MAHANT AMAR PARKASH & ORS. versus PARKASHA NAND & ORS.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1012 · Decided: 19-01-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

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 claim-
ed 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 con-
currently 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 plain-
tiff 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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.