Pt. Shiam Krishna Dar, J.:- 1. This is an appeal against a judgment and decree of the High Court, dated August 11,1947, in its appellate jurisdiction, by which it affirmed a judgment and decree of the High Court dated 24th Assuj, 2003, in its original jurisdiction. 2. The appellant is a religious institution of Suthra Shah sect situated at Shahid Gunj in the city of Srinagar. During recent years its management had been a subject of dispute and controversy. Its two successive Mahants, Mangal Shah and Wazir Shah, between 1978-1990 were dismissed or misconduct and thereafter it was under the management of Dharamarth Department till the year 2002, when the present Mahant was appointed as its Manager. 3. During the time of Mangal Shah, 128 kanals 7 marlas of land in Narsinghgarh and 3,239 kanals 7 marlas of land in Khewats Nos. 1 to 49 and 49 kanals 8 marlas of land in Khewat No. 45, in village Hail, stood recorded in the name of the appellant under the management of Mangal Shah, in Revenue Records. On an application, made by Mangal Shah, and by an order of the Settlement Officer, dated Chet 15, 1981 the entries in revenue record of Narsinghgarh were changed and the appellant was recorded as owner under the management of Mangal Shah Suthra and Harnam Dass Udasi, half and half. Harnam Dass, whose name was thus jointly associated with Mangal Shah, was the Manager of an Udasi institution called Asthapan Sri Chand Chinar, situated at Bagh Hari singh. 4. As a result of a command of His Highness, dated November 15, 1929, a similar entry came into existence in regard to the village Hail. And on the basis of these entries, Harnam Dass and after his death, which took place during the pendency of this litigation, his successor the Respondent No. 1 now claim half personal interest in the said lands and have made leases or transfers in favour of other respondents. 5. The appellant alleges that half the land thus claimed by Harnam Dass and the respondent No. 1 is a part of a single endowment in favour of the appellant of which Harnam Dass secured possession under a fictitious claim in collusion with its previous Mahant Mangal Shah. 5. The appellant alleges that half the land thus claimed by Harnam Dass and the respondent No. 1 is a part of a single endowment in favour of the appellant of which Harnam Dass secured possession under a fictitious claim in collusion with its previous Mahant Mangal Shah. It pleads that the orders referred to above under the colour of which Harnam Dass secured the possession of the property, were orders in relation to the management of the endowment which were passed under a misapprehension and as a result of deception practised upon authorities con­cerned and which automatically came to an end with the death of Harnam Dass. And it maintains that the said orders did not in fact divest the appellant of the ownership of the property and if they purported to do so they were void in law. It accordingly claims a declaration of title and ejectment of respondents from the above land. 6. The claim is resisted on various pleas of law and fact which has given rise to seven issues, one of which [No. 1 (b)] is as follows - "Is the Dharamsala Suthra Shahi entitled to the property in dispute?" 7. Masud Hassan J. in trial Court and Ghose C. J. and Wazir J. in Court of appeal have answered this issue in the negative and as a result have dismissed the claim without investigating other issues and the correctness of their finding is the main question for the determination of the Board in this appeal. 8. During the reign of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, a Suthra Shahi Faqir from the Punjab, named Hail Shah settled in Kashmir and founded an order of faqirs which has flourished from Guru to Chela in an unbroken line of succession for several generations. The names of these successors, who were styled "Mahants" one after another up to the present time are: -Dayal Shah, Janki Shah, Tribani Shah, Sarbans Shah, Mangal Shah, Wazir Shah and Sant Shah. 9. At what precise time Hail Shah or his successors founded the appellant institution or came into possession of the lands in villages Hail and Narsinghgarh, now in dispute, cannot be determined with any certainty. But in the settlement proceedings dated 15th April, 1893, Ex. 9. At what precise time Hail Shah or his successors founded the appellant institution or came into possession of the lands in villages Hail and Narsinghgarh, now in dispute, cannot be determined with any certainty. But in the settlement proceedings dated 15th April, 1893, Ex. P. 28, it is stated that the village Hail was named after Hail Shah; that it was populated and brought under cultivation by Dayal Shah and its income was being utilised for the maintenance of Dharamsala at Shahidgunj and at Hail. And in a document, produced by the respondent, Ex. D.K. dated Bhadun 5, 1894, there is a reference to the Dharamsala of Dayal Shah at Shahidgunj and in another document, dated June 6, 1889, Ex. D.4 which the respondent has produced, it is stated that the lands of village Narsinghgarh, now in dispute, had long been in possession of Tribani Shah and his ancestors. 10. It may, therefore, be taken to be fairy established that about the time of Dayal Shah the appellant came into existence and about the same time the lands now in dispute came into possession of Dayal Shah. And since then both the lands and the institution have passed in an unbroken line of succession from Guru to Chela in the family of Dayal Shah. 11. The respondents contend that at its inception the grant of Narsinghgarh was in favour of an Udasi Faqir named Sarandass from whom Harnamdass was descended and the grant relating to village Hail was a joint grant in favour of Dayalshah and Sarandass and in order to establish this contention they rely upon a Patta and a Parwana granted by Maharaja Ranjit Singh, dated Bhadun 15,1894, Ex. D. K. and D. G. respectively and two Parwanas of Maharaja Gulab Singh dated Maghar 9,1911, Ex. D. 12 and D. 13. Against these documents the appellant has produced a Patta granted by Maharaja Ranjit Singh, dated Baisakh 25, 1895, Ex. PW2/I to Dayal Shah alone relating to village Hail. 12. The originals of these documents are not in existence but a copy of the two documents of 1894, Ex. DK and DG. D. 12 and D. 13. Against these documents the appellant has produced a Patta granted by Maharaja Ranjit Singh, dated Baisakh 25, 1895, Ex. PW2/I to Dayal Shah alone relating to village Hail. 12. The originals of these documents are not in existence but a copy of the two documents of 1894, Ex. DK and DG. is to be found in a file relating to village Narsinghgarh in which investigation was made as to Muafi of that place in the year 1889, and in which Tribani Shah was also examined and be deposed that the Muafi was granted by his ancestors in support of which claim he produced the above two documents and described Sidh Dass, his grantee, as his own ancestors. The Parwanas of 1911 are to be found in a bahi which contains copies of orders issued by the Government. The bahi is undoubtedly an old one but the writing and ink of these two Parwanas is different from the writing and ink of other documents in the same page and there is room for the argument that they might have been interpo­lated. 13. So far as village Hail is concerned, all the evidence in the case is one way that it had been all through in possession of Suthrashahi Faqirs and it is not possible to place any reliance on any document which shows that Udasis had anything to do with it. And even in regard to village Narsinghgarh for a long number of years Suthrashahis had been in possession of it. If in distant past any grant was made to Saran Dass Udasi, who was not an ancestor of the appellant but of the respondent, then that grant must have lapsed and the Suthrashahis came in possession of the land either by a fresh grant or by adverse possession. 14. At the first regular settlement, which took place about the year 1951, Tribani Shah submitted a claim to the effect that village Hail was an old Muafi whose income was spent for the upkeep of the Dharamsala and that the village should continue as Muafi and be exempted from Government revenue. Accordingly a full investigation was made of the claim and by an order of His Highness, dated 29th Phagan, 1982, the village was treated as a Muafi, till the life-time of the man in possession. Accordingly a full investigation was made of the claim and by an order of His Highness, dated 29th Phagan, 1982, the village was treated as a Muafi, till the life-time of the man in possession. Subsequently by a Council Resolution No. 17 of 1898, dated February 1,1898, Ex. P4 the village Hail was treated as Muafi till the existence of Dharamsala, namely the appellant. And since 1898, during 'the time of successive Mahants, the appellant has been recorded as the owner of the village Hail under the management of successive Mahants of Suthrashahi sect. 15. At the time of the first revised settlement, which took place about the year 1962-64, a similar claim was made with regard to village Narsinghgarh by Sarbans Shah and after due enquiry and on the recommendation of the Revenue Minister and Chief Minister, an order was passed by His Highness, dated Kalik 13,1964, Ex. "P5 ", treating the land in village Narsinghgarh as Muafi till the existence of the appellant and since then in revenue records relating to land in village Narsinghgarh, the appellant has been shown as the owner under the management of successive Mahants. 16. The title of the appellant, in regard, to the lands in village Hail and Narsinghgarh, therefore, rests upon continuous entries in revenue record from the year 1898 in relation to village Hail and from the year 1907 in relation to village Narsinghgarh; upon long possession extending over several generations through successive Mahants : upon the order of the Government granting Muafi Ex. "P4" dated February, 1st 1898, relating to village Hail and Ex." p5", dated Katik 13,1964, in regard to village Narsinghgarh. And it is immaterial for this purpose to determine how the appellant's possession originated, whether by a grant from His Highness or from Suthrashahi Mahant. In as much as the appellant's title and possession was assented to both by His Highness and by the Suthrashahi Mahants, the appellant can invoke their respective title in support of his own title. 17. By an order of Settlement Officer, Ex. "P5" dated Jeth 24,1979, Mangalshah was recognised as the Manager of the appellant. Previous to this, Mangal Shah had executed an agreement in favour of Harnam Dass, dated Katik 18,1978, Ex. 17. By an order of Settlement Officer, Ex. "P5" dated Jeth 24,1979, Mangalshah was recognised as the Manager of the appellant. Previous to this, Mangal Shah had executed an agreement in favour of Harnam Dass, dated Katik 18,1978, Ex. "D1", by which he virtually agreed to manage the appellant and its endowment as a creature of Harnamdass and on Jeth 7,1981, Mangal Shah made an application to the Revenue authorities stating that Harnamdass was jointly interested in the management of the appellant and he should be appointed a joint manager along with Mangal Shah to the extent of half share in relation to the land in village Narsinghgarh. On this application an enquiry was made and Mangal Shah was examined on oath and as a result the Settlement Officer passed the following order, dated Chet 15,1981, Ex."D8", by which Harnamdass was appointed a joint manager of the appellant in relation to the lands in village Narsinghgarh: - "Under orders of His Highness the Maharaja Sahib Bahadur the land measuring 129 kanals 5 marlas was continued as Muafi existence under the management of Sarbans Shah till the existence of the Dharmsal, and this Muafi was released under orders dated 4th Poh, 1964. At the time of the death of Sarbans Shah Mangal Shah has been appointed as his representa­tive as for this office orders dated 24th Jeth, 1979. Now on the completion of file on his review application Mangal Shah has filed an application to the effect that he is weak and old and originally this Muafi was in the name of Dayal Shah Suthra and Sarbans Dass Udasi, therefore, Mahant Harnam Dass Udasi may be appointed as manager of the Muafi. Harnam Dass agrees to this and they have mutually agreed to share the income in moiety, which means that both shall be the managers. Although, on principle, it is proper to keep only one manager of the Dharamsala, but this being the Muafi of both sects, Suthra and Udasi, as is evident from the copy of His Highness' orders of 1911, the land measuring 128 kanals 18 marlas, assessed to land revenue of Rs. 16/12/6, is released, as usual as a Muafi under the management of Mangal Shah Suthra for one-half and Harnam Dass Udasi for the one-half under the conditions already sanctioned. The amount of Malkana is not recoverable. 16/12/6, is released, as usual as a Muafi under the management of Mangal Shah Suthra for one-half and Harnam Dass Udasi for the one-half under the conditions already sanctioned. The amount of Malkana is not recoverable. The information of additional manager may be submitted to the Hon'ble Revenue Minister separately. The original file be sent to the Governor for compliance and affecting mutation accordingly. Dated 15-12-1981. (Sd.)..........Settlement Officer." 18. Mangal Shah was found guilty of misconduct and dismissed from office in 1983 and he died in 1985. His successor Wazir Shah was appointed in 1988 and was dismissed by an order dated Har 19,1990, Ex. PD/1. In view of these dismissals a question arose about the appointment of a proper manager of the appellant in regard to village Hail and the revenue authorities while considering this matter also reviewed the situation which had arisen by reason of the appointment of a joint manager in relation to village Narsinghgarh by the order of Settlement Officer dated Chet 15,1981. 19. In making their recommendation, the revenue authorities realised that the order of Chet 15,1981 in relation to village Narsinghgarh was without jurisdiction. They also recognised that both these villages were Muafi till the existence of the Dharamsala and they were anxious to maintain the Muafi in form and in terms as it was sanctioned by the Government but they were pressed with the question of finding a proper manager of the appellant and they were impressed by the good management which Harnam Dass had shown in regard to village Narsinghgarh since his appointment. It is also a fact that in making the recommendations they were also influenced in some measure by the claim of Harnam Dass that in the remote past Udasis had something to do with the endowment, a claim which he supported with reference to Parwanas of Maharaja Gulab Singh of Maghar 9,911, Exs. " D12 " and "D13." 20. The Settlement Munsarim, in making his recommendation, for the appoint­ment of Harnamdas, as the manager of the appellant, Ex. " D12 " and "D13." 20. The Settlement Munsarim, in making his recommendation, for the appoint­ment of Harnamdas, as the manager of the appellant, Ex. D. 10 dated Har 32,1984, observed as follows: - "In my opinion there can be no better arrangement than to appoint Harnam Dass as the Manager of the Dharamsala to the exclusion of any Suthra, provided the appointment of Harnam Dass as the sole manager does not mean the transfer of this Muafi, into the hands of Udasis and thus its being affiliated to the Asthan of Srichand Chinar, only because of Baba Harnam Dass being the Mahant of this place." 21. The Revenue Commissioner, in making his recommendation dated Katik 29,1985, Ex. " Dll ", stated as follows: - "..........The order of Ch. Chattar Singh dated I5th Chet, 1981, on the review file on Muafi of village Narsinghgarh regarding addition of the name of Baba Harnam Dass as the manager for the 1/2 was apparently beyond his jurisdiction. He had probably given these orders on the presumption that the parties had mutually agreed. 22. However, in my opinion, since this order has not in any way adversely affected the State and on the other hand by the joining of Harnam Dass in the array of Managers, the management of this Muafi has taken a better turn this order may be confirmed. With regard to the Muafi of the village Hail, I concur with the report of the Settlement Officer to the extent, that the whole village of Hail may continue as a Muafi to the Dharamsala situate in Mohalla Shahid Ganj during the existence of the Dharamsala and the management of this Muafi may be sanctioned in favour of two managers one of whom may be Baba Harnam Dass of Udasi sect and the other may be appointed by the Revenue Department out of the Suthra sect." 23. On the basis of these reports the Revenue Minister made his recommenda­tion dated October 10,1929, Ex. On the basis of these reports the Revenue Minister made his recommenda­tion dated October 10,1929, Ex. "D 14," in which he summed up his conclusion as follows: - "The Revenue Minister agreeing with the Governor of Kashmir is of opinion that unless some capable man is available from amongst the Suthra community, Mahant Harnam Dass may well continue to manage also the 2nd half share of the Muafi as a temporary measure and recommends that the area found out in the recent measurements may be allowed to continue as Muafi on the name of the Dharamsala tenable during the existence thereof. Submitted to His Highness the Maharaja Bahadur through the Minister-in-Waiting for favour of command." And on November 15, 1929, the above was " sanctioned by His Highness as recommended by the Revenue Min­ister." 24. By an order of the Revenue Minister, dated June 13,1934, the managership of the appellant by a Suthra Shahi Mahant was held in suspense and was carried on by the Dharamarth Department till a suitable Suthra Shahi Mahant could be found and an enquiry regarding the right of Udasis to participate in the manage­ment, was withdrawn from the revenue authorities and left for the determination of the Civil Court. But under the colour of the said orders of the Settlement Officer, dated Chet 15,1981, and of His Highness, dated November 19,1929, the respondent secured entries in the revenue record showing the Muafi in the name of Dharamsala Udasian under the management of Harnamdass half and Dharamsala Suthrian under the management of Dharmarth half. 25. The transactions, which took place during the Mahantship of Mangal Shah or Wazir Shah or during the management of the Dharmarth Department, cannot in any way bind the appellant. It is true that before the revenue authorities Harnamdass had put up a claim for joint interest in the land on the basis of Parwanas of 1854, purporting to be issued by Maharaja Gulab Singh, Ex. "D12" and "D13" in favour of Sidh Dass and this claim was admitted by Mangal Shah and as a result of this agreement the revenue authorities recommended the entries in the records to be changed in the joint name of Mangal Shah and Harnamdass and finally this change received the approval of His Highness. "D12" and "D13" in favour of Sidh Dass and this claim was admitted by Mangal Shah and as a result of this agreement the revenue authorities recommended the entries in the records to be changed in the joint name of Mangal Shah and Harnamdass and finally this change received the approval of His Highness. But, as the Board has observed before, Mangal Shah was a creature of Harnam Dass and throughout the short period that he was in office and he had acted in collusion with Harnamdass in utter disregard of the interests of the institution. The Board has already expressed the view that no reliance can be placed upon the Parwanas of 1911 and it is not possible to regard the claim of Harnam Dass as valid or even bona fide. The fact that the revenue authorities were deceived by the plausibility of the claim and of its assent by Mangal Shah in making their recommendation is not of any consequence. Because by appointing joint managers they did not intend to partition the endow­ment or to divest the appellant of its proprietary interest in the land. And even if they intended otherwise, they could not legally do so. 26. The governing fact of the situation, so far as His Highness' Government and revenue authorities are concerned, was that the lands were Muafi so long as the Dharamsala lasted. Taking this as an established fact they were only concerned with the appointment of the Manager of the Dharamsala. They might have been correct or in error in taking the view that two managers could be properly appointed to one Dharamsala and one of these could be an Udasi, i.e., a non-Suthra. They might have been right or wrong in their view that the Udasis were jointly interested with Suthrashahis in the management of the Dharamsala and they could share equally in its endowment but they clearly contemplated the appointment of two managers of one Dharamsala only, namely the appellant and they never in form or in spirit made a personal grant to Harnamdass, or to any independent Udasi institution. Whatever might have been the true nature of the claim of Harnamdass, it was treated by settlement authorities as a claim for managership of the Dharamsala and he was put and entered in possession of the property in suit as the manager of the Dharamsala. Whatever might have been the true nature of the claim of Harnamdass, it was treated by settlement authorities as a claim for managership of the Dharamsala and he was put and entered in possession of the property in suit as the manager of the Dharamsala. And as the only Dharamsala before the Government authorities was the Dharamsala of Suthrashahi Sect at Shahidganj, namely the appellant, Harnamdass must be deemed to have been appointed as the Manager of the appellant and he must be deemed to have had accepted the appointment. 27. With the death of Harnamdass, during the pendency of this litigation, the question whether the joint appointment was properly made or not ceases to be of any practical importance. In so far as his appointment was influenced by the consideration that Udasis had an interest in the endowment, it was not justified because, in the opinion of the Board the appellant is a Suthrashahi endowment and Udasis have no interest in it. But irrespective of this consideration under the constitution of the endowment it might have been open to the Government to make an appointment of the manager of the appellant and in regard to this matter the Board express no opinion. But whatever authority the Government may possess in the matter of the appointment of Mahant it is obvious it can only be exercised subject to the constitution of the endowment and in the interest of the institution concerned. 28. A great deal of stress was laid before the Board upon the pleadings of the appellant and its relation with the title which the Board has now found established. The pleadings are undoubtedly inartistically drawn and they lend colour to the contention that the appellant had limited his title to a specified grant from the Government, but in the opinion of the Board, the pleadings though inartistic are sufficiently wide to permit the setting up of the title as has now been found established by evidence and in any case the respondent had in no way been prejudiced by the investigation of this title. 29. The conclusion to which the Board has reached may now be summarised. The lands in village Hail and Narsinghgarh now in dispute have long been in possession of Dayal Shah and his successors of SuthraShahi sect. 29. The conclusion to which the Board has reached may now be summarised. The lands in village Hail and Narsinghgarh now in dispute have long been in possession of Dayal Shah and his successors of SuthraShahi sect. These persons at all material time were the mahant of the appellant, under vows of celibacy and poverty and they always treated the property in dispute as appertaining to the appellant and meant for its maintenance and upkeep. In recognition of this treat­ment by the mahants, the Government of the day, remitted the Government Revenue of the lands and treated them as Muafis which at first was in the name of the mahants but later on as position cleared up was duly recorded in the name of the appellant in Revenue records under the management of the mahants. It is true that there exists no formal deed of endowment executed either by the Government or by the mahants dedicating the property to the appellant but from the long course of conduct and treatment on the part of the mahants and of the Government an implied dedication of property to the appellant can be inferred and in the opinion of the Board this inference in this case is not only justified but it should be made. 30. At the time when Mangal Shah came upon the scene as mahant of the appellant, Harnam Dass or Udasis had no valid or subsisting interest in the lands now in dispute and the claim put forward by him before the settlement authorities or the Government on the basis of the alleged personal or Udasi right-was wholly unfounded in fact or in law. The settlement authorities and the Government were bound to recognize the property in suit as dedicated to the appellant and they in fact did so. The claim of Harnam Dass before the authorities was not a personal claim but that of a manager of Dharamsala and he entered in possession of the property in suit as manager of the appellant and his subsequent possession could only be referred to this title and to no other title. 31. In the view of the Board issue No. 1 (b) should be answered in favour of the appellant and the enquiry must now proceed with regard to other issues in the case. 32. 31. In the view of the Board issue No. 1 (b) should be answered in favour of the appellant and the enquiry must now proceed with regard to other issues in the case. 32. The Board will, therefore, humbly advise His Highness that this appeal be allowed and that the judgments and decrees of the High Court be set aside and that the case be remitted to the trial Court with the direction that it be restored to its original number and it be disposed of according to law. The appellant will have his costs up to this stage, future costs will be in the discretion of the Courts concerned.