R.S.A. No.1807 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.1807 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:14.07.2011 Sat Pal ......Appellant Versus Smadh Baba Daulat Giri and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Arvind Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Tersenessly, the facts, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the present appeal and emitting from the record are, that Smadh Baba Daulat Giri-respondent No.1- plaintiff No.1(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) is a Hindu religious endowment, being looked after and managed by its Mahant/Mohtmim Shambhu Giri-respondent No.2-plaintiff No.2. The plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the agricultural land measuring 26 kanals 4 marlas, comprised in Khewat No.96, Khatoni No.144, Rect. No.12, Killa Nos.16, 25, Rect. No.13, Killa No.19, 20/2, 21, situated in village Dhundrehri, Tehsil and District Kaithal. It was claimed that earlier, the property of the plaintiff-Dera was looked after and managed by one Santosh Giri Chela Sunder Giri. After his death, Narain Giri Chela Santosh Giri was appointed as Mahant/Manager of the plaintiff-Dera. He(Narain Giri) too expired on 01.01.2000 and after his death, plaintiff No.2 was appointed Chela of Narain Giri. The land in dispute was stated to have been leased out by earlier Chela Santosh Giri to Satpal-appellant and Surender-proforma respondent No.3- R.S.A. No.1807 of 2011(O&M) 2 defendants(for brevity “the defendants”) for a fixed period of 30 years, commencing from 15.06.1973 to 14.06.2003, by way of registered lease-deed bearing No.309/1 dated 25.05.1973(Ex.P-2). The annual lease money of Rs.156/- was to be paid in lump-sum at the end of the year. There was a clear stipulation in the lease-deed that after expiry of lease period, the defendants were bound to hand over the possession of the suit land to the owner plaintiff-Dera. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the plaintiff that Santosh Giri was neither competent, nor had any power to create the lease-deed for a meager amount of Rs.156/- per annum against the prevailing rate of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per annum per acre. The lease-deed executed by him in favour of the defendants was stated to be illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. In this manner, the possession of the suit land of the defendants was claimed to be unauthorised. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of declaration, challenging the lease-deed and with a consequential relief for a decree for possession from the defendants, in the manner depicted hereinabove. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff. The ownership of the suit land of plaintiff-Dera was admitted. However, they denied the locus standi of plaintiff No.2 to file the suit on behalf of plaintiff No.1. According to the defendants that, the lease-deed was rightly executed by the earlier Mahant and they are occupying the land in dispute as lessee. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiff filed the replication. In the R.S.A. No.1807 of 2011(O&M) 3 wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the essential issues (mentioned in its judgment) for proper adjudication of the case. 5. The parties to the litigation in order to substantiate their respective stands, brought on record oral as well as the documentary evidence. 6. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendants to hand over the possession of the suit land, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 01.10.2009. 7. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, Satpal one of the appellant-defendant filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 04.02.2011. 8. Appellant-defendant Satpal still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the appeal in this context. 10. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that Mahant Shambhu Giri-plaintiff No.2 has no locus standi to file the suit and since, the defendants were inducted as a lessee, even after the expiry of lease period, they could not be dispossessed from the land in dispute, except filing an ejectment suit against them, so, the Courts below committed a legal error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, lacks merit. 11. As is evident from the record, rather admitted by the defendants that Smadh Baba Daulat Giri-plaintiff No.1 was the owner and in possession of the property in dispute, which was leased out to them(defendants) as per lease-deed dated 25.05.1973(Ex.P2) for a fixed period of 30 years, commencing from 15.06.1973 to 14.06.2003 by Santosh Giri. It is not a matter of dispute that R.S.A. No.1807 of 2011(O&M) 4 Santosh Giri had expired long back and even after his death, Narain Giri Chela succeeded him. After the death of Narain Giri, Shambhu Giri-plaintiff No.2 was appointed as a Chela of the plaintiff-Dera. Therefore, the lease-deed(Ex.P2) executed by Santosh Giri comes to an end, the day he expired. The plaintiff-Dera is a Hindu religious endowment and the Court is ultimate guardian to protect the rights of such religious endowments. 12. Not only that, since the period of lease-deed has already expired on 14.06.2003, so, the defendants were otherwise required to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiff-Dera, as per terms and conditions of the lease-deed(Ex.P2). 13. Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of the evidence on record, thus, to me, the trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire evidence brought on record by the parties, has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, through the medium of impugned judgment and decree dated 01.10.2009. The decision of the trial Court was upheld by the first Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 04.02.2011, which in substance is, as under:- “Be that as it may, even on the fact of it the lease deed Ex.P2 cannot be taken to have been executed for legal necessity of plaintiff No.1. Vide this lease deed, the then Mahant Santosh Giri leased out 26 kanals 4 marlas of land in favour of defendants for a nominal lease money of Rs.156/- per annum. In this area, the lease money has never been that low particularly when the land was canal irrigated land, as reflected in the jamabandi Ex.P4. Thus, on the face of it, the lease cannot be taken to be executed for legal bonafide necessity of the religious endowment. The court is the guardian of rights of such like religious endowments. Even the court can take judicial notice of such like transactions which are on the face of it detrimental to the interest of such a religious endowment. In this view of the matter also, the above lease deed could not be sustained in the eyes of law. Otherwise also when the period of lease expired after 20 days of the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs were entitled to seek possession of this land by way of filing the suit and the defendants had got no right to resist their R.S.A. No.1807 of 2011(O&M) 5 move. In view of all this when the lower court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs granting a decree for possession of the land in dispute directing the defendants to hand over its possession to the plaintiffs there is no aberration in the approach of lower court in passing this decree. No infirmity, legal or factual could be found therein. The impugned judgment and decree sheet passed by the lower court are accordingly maintained.” 14. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, to assail the findings of the Courts below. All the remaining contentions, pertaining to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on his behalf, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below, in this relevant direction. 15. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence produced on record in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that after the death of Santosh Giri and even after the expiry of lease period, the plaintiff-Dera is entitled to get back the possession of the suit land. The defendants are required to hand over the suit land to the plaintiff-Dera in this regard. Such judgments, containing the valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of the well-articulated decision arrived at by the Courts below, in this respect. 16. Moreover, since no question of law, much-less substantial, is involved in the second appeal, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh Versus Harnam Singh and another, 2008(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749, so, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, as contemplated under Section 100 CPC, in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 17. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or R.S.A. No.1807 of 2011(O&M) 6 pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 18. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. July 14, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE R.S.A. No.1807 of 2011(O&M) 7