JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.—This regular second appeal has been directed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 2-9 1989 of the learned District Judge, Una, affirming the judgment and decree dated 16 9-1986 of the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Una. 2 Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are these Plaintiff No.1, Mandir Thakur Dwara in village Basdehra, Tehsil and District Una, is a religious institution of which plaintiff No.2 Mahant Harish Dass is the Mahant, Manager and Muntzim Plaintiff No.1 owns about 256 kanals 13 marlas of land in village Basdehra and Raipur of Tehsil Una, specifically described in the plaint and hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute. Such land is being managed by plaintiff No 2 in his capacity of being the Mahant, Manager and Muntzim of plaintiff No.1. 3 The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the land in dispute. It was averred that the defendants having connived together were trying to take forcible possession of the land in dispute. In the alternative, the plaintiffs claimed possession of the land in dispute. 4. While resisting the suit, two sets of written statements were filed by the defendants that is, one by defendant No.1 and the other jointly by defendants No.2 to 15 They admitted plaintiff No.1 to be a religious institution and to be the owner and in possession of the land in dispute. They, however, denied plaintiff No to be the Mahant of plaintiff No.1 It was pleaded that plaintiff No. 2 stood removed from the Mahantship since his activities were derogatory and violative of the principles of the sacred institution and that in the interest of the religious institution, the inhabitants of the local village appointed defendant No. I as the Mahant of the plaintiff No.1 in place of the plaintiff No. 2 in a ceremonial function held on 27-9-1982, under the presidentship of Mahant Ram Prakash Dass Pradhan Shri Panch Ramanandya Vaishnav Mandal, Doaba (Punjab) and since then the land in dispute is being managed by defendant No.1 in his capacity of being the Mahant of plaintiff No.1. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:— 1. Whether the plaintiff No.2 Harish Dass was Manager and Mahant of plaintiff No.1 at the time of the filing of the suit ? 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:— 1. Whether the plaintiff No.2 Harish Dass was Manager and Mahant of plaintiff No.1 at the time of the filing of the suit ? OPP. 2. Whether Mahant Harish Dass Plaintiff No.7 has been validly substituted by Pt. Ram Saran Dass as the Mahant of Mandir Thakur Dwara, plaintiff No.1 as alleged ? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff No. 2 has no locus standi to file the suit ? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 5. Relief. 6. The learned trial Court found issue No.1 in the affirmative and the remaining issues 2 to 4 in the negative ft held that plaintiff No.2 is the Mahant of plaintiff No.1. He was never removed nor defendant No.1 was appointed validly as Mahant in his place. The suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction was, therefore, decreed as prayed. The appeal carried before the learned District Judge by the defendants was dismissed on 2-9-1989. The findings of the learned trial court were accordingly upheld 7. He was never removed nor defendant No.1 was appointed validly as Mahant in his place. The suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction was, therefore, decreed as prayed. The appeal carried before the learned District Judge by the defendants was dismissed on 2-9-1989. The findings of the learned trial court were accordingly upheld 7. Chapter VI of "A Digest of Customary Law" by Sir W.H. Rattingan, Fifteenth Edition (1989 Reprinted) deals with religious instillations and waqf property At page 559 in Remark 4 under Para 85 it has been commented, that the question as to who has the right to succeed to he office of Mahant depends, according to the well-known rule in India not on the general customary law, but upon the custom and usage of the particular math it is well known rule that each religious institution has its own usage as regards the succession to Mahantship Installation is a ceremony intended for giving publicity to the fact of the election of a candidate to the gaddi as a Mahant and the mere omission to invite the general body of gaddinashines would not itself vitiate an election otherwise valid though questions relating to succession to the office of Mahant of a Math have to be decided on proof of custom applicable to each particular Math the prevailing practice in large number of Maths of the same order cannot dc ignored The custom that prevails in the majority of cases is that the mahant nominates his successor by appointment during his lifetime or by will When there is no such custom, or where no nomination has been made, the usage of some institutions is to have the successor appointed by a system of election by the "Bhekh". In Sant Ram and others v. Sital Dass. AIR 1952 Punjab 301. a question arose as to the succession to the gaddi of Mahant of the Thakardwara at Jamsher belonging to Ram Kabir sect of Bairagi Sampardai which was connected with the institution known as "Baba Ram Kabir ka Dwara" having its permanent seat at Jaipur It was held that there is no general law applicable to religious institutions in the matter of succession to the office of Mahant. In most cases the office of Mahant is elective and not hereditary and a Mahant may nominate a successor subject to confirmation by his fraternity Indisputably, the well recognised custom among all the shrines of the nature is that the appointment ultimately rests with the "Bhekh" and the "sewaks" and strong evidence is required to establish a custom to the contrary. Though the “Bhekh” and "Sewaks" have an authority to appoint a Mahant, this right cannot be exercised by a few members of the Sampardai without giving notice to the other members of that Sampardai, particularly to the parent institution. 8. Admittedly, one Mahant Harbans Dass, Chela of Mahant Harnand Dass was the Mahant of plaintiff No.1 After his death, plaintiff No.2 became a Main at of plaintiff No. if under a will executed by Mahant Harbans Dass. The case of the defendants is that plaintiff No. 2 was removed from the Mahantship of plaintiff No. 1 on 27-9 1982 and in his place defendant No.1 was appointed as the Mahant The relevant pleading in this behalf are contained in para 5 of the two written statements filed by tire defendants, which read :- "That para 5 of the plaint is categorically denied being absolutely wrong. It is further submitted that Mahant Harish Dass was removed from the Mahantship as his functions and activities were derogatory and violative of the principles of the sacred institution. He (Harish Dass) squandered away the moveable as well as immovable debuttar properties of the religious institution and consequently he failed to perform the functions of Muntazim. To safeguard the interest of the institution, the inhabitants of the local village substituted the Mahant Ram Saran Dass in place of Mahant Harish Dass in a ceremonial function held on 2? 9 1982 a through a public ceremony under the presidentship of Mahant Shiv Ram Prakash Dass, Pradhan Shri Panch Ramanandya Vaishnav Mandal, Doaba, Punjab in the presence of huge gathering of inhabitants of the surrounding area." 9. While pleading the removal of plaintiff No. 2 from Mahantship, the defendants have failed to prove either the custom or usage or authority under which the plaintiff No.2 is alleged to have been removed,, Though it is admitted that plaintiff No 1 is a religious institution, it is not pleaded as to which order or sect the institution belongs. What are its customs or usage? What are its customs or usage? Who constitute the Bhekh and Sewaks? There are neither readings nor evidence to show as to who were present at the time of passing of the resolution for the removal of the plaintiff .No. 2 from Mahantship. Resolution dated 10-5-1982 (Ex. D-4) was passed in a meeting of Shri Panch Ramanandya Vaishnav Mandal, Doaba (Pb). Though such meeting is alleged to have been held in the temple of plaintiff No.1. under the chairmanship of Mahant Ram Parkash Dass, there is nothing on record as to how the said Mandal was concerned with the affairs of the plaintiff No.1. There is also nothing on the record to show, either in the form of pleadings or evidence, that the said Mandal and plaintiff No 1 belong to the same order and sect Similarly, the subsequent resolution dated 279-1982 (Ex D-l) was passed under the chairmanship of Mahant Ram Parkash Dass of the Doaba Mandal. 10. Even if it be assumed that the plaintiff No.1 was connected with and affiliated to Shri Panch Ramanandya Vaishnav Mandal, Doaba, it has come in evidence of the defendants that the said Mandal is a registered body having a written constitution of its own providing for the appointment and removal of Mahants. Surprisingly, such a constitution of the Mandal has not been produced in evidence in the present case. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that had such constitution been produced, the same would not have supported the case of the defendants. 11. There is yet another significant aspect of the case. In the course of hearing of the present case, it was brought to the notice of this court that during the pendency of the present appeal, a suit had been filed by certain devotees/worshippers of plaintiff No.1 under section 92, Code of Civil Procedure for the removal of the plaintiff No.2 from the Mahantship on account of his acts of mismanaging the affairs and properties of plaintiff No.1. The said suit stands dismissed by the learned District Judge, Una, on 12-12-1994. The said suit stands dismissed by the learned District Judge, Una, on 12-12-1994. An appeal being RFA No. 35 of 1995 against the said judgment and decree is pending before this court Since a suit under section 92, Code of Civil Procedure, has come to be filed for the removal of the plaintiff No.2 from the Mahantship of plaintiff No.1 the very story of the defendants that plaintiff No.2 stood removed from Mahantship, since 27-9-1982 and defendant No.1 having been appointed Mahant in his place, falls to the ground. The two courts below, upon correct and proper appreciation of evidence, have rightly held that plaintiff No.2 continues to be the Mahant of plaintiff No.1 and that his alleged removal on 27-9-1982 is not valid. Resultantly, the present appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.