Puran & Ors. v. Mandir Thakur Ram Lachhman Ji & Ors.

2.2.1985, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in Civil Case No.611 of

2.2.1985. Brief facts as emerged from the plaint are that Mandir Thakur Ram Lachhman Ji (herein referred to as ‘the Mandir’), Lal Dass and Gokal Dass, plaintiffs, filed a suit restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land as fully described in the head note of the plaint, illegally and forcibly. It is averred in the plaint that the Mandir is the Hindu Idol and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are Mohitmims and Mahants of the Mandir. The plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were appointed Mahants by their RSA No.2913 of 1985 2 respective Gurus namely Kirori Dass and Ballabhdas, who were the earlier Gadinashin of the Mandir. Since then, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are in possession of the land as Dohlidars in equal shares. The plaintiffs and their predecessors always remained in beneficial enjoyment and possession of the land and the plaintiffs and their predecessors have been rendering services to the Mandir. ` The major portion of the land is in self-cultivating possession of the plaintiffs and some part of the land is in possession of the defendant Nos.13 to 17, as tenants. Defendant Nos.1 to 12 claimed possession of the land challenging the rights of the plaintiffs to retain the possession. The defendant nos.1 to 12 have no right over the suit land, while the plaintiffs have a right to protect the possession in the capacity as Dohlidars. The right of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property to the extent of ½ share each was decreed by the Civil Court in Civil Suit Nos.551/49 of 1976 and 512/51 of 1976 decided on 27.11.1978 by the Court of Sub Judge II Class, Ballabhgarh, in which plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were held to be the Dohlidars in equal shares. Defendants No.1 to 12 contested the suit on the ground that the dispute relates to the persons entitled to manage the suit on behalf of plaintiff No.1. The answering defendants claimed themselves to be in possession of the suit land on behalf of the Mandir. It was denied that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are neither managers nor Dohlidars and have no locus standi to file the suit. It is alleged that the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 have adverse interest to plaintiff No.1. It is alleged that the property mentioned in the plaint is being managed by a body of trust known as `Trust Mandir Ram Lachhman Ji', which has not been impleaded as a party. It is alleged RSA No.2913 of 1985 3 that the Mandir is to be served by a Pujari of RAMANANDI BHAIK, who cannot get himself married throughout his life. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are married persons and are thus, not entitled to serve as Pujaris anymore. That the villagers forcibly removed plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 from performing the duties of Pujaris and also took possession of the suit land and its entire management for the exclusive benefit of plaintiff No.1. Thereafter, a trust known as Trust Mandir Ram Lachhman Ji, Mohna, was created vide registered trust deed dated 28.7.1981. Defendant Nos.1 to 12 are members of the said trust. It is further alleged that possession of the suit property was taken by the trust in the first week of May, 1981. Since then, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 left the village. The tenancy of defendant Nos.13 to 17 was denied. Defendant Nos.13 and defendant Nos.14 to 17, in their separate written statements, admitted the claim of the plaintiffs in toto. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 are in possession of the suit land as Dohlidars and are entitled to continue in possession thereof, as alleged ? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged ? OPD.

3. Whether plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are competent to represent plaintiff No.1 ? OPD.

4. Relief. Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as Dohlidars and entitled to continue the possession. Issue No.2 was also decided in favour of the RSA No.2913 of 1985 4 plaintiffs that the suit is maintainable. Issue No.3 was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 have proved themselves to be in possession of the suit land as Dohlidars on behalf of the Mandir, plaintiff No.1. The learned trial Court also observed that the defendants have failed to prove that the plaintiffs are not entitled to continue as Mahants or Managers of the Mandir and only plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are competent to represent the plaintiff No.1. Keeping in view the findings on the above issues, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed with costs restraining defendant Nos.1 to 12 from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land forcibly vide judgment and decree dated 2.2.1985. Feeling aggrieved against the same, defendant Nos.1 to 12 preferred appeal before the District Judge, Faridabad, which was dismissed on 20.08.1985. The defendant Nos.1 to 12 having lost in the first appeal, filed this regular second appeal No.2913 of 1985, which was admitted on

14.10.1985. It was further ordered that status quo regarding possession be also maintained. During the pendency of this regular second appeal, the Trust Mandir Ram Lachhman Ji Maharaj, Village Mohna, Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad, filed CM No.3672-C of 2011, under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC for arraying the applicant-Trust as respondent No.19, which is opposed by the respondents. Shri Gopi Chand Bhalla, learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the findings of both the Courts below are erroneous, holding that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are in possession of the suit land as Dohlidars. He further argued that both the Court below have legally committed error in RSA No.2913 of 1985 5 ignoring the fact that the Trust had been in possession of the land in dispute since July, 1981, and that both the Courts below have committed error in not relying upon the registered Trust deed dated 28.7.1981, Ex.D1. He further argued that both the Courts below have ignored Khasra Girdawari, Ex.DW5/1, for the crop sown in the month of June-July, 1981, by the Trust. The Courts below have erred in noticing that the Trust had taken possession of the Mandir and the property attached thereto in the month of May, 1981. He further argued that the Courts below have also committed error in ignoring Tar Qashat Nama, dated 10.11.1981. Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that this civil suit was filed on 28.08.1981. The defendant- appellants tried to dispossess the plaintiffs illegally and forcibly from the suit land on 10.08.1981. Any documents came into existence immediately before 10.08.1981 and thereafter are created documents in order to grab the property of the Mandir. He further argued that no substantial question of law arises for determination of this Hon’ble Court because it is a concurrent findings of facts. He further strenuously opposed the application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, on the ground that the so-called Trust was in the knowledge of the litigation between the plaintiffs and the defendants since

1981. Moreover, defendant Nos.1 to 12 claim themselves to be the members of the so-called Trust, so as this stage, the Trust may not be allowed to implead as a respondent as the interest of the Trust was being watched by defendant Nos.1 to 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. RSA No.2913 of 1985 6 Although, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court yet this Court has rescanned the entire evidence minutely. To prove their case, the appellants placed reliance on Takrnamas, Exhibit D2 to Exhibit D6, which reflects that the persons in possession of the suit property including the plaintiff Gokal Dass relinquished their possession in favour of the Trust. However, no body came forward to prove the said documents except Puran Singh, DW1. It has also come on record that this witness was the Secretary of the Trust. In the circumstance, I agree with the findings recorded by the courts below that mere exhibition is no proof. Besides this, the appellants also placed reliance on Trust Deed, exhibit D1=P1, wherein it has been mentioned that the Trust had taken actual possession over the suit land from the plaintiffs. But on perusal of said Trust Deed, it is made out that neither the plaintiffs were a party nor any averment was made with regard to dispossession of plaintiffs/respondents from the suit land in or about May 1981. Thus, there is no evidence which suggests that the plaintiffs/respondents were removed from their office and dispossessed from the suit land. The appellants further placed reliance on khasra Girdawari, Exhibit DW5/1, which came on record in the month of October 1981, showing the appellants are in possession of the suit land. It is an admitted fact that upto April 1981, the Khasra Girdawaris are in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. The stand taken by the plaintiffs/respondents that the entry recorded in the khasra girdawari, Exhibit DW5/1 was beyond their RSA No.2913 of 1985 7 knowledge and therefore, the effect of these entries are not binding on the plaintiffs, I agree with the stand of the plaintiffs/respondents as it is settled law that that entries in Khasra Girdawari can be changed only through a proper procedure, which was not adopted in the present case, coupled with the fact that during the pendency of the suit in question, the said entry was made in the Khasra Girdawari. Therefore, this document also does not help the appellants. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that no law point much less the substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. So, there is no scope to interfere in the judgments and decrees of both the courts below. In Madvan Nair V. Bhaskar Pillai, (2005) 10, SCC 533, Harjeet Singh v. Amrik Singh, (2005) 12 S.C.C. 270, H.P. Pyareja v. Dasappa,