Skip to content


Swami Parmarath Gir Vs. Ramsarup Singh Alias Trigunanand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in138Ind.Cas.269
AppellantSwami Parmarath Gir
RespondentRamsarup Singh Alias Trigunanand
Cases Referred and Ram Lal Sah v. Allahabad Bank
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxxiii, rule 5(d) - petition to sue in forma pauperis--no cause of action disclosed--rejection of application--'cause of action', meaning of--hindu law--religious endowments--math--sanyasi of math--right to sue. - - swarath gir failed to deposit rs. 909. in the former, the application was dismissed not on one of the grounds specified in order xxxiii, rule 5, civil procedure code, but mainly upon the ground that the case of the plaintiff was weak. in the second case, the application of the plaintiff was thrown out on the ground that the evidence produced by him did not show that he had a good case......of this property by the court of wards on the 1st of january 1924. that is immaterial. we are of opinion that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the defendant and the petition has been rightly dismissed under order xxxiii, rule 5 (d) of the civil procedure code.8. we dismiss this application with costs.
Judgment:

1. This an application for re vision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, and is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Benares, dated the 3rd of November, 1930, dismissing the plaintiff's application lor leave to sue as a pauper upon the ground that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action. The facts of this cage which have given rise to this application are briefly these: The plaintiff alleges that there is an ancestral math belonging to Dasnami sanyasis of the gir sect in Mohalla Suraj Kund in the city of Benares and that this math owns property worth Rs. 10,000,00. A geneolegical table has been set out in para. 3 of this application. Narain Gir is alleged to be the last mahant of this gaddi. He died a minor on the ath of July 1910. Swarath Gir, guru of the applicant, who was a chachera guru bhat of Narain Gir, is described as the next mahant of the, gaddi, as according to Paramarath Gir), he was duly given the chadar according to the custom of the math and thus became the mahant, The property was in the possession of the Court off Wards. Three suits were instituted with reference to this properly: one by Jagannath Gir; the second, by Swarath Gir and the third by Trigunanand, Theee suits were numbered and registered reppectively as No. 2d of 1913, No. 122 of 1913 and No 27 of 1915. There was a triangular duel amongst these three persons, the position of the Court of Wards being that of a Neutral state which held the property in the capacity of a Stake-holder. All the three suits were dismissed by the trial Court in December, 1915 There were three appeals lodged in this Court. The appeal of Trigunanand was allowed and the other two appeais were dismissed. Theee appeals were decided on the 30th of April, 1922. Swarath. Gir made two applications to this Court for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council; one in his own suit and the other in the suit of Trigunanand, Leava to appeal was granted on both these applications. Swarath Gir failed to deposit Rs. 4,000 as security, in one of his appeals and the result was that that appeals as dismissed for default of prosecution. Swarath Gir died on the 22nd of February 1924 On the 25th of July 1924, Parmarath Gir, alleging himself to be the chela of Swarath Gir, applied for substitution of his name in place of Swarath Gir in Privy Council Appeal No. 17 of 1922. Trigunanand opposed this application on the ground that Parmarath Gir was not the chela of Swaraths Gir at all but was an imposter on the 28th of November 1924, Paramarath Girs application was dismissed for default of prosecution and it was declared that the Privy Council Appeal No. 17 of 1922 had abated. On the. 23rd of December 1924 Parmarath Gir applied for setting aside the order, dated the 28th of Novenber 1024, dismissing his application for substitution of his name and he further prayed for the setting aside of the order of abatement but this application was dismissed on the 8th of January 1825.

2. The present application for leave to sue in forma pauperis was lodged by him on the 31st of March 1930. This was rejected by th6 Subordinate Judge on the ground that so far as the claim purported to be one for the determination of his title to the property as chela of Swarath Gir, it offended against the provisions of Order XXII, Rules 9 and 11 Civil Procedure Code, and was not competent, and so far as it purported to be a claim founded upon his personal right as a sanyasi belonging to the gir sect, which held the math, his apli-cation did not disclose any causa of action and was therefore liable to dismissal under Order XXXIII, Rule 5 (d), Civil Proce-dure Code. An application for revision has been filed against this order.

3. Upon an examination of the petition, it is clear that the applicant-plaintiff has no cause of action for the reliefs claimed. He is not the successor nominated by the last mahant nor is he a person, who has been selected and placed upon the gaddi by the electoral body in accordance with the custom of the foundation. He comes into court on the allegation that as the sole surviving sanyasi, belonging to this math, be has a right of action. Upon his own showing, he is not a person who is qualified to sue because he is not a person who...has been duly selected to the gaddi in accordance with the conditions set out ia para. 4 (a) of his plaint. We are therefore of opinion that the court below was right in coming to the conclusion that his petition did not disclose any cause of action.

4. A 'cause of action' may consist of a single fact or of an assemblage of facts which it is essential for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his claim against the defendant about the subject-matter in dispute. Where the plaintiff has no immediate title to the property in dispute, he cannot sustain an action for ejectment. A person who is a mere sanyasi of the math and who has not been nominated as the successor by the last mahant or elected by the mahants, the members of the sect and the raises and placed upon the gaddi after due performance of rituals, is not competent to maintain a suit for ejectment and does not possess the necessary cause of action.

5. The learned Subordinate Judge had these considerations in view when he made the following statements which have our approval:

In the absence of nomination, the right of appointment, aoeording to the customs of the math mentioned above, vests in the fraternity. The plaintiff says that he is merely a sanyasi of the math. Unless therefore he is elected and given the chaddar, he has no right to seek the intervention of the court.... The courts have no power to give the chadar and cannot therefore intervene against the co-sharers of the math.... There is nothing to show that he (the incumbent) has been removed by his fraternity on account of his misconduct or that any other appointment has beta made in his place by those who possess the right to do so. The plaint as it stands does not disclose any cause of action.

6. We have to remember that this is not a suit instituted by the relators under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, with the sanction of the Advocate General for the administration of the trust or for the removal of the trustee upon the ground that a breach of trust had taken place. Different considerations arise in such suits.

7. Our attention has been drawn to the decisions of this Court in Sumatra Devi v. Hazari Lal : AIR1930All758 and Ram Lal Sah v. Allahabad Bank 118 Ind. Cas. 669 : (1929,) A.L.J. 1059 : Ind. Rul. (1929) All. 909. In the former, the application was dismissed not on one of the grounds specified in Order XXXIII, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, but mainly upon the ground that the case of the plaintiff was weak. In the second case, the application of the plaintiff was thrown out on the ground that the evidence produced by him did not show that he had a good case. In the present case, the court definitely came to the conclusion that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and this view was supported by an examination of the plaint, with reference to paras. 1, 3 and 4 of the plaint. In para. 18 of the plaint, the only cause of action alleged by the plaintiff is that the defendant was put into possession of this property by the Court of Wards on the 1st of January 1924. That is immaterial. We are of opinion that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the defendant and the petition has been rightly dismissed under Order XXXIII, Rule 5 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code.

8. We dismiss this application with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //