaq Chela'-Validity of appointment.
In his suit for declaration that he was the Mahant of a Dera, the plaintiff
(respondent) claimed that the late Mahant who had previously executed the
po,vcr of rittorncy in favour of the defendant (appellant) cancelled
it
and
summoned the General Assen1bly of the Udasi Bhekh which
was
attended
by other Mahants of the Udasi Bhekh and tendered his resignation on the
grf'und of old age and ill hea.Jth, that the late J\fahant treated him as Sadaq
Chela and that he made him a Mahant by applying Tilak and performing the
Pagri ceremony at the Udtasi 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 parti.;ular usage or custom of appointing a Mahant, that upto 1948 the
E
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 \vas established.
F
The Jligh Court confirmed all the findings of the tria·l 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 \\iJs not a che1a
of the late Mahan!.
Dismissing the appeal,
HEW : 1 (a) On the question whether the late Mahant was subjected to
G
any pressure to tappoint. 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 h'lo courts
hclow. [!017 A·BJ
u
(b) The submission that the High. Court did not consider the
complaint
said to have been made by the lare 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 tiie finding of the trial court that the
late Mahant who was previously under the influence of
the
appellant had
naain come under his influence when he made the complaint. 1'he presence
"
)
'
'MAHA1':t Al'JAR V, PARKASHA (Chinnappa Reddy, J,)
i.0.13:
of the police at the installation ceremony far from advancing the appellanfs
A
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
custon1
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
B
has the po••cr to appoint his suceeBsor, it is custon1a·<y in v~iriou~ Mutbi that
such appointment should be confirmed or recognised by the members of the
religious fraternity to which the late Mahant belonged. When
a
Mahant
re.signs during his life time and installs his successor, on the gaddi the fraternity
is made
aware
of the proposed
vacancy
in
the
office
a•Jd ii given
an oppo1tunity of confirming or refusing to coniirrn the nominee. [1016 _D, E, G]
c
t >(
}!;!. 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
visitins Mahants of the Udasi Bhekh who assembled at the Dera .. The plaintif

## Text

A
B
c
D
1012
MAHANT AMAR PARKASH & ORS.
v.
PARKASHA NAND & ORS.
January 19, 1979
(R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J
l/indu Luw-Successio11 to Mahan! of a Dera.--lvlal!a!J.f rcsig11i11g du.1i11g ili5
life ti111e ar.d installing his successor-Notfce of
1Ytal1ant~' intention.<; to the
~;tntrt..l
a.~stmbly of Mahants and confirmation by it·-S11cccsJor frenf(d as
'Sadaq Chela'-Validity of appointment.
In his suit for declaration that he was the Mahant of a Dera, the plaintiff
(respondent) claimed that the late Mahant who had previously executed the
po,vcr of rittorncy in favour of the defendant (appellant) cancelled
it
and
summoned the General Assen1bly of the Udasi Bhekh which
was
attended
by other Mahants of the Udasi Bhekh and tendered his resignation on the
grf'und of old age and ill hea.Jth, that the late J\fahant treated him as Sadaq
Chela and that he made him a Mahant by applying Tilak and performing the
Pagri ceremony at the Udtasi 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 parti.;ular usage or custom of appointing a Mahant, that upto 1948 the
E
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 \vas established.
F
The Jligh Court confirmed all the findings of the tria·l 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 \\iJs not a che1a
of the late Mahan!.
Dismissing the appeal,
HEW : 1 (a) On the question whether the late Mahant was subjected to
G
any pressure to tappoint. 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 h'lo courts
hclow. [!017 A·BJ
u
(b) The submission that the High. Court did not consider the
complaint
said to have been made by the lare 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 tiie finding of the trial court that the
late Mahant who was previously under the influence of
the
appellant had
naain come under his influence when he made the complaint. 1'he presence
"
)
'
'MAHA1':t Al'JAR V, PARKASHA (Chinnappa Reddy, J,)
i.0.13:
of the police at the installation ceremony far from advancing the appellanfs
A
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
custon1
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
B
has the po••cr to appoint his suceeBsor, it is custon1a·<y in v~iriou~ Mutbi that
such appointment should be confirmed or recognised by the members of the
religious fraternity to which the late Mahant belonged. When
a
Mahant
re.signs during his life time and installs his successor, on the gaddi the fraternity
is made
aware
of the proposed
vacancy
in
the
office
a•Jd ii given
an oppo1tunity of confirming or refusing to coniirrn the nominee. [1016 _D, E, G]
c
t >(
}!;!. 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
visitins Mahants of the Udasi Bhekh who assembled at the Dera .. The plaintiff was described as Srdaq Ch'ela 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 Al
(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 bis predecessors. [1018 Bl
Maltanl Satnan1 Singh v. Bawan Bhagwart Singh, AIR 1938 PC 216; re·
fcrrcd to.
0
Mukhcrjea's Hindu Law of Religious & Charitable Trusts (Third Edition)
E
referred to.
, ClvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2153 of·
~ 1969.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated
..j
12-8·69 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.FA. No. 357
F
•
of 1963.
·
Hmdayal Hardy, P. Ii. Parekh, C. B. Singh and M. Mudgal for
the Appellants.
M. N. Phadke, Mohan Behari Lal for Respondent No. L
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
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
H
was entitled· to manage the properties of the Dera and
that
the
alienations made by Mahan! Krishan Das and Amar Parkash were not
B
c
D
F
G
H
1014
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
11979] 2 S.C.R.
binding on him.
It was alleged by the plaintiff that Amar Parkash
who held power of attorney from Mahant Krishan Das, the previous
Mahan! of the Dera, had mismanaged the properties and had granted leases of lands belonging to the
Dern to his
m:stress 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 cxccu~cd in favour of Amar Parkash. Mahan!
Krishan Das summoned the general assembly of the Udasi Ghekh
and held a meeting, with the help of the
Deputy
Commissioner,
Paiiala and the Police, on 23rd July 1961.
The mcetine, 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 accep'.ed 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 plaintifI 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 activitks and started obstrncting 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 pica that he
was the chela of Muhant Krishun 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 Mahan!
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 Mahan! Krishan Das.
On the plead in gs of the parties the primary question which aros;o
for consideration was whether the plaintiff was validly appointed as
Mahan! of Dcra Buba 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 Mahan! on the
relevant date ?"
J~ue No. I-A was :
"whether the plaintiff was ;"alidly 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
·~
•
._i..
(
>
MAHAlff AMAR v. PARKASHA (Chimiappa Reddy, J.)
1015
for the· disputed Dern.
He also noticed that the documentary evidence showed that the final appointment of Mahants for Deras in the
Nabba 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 Dern
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 deicndant 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 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 plain•ifl' was established and if so, wh~ther the plaif!tiff was appointed in accordance with such custom.
After recording additional
evidence the learned Subordinate Judge submitted a report to the
effect that the custom al1eged by the plaintiff was not established
and that upto 1948 the practice was for the Ruler of Nabha State to
appoint the Mahan!.
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.
A
B
c
D
E
In the first instance Shri Hardayal Hardy, learned Counsel for
G
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
iate Mahant Krishan Das at the ceremony held on 23rd July 1961,
ff
the plaintiff was entitled to succeed.
He argued that late Mahan!
Krishan Das was covered into appointing and installing the plaintiff
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
. [1979) 2 S.C.R·
as Mahant and therefore, the appointment of the plaintiff as Maha.at
of the Dera. was invalid.
He also argued that the plaintiff wa11 nol
a chela of Mahan! Krishan Das and, therefore, he could not have boen
validly appointed as Mahant of the Dera in question.
As pointed out in
Mukhe1jea's
Hindu Law of Religious
and
Charitable Trusts (Third Edition), sucoession to the office of Mahan!
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 electi•e,
the presiding Mohunt being selected by an assembly of Mohunt11. 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
whicli the
deceased
belonged".
In Mahant Satnam Singh v. Bawan Bhagwan Singh(').
the Privy Council while noticing that succession to the office of Mahant
was to be regulated by the particular custom of the Math, observed
as follows : "In the normal case of the death of a
Mahan!,
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 Mahan! resigns
during his life and installs his successor on the gaddi, it is obvious that
the fraternity should be made aware of lhe 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 Mahan!
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 tl1e plaintiff as his successor Mahant and
whether the appointmel!t of the plaintiff was inv'.1\ict on the ground llf
· his not being a Chela of Mahant Krishan Das.
(l) A.l.R. 1938 P.C. 216.
-
)
"
;
•
'
MAHANT AMAR v. PARKASHA (Chinnappa Reddy, J.)
I 017
On the question whether late Mahant Krishan Das was subjected
to any pressure to appoint the plaintiff as Mahan!, 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
:round 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 ~ervices of the Police had been requisitioned to pressurise
late Mahan! Krishan Das.
The submission that the High Court did
not consider the complaint said to have been made by late Mahan!
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.
Mahan! 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 PS were written at that time and the people who
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
1018
SuPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1979) 2 S.C.R.
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 Mahan!.
We may
also mention here that the learned Subordinate Judge in his report
B
mentioned that Pandit Bhagtanand who was previously a Mahant
of the Dern was not a Chela of his predecessor Mahan! Sunder Das
and that Mahan! Krishan Das himself was not a Chc:la of his predecessor Mahan! Bhagtanand.
We arc unable to see any ground for inteference and the appeal is
c
accordingly dismissed with costs.
N.V.K.
Appeal dismissed.
•
)