- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Balak Das And Another v. Bhagwan Das Alias Bhagwan Bharat And Another Opposite Party.
Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This revision application challenges an order dated 4-6-57 by Sri J.P. Gupta, a First Class Magistrate at Gopalganj, in proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). The Magistrate held opposite party Bhagwan Das (also referred to as Bhagwan Bhagat in some parts of the record) to be in peaceful possession of the disputed land and ordered him to continue in possession until ousted by a competent court.
The dispute concerned three plots (Nos. 594, 595 and 1457) in village Chanawe. The properties belonged to an organizational structure of religious establishments (an "Asthal" at Turki with subordinate Asthals at Chanawe, Bhujali and Harbansa). Narsingh Das had been Mahant of the principal Turki Muth since 1937. He executed a deed of nomination dated 17-12-51 nominating Girjanandan Bhagat (petitioner No. 2) as his successor and a deed dated 15-9-52 appointing Girjanandan Bhagat as Mahant of Turki and the subordinate Asthals. Girjanandan Bhagat's name was mutated in Register D and in the landlord's Sarishta.
Bhagwan Das (opposite party) had been deputed earlier by Narsingh Das to manage the Chanawe properties as an agent or Karinda. After the appointment of petitioner No. 2, Bhagwan Das allegedly showed hostility, resulting in litigation and ultimately the Section 145 proceeding. Bhagwan Das denied that Girjanandan Bhagat was duly appointed Mahant and claimed possession on his own behalf.
The Magistrate found Bhagwan Das to be in actual physical possession and unacceptable the claim that his possession was as Karinda; the Magistrate made the rule absolute against the petitioners. The petitioners sought revision before the Sessions Judge; the Additional Sessions Judge of Saran declined to interfere. The present opinion decides the revision application.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Magistrate's order is unenforceable for vagueness or uncertainty because the specific portion of the land in dispute was not clearly specified (police report mentioned 8 bighas while record-of-rights showed a larger total area).
- Whether the actual physical possession of Bhagwan Das is permissive (as agent/manager) or is possession based on a claim of right such that he has locus standi under Section 145 CPC to resist the petitioners.
- Whether the Magistrate erred in failing to take into account material documents (notably plaint of title suit No. 87 of 1953 and related documents) that bear on the capacity in which Bhagwan Das was in possession.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments (as advanced by Mr. J.N. Verma)
- The Magistrate's order is unenforceable because the property subject to the order was not clearly specified; the police report referred to eight bighas while the record-of-rights lists a total of 22 bighas 17 kathas and 1 dhur for the three plots, creating uncertainty about the exact area covered by the order.
- Even if Bhagwan Das was in actual physical possession, that possession was permissive (he was a Karinda/agent) and therefore could not give him locus standi in a proceeding under Section 145 CPC against his principal (the Mahant of Turki or the petitioners claiming through him).
Opposite Party's Arguments
- Bhagwan Das denied that petitioner No. 2 (Girjanandan Bhagat) had been appointed Mahant of Turki and claimed that, after the abdication of Narsingh Das, he himself was selected Mahant of Turki Muth and had been in possession of the properties on his own account.
- In earlier suit proceedings (plaint of title suit No. 87 of 1953) Bhagwan Das had made averments asserting certain rights (including claims to succeed as Mahant), and he later challenged the genuineness of the compromise petition in that suit on the ground of fraud and asserted that after the compromise he was duly installed as Mahant — though the opinion notes these matters cannot be delved into in the present proceeding.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bajirao v. Mt. Dadibai, AIR 1926 Nag 286 | Holds that possession by an agent or servant which is permissive cannot confer on that agent/servant a locus standi in a proceeding under Section 145 CPC; possession in Section 145 proceedings must be possession based on a claim of right. | The court applied this principle to conclude that Bhagwan Das's long physical possession was permissive as an agent/manager of the subordinate Muth and therefore did not give him locus standi to resist the petitioners; this supported reversal of the Magistrate's order and placing petitioners in possession through their agent. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court addressed the petitioners' two principal contentions sequentially.
1. On the vagueness/unenforceability point: the court noted the discrepancy between the police report (which stated eight bighas) and the record-of-rights (which showed the three plots together totaling 22 bighas 17 kathas and 1 dhur). The court observed that the proceedings referred to all three plots, which the court interpreted as meaning the entire area of each of the three plots was in dispute. The Sub-divisional Magistrate who instituted the proceedings had jurisdiction to include a larger area than the police report specified. For these reasons the court rejected the contention that the Magistrate's order was unenforceable for vagueness or uncertainty.
2. On whether Bhagwan Das's possession was permissive or based on a claim of right: the court accepted that Bhagwan Das had been in actual physical possession and managing the Chanawe properties for eighteen to twenty years. However, the court emphasized that the legal capacity in which he held the property was decisive. The court found that the Magistrate erred in overlooking a key document — the plaint of title suit No. 87 of 1953 — in which Bhagwan Das had described himself as the Chela (disciple) of Narsingh Das, stated that the Chanawe Muth was subordinate to Turki, and averred that he had been appointed manager of the Chanawe properties to supervise them on behalf of the Mahant of Turki. The plaint also acknowledged that petitioner No. 2 had been installed (by nomination/surrender deeds) as Mahant of Turki and in possession of properties at Turki and of properties attached to subordinate Muths.
The court examined documentary materials relied on by the Magistrate (rent receipts, correspondence with the Board of Religious Trusts, chaukidari receipts, cane survey sheets, gate sale receipts and other papers) and observed that, while these proved actual possession by Bhagwan Das, they were not inconsistent with his being a manager/agent for the principal Muth at Turki. There was nothing to show that Bhagwan Das had been conducting such affairs in the capacity of an owner to the knowledge of the Turki authorities.
The court noted that Bhagwan Das had challenged the genuineness of the compromise petition and asserted later entitlement as Mahant, but these matters were not amenable to resolution in the present summary proceeding under Section 145.
Applying the precedent in Bajirao v. Mt. Dadibai (AIR 1926 Nag 286), the court reiterated the legal principle that permissive possession by an agent cannot confer locus standi in a Section 145 proceeding — possession must be based on an asserted right. The Magistrate himself had found that petitioner No. 2 had a prima facie better title. Considering the plaint averments and the documents, the court concluded that petitioner No. 2 was in fact in possession of the disputed lands through his agent Bhagwan Das. On that basis, the Magistrate's order was reversed.
Holding and Implications
Core Ruling: The court reversed the Magistrate's order dated 4-6-57 and directed that the petitioners be put in possession of the disputed plots (total area: 22 bighas 17 kathas and 1 dhur) until evicted in due course. The opposite party is prohibited from creating any disturbance in such possession until eviction.
Implications:
- The direct, concrete effect is that the petitioners are to be placed in possession of the entire area of the three disputed plots as specified in the record-of-rights and will hold that possession until lawfully evicted.
- The court's ruling rests on established principle (as cited in Bajirao v. Mt. Dadibai) that permissive possession by an agent does not confer locus standi in a Section 145 CPC proceeding; the court applied that principle to the facts before it rather than creating or announcing new legal doctrine.
- No broader precedent or extension of law was declared beyond applying the existing principle to the record in this case; the court limited itself to reversing the Magistrate because the Magistrate had overlooked material documents and mischaracterized the legal quality of the opposite party's possession.
Order dated 4-6-57 by the Magistrate was reversed; the petitioners were directed to be put in possession and opposite party restrained from disturbance until eviction.
1. This application in revision is directed against an order dated 4-6-57 passed by Sri J.P Gupta, a Magistrate of the first class at Gopalganj by which, in a proceeding under Section 145 of the CPC he held opposite party Bhagwan Bhagat, who was second party in that proceeding, to be in peaceful possession of the disputed land and ordered him to continue in possession until ousted by a competent Court.
2. The dispute relates to three plots, bearing Nos. 594, 595 and 1457 in village Chanawe. At Turki in the district of Muzaffarpur there is an As-thal. Subordinate to this Asthal there are Asthalsl at different places, viz., Chanawe, Bhujali and Harbansa. It is undisputed that all these Asthals are subordinate to the principal Asthal at Turki. One Narsingh Das was appointed Mahant of Turki Muth in 1937. It is beyond controversy that lie was in possession of all properties attached to the principal as well as the subordinate Asthals. On 17-12-511 Narsingh Das executed a deed of nomination whereby he nominated petitioner Girjanandan Bhagat, one of his disciples, as his successor.
3. This was followed by another document dated 15-9-52, whereby Narsingh Das appointed Girjanandan Bhagat as Mahant of Turki and the subordinate Asthals. In due course, the name of Girjanandan Bhagat was mutated in Register D and in the landlord's Sarishta. The case of the petitioners is that Bhagwan Das, another disciple of Narsingh Das, had been deputed by the latter to look after the properties at Chanawe as his agent or Karinda, After the appointment of the petitioner No. 2 as the next Mahant Bhagwan Das is said to have shown hostility towards him as a result of which there were several litigations between them. Eventually Girjanandan Bhagat deputed Balak Das, petitioner No. 1, to Chanawe Muth to look after the properties there as his agent in place of Bhagwan Das. This led to friction and eventually the present proceeding under Sec. 145 was drawn up. The opposite party No. 1 denied that the petitioner No. 2 had been appointed the Mahant of Turki. He claimed that after the abdication of Narsingh Das he himself was selected Mahant of Turki Muth. He contends that he has been in possession of these properties on his own account.
4. The learned Magistrate, on a consideration of the materials on the record, came to the conclusion that it was Bhagwan Das who was in possession of the property. He further held that the petitioner's case that Bhagwan Das was in possession of the properties as his Karinda was unacceptable. On these findings he made the rule absolute against the petitioners. Against this order the petitioners preferred an application in revision before the Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge of Saran who heard the application, declined to interfere with the order holding that the points urged by the petitioners did not justify reference of this case to this Court.
5. Mr. J.N Verma appearing for the petitioners has urged two points. In the first place, he has contended that the property not having been clearly specified in the proceeding the order of the learned Magistrate is unenforceable on the ground of vagueness and uncertainty. The next point urged by him was that even accepting the finding of the learned Magistrate as regards opposite party Bhagwan Das being in actual physical possession of the property the court should have held that his possession was permissive and could not give him a locus standi as against his principal, viz., the Mahant of Turki.
6. So far as the first point is concerned, it appears that the police report stated the area of the disputed plots as eight bighas. The total area of these three plots, according to the record-of-rights, is 22 bighas, 17 kathas and 1 dhur. The contention of learned counsel is that as it is not clear which specific portion out of this area of 22 bighas 17 kathas and 1 dhur is in dispute there is likely to be considerable difficulty in enforcing the order of the learned Magistrate. I do not accept this contention as correct.
7. It is true that the boundary of the plots or the area in dispute in each plot has not been specifically mentioned in the proceedings. The proceedings, however, state that the dispute is in respect of all the three plots which would mean that the entire area of each plot is the subject-matter of this case. Although the police report was in respect of only eight bighas the Sub-divisional Magistrate, who instituted the proceedings, had full jurisdiction to include a larger area as the subject-matter of this case. I do not, therefore, think that the order of the learned Magistrate is unenforceable on the ground of vagueness or uncertainty.
8. The second contention of the learned counsel, however, is more substantial. The materials on the record undoubtedly show that Bhagwan Das has been managing the properties and has been in actual physical possession of the properties attached to the subordinate Muth at Chanawe for the last eighteen or twenty years. The question for determination, however, is in what capacity he has been in possession of these properties. The learned Magistrate came to the finding that there was nothing to indicate that Bhagwan Das was holding these properties as the Karinda of the Muth of Turki. In coming to this conclusion the learned Magistrate has obviously overlooked a very important document on which learned counsel for the petitioners has relied. This document is the plaint of title suit No. 87 of 1953.
9. This was a suit instituted by Bhagwan Das a the Chela of Narsingh Das against petitioner Girjanandan Bhagat and Narsingh Bhagat in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Muzaffarpur. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it is stated that properties, movable and immovable, are attached to the subordinate Asthals and that the Mahant for the time being of the Sadar Asthal at Turki is the Mahant of all the subordinate Asthals and has legal charge and possession of all the properties attached to them although the properties appertaining to each of the said subordinate Asthal are managed by his Chelas.
10. It is next stated that the plaintiff, that is to say, opposite party Bhagwan Das was appointed manager of the subordinate Asthal at Chanawe in order to supervise the management of the properties. After referring to the deed of nomination dated 17-12-51 executed by Narsing Das the opposite party further stated that thereafter the aforesaid Narsingh Das executed another deed of surrender dated 15-9-52 in favour of the petitioner No. 2 whereby he abdicated from the Gaddi of mahantship in favour of the defendant first partv. It is thus clear that it was the admitted case of Bhagwan Das that the petitioner No. 2 had been installed as the Mahant of Turki Muth to which Chanawe Muth was subordinate.
11. There was another recital to the effect “that the defendant first party (petitioner No. 2) is in possession of the asthal at Turki and is in possession of the properties attached to it.” In other words, the case of the opposite party then was that the petitioner No. 2 as the Mahant succeeding Narsingh Das had come in possession not only of the properties attached to the principal muth but also of the properties attached to the subordinate Muths. The relief claimed by the opposite party No. 1 was that it be declared that he being the senior most Chela of Narsingh Das was entitled to succeed to the office of Mahant of the Asthal at Turki in the vacancy caused by the abdication of the latter.
12. A further relief was asked for to the effect that the petitioner No. 2 had acquired no right to the office of Mahant by virtue of the aforesaid deed of Surrender in his favour. Another relief asked for was that defendant first party, that is to say, the petitioner No. 2 be ousted from the office of Mahant and the opposite party No. 1 be put in possession thereof. This suit was eventually compromised between the parties on 21-4-54. In that compromise the opposite party stated that he would not prosecute the suit. The suit was accordingly dismissed on compromise.
13. From the averments made in the plaint it is quite clear that even in 1954, that is, two years after the appointment of Girjanandau Bhagat the admitted position was that Chanawe Muth was a Muth subordinate to the principal Muth at Turki, that Bhagwan Das was managing the Chanawe properties for and on behalf of the Mahant of Turki and that Girjanandan, rightly or wrongly a question which in future will be decided by a competent court, if necessary, had been installed as the Mahant of Turki. If this was the position in 1954 the question arises whether there was any change of circumstances at any time later on. The learned Magistrate has failed to apply his mind to this aspect of the case. He appears to have been carried away by the fact that Bhagwan Das was in physical possession for a long time. This is what the learned court observes:
“Admittedly the 2nd party is in possession. No matter as Karinda since over twenty years.”
The rent receipts which, significantly enough, are matter receipts, Bhagwan Das's correspondence with the Board of Religious Trusts, the choukidari receipts, the cane survey sheets, the gate sale receipts and other papers relied upon by the learned Magistrate while undoubtedly proving the actual possession of Bhagwan Das, are not inconsistent with his position as manager on behalf of the principal Muth at Turki. There is nothing to indicate that he carried on correspondence with the Board of Religious Trusts in his capacity as a full-fledged owner to the knowledge of the authorities at Turki.
14. Bhagwan Das has challenged the genuineness of the compromise petition on the ground of fraud. He asserts that after the compromise he was duly installed as the mahant of Turki. These, however, are matters which cannot be gone into in the present proceeding.
15. I am satisfied from the materials that although Bhagwan Das was in possession of the disputed lands his possession in law amounts to permissive possession as agent. In Bajirao v. Mt. Dadibai, AIR 1926 Nag 286 it has been observed that the possession of an agent or a servant which is permissive cannot give him a locus standi as against his principal or master in a proceeding under Sec. 145. The possession that can be pleaded in a proceeding under Sec. 145 must be possession based on a claim of right to possession. The learned Magistrate has himself held that the petitioner No. 2 prima facie I has a better title. Having regard to the admissions made in the plaint and the other documents, referred to, I have no doubt that the petitioner No. 2 is in possession of the disputed lands through his agent Bhagwan Das. This possession of the petitioner must therefore be; confirmed.
16. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 4-6-57 is accordingly reversed and instead I direct the petitioners to be put in possession of the disputed plots, the total area of which is 22 bighas 17 kathas and 1 dhur, until evicted therefrom in due course.
17. The opposite party are prohibited from creating any disturbance in such possession until eviction.
HC/G.M.J
18. Order accordingly.
Alert