RSA No.1398 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1398 of 2009 Decided on: March 21, 2011. Jhandu Ram. .. Appellant VERSUS All India Saralia Vaish Maha Sabha (Regd.), Ambala City and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Sanjay Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J. Jhandu Ram son of Shri Daya Ram, plaintiff- appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of reversal passed by the lower appellate Court. The trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for declaration holding that the plaintiff- . . . 1 RSA No.1398 of 2009 appellant is entitled to maintain the Dharamshala in dispute along with defendant No.3, the male descendant of deceased Daya Ram and in case of their failure to maintain it, the Gram Panchayat, Naraingarh, would be entitled to maintain the same. The lower appellate Court has though granted the relief of permanent injunction to the plaintiff-appellant but set aside the remaining part of the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff in appeal filed before the lower appellate Court by the defendants-respondents. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff-appellant, as pleaded by him in his plaint, is that Dharamshala Gainda Ram was the property of Gainda Ram son of Shri Behari Lal, who died issueless. Before his death, he raised the Dharamshala out of his funds and opened the same for General Public and had constructed a shop along with Dharamshala, having House Tax No.505. Gainda Ram had executed a Will dated 11.03.1931, registered on 25.05.1931. As per the provisions made in the Will Gainda Ram remained in possession of Dharamshala and the shop till his death and after his death, Daya Ram father of the plaintiff-appellant and defendant No.3, and their male descendants were given right to manage and occupy the Dharamshala. The right of alienation was not given to Daya Ram but he was made responsible to maintain the same. It was desired by Gainda Ram in his Will that in case Daya Ram was found lacking or failing to maintain Dharamshala, it would be looked after by Panchayat of village Naraingarh. He pleaded that Daya Ram continued to keep one room in Dharamshala and . . . 2 RSA No.1398 of 2009 continued to maintain Dharamshala, as per the wishes of deceased Gainda Ram. The plaintiff-appellant claimed that after the death of Daya Ram, the plaintiff-appellant had been running the shop and managing the Dharamshala which is being used for common purposes. There had been separate electric connections in Dharamshala and shop and separate house tax numbers have been allocated to Dharamshala and the shop. The plaintiff-appellant claims that he was running a Tea Shop in the said shop. Defendant No.1, i.e., All India Saralia Vaish Maha Sabha through Lala Amar Chand and other persons obtained signatures of the plaintiff and defendant No.3 on certain papers about 13-14 years prior to the filing of the suit and defendant Nos.1 & 2, have grabbed the Dharamshala, and stopped any visitors being stayed in the same. Defendant No.1 has constructed another shop and is collecting rent @ ` 1100/- per month. The plaintiff-appellant claims that he came to know about the resolution adopted by Saralia Sabha dated 27.11.1986, by virtue of which it had been decided to let out Dharamshala, to bank or any Govt. or Semi Govt. Department. The said agreement was challenged to be null and void as the plaintiff and defendant No.3, never executed the said agreement. The said resolution was also challenged on the ground that defendant Nos.1 & 2, had no right to let out Dharamshala as proposed in the resolution. The plaintiff decided to seek declaration that resolution dated 27.11.1986, is illegal, null and void and also claimed a relief that defendants be restrained from interfering in the possession of . . . 3 RSA No.1398 of 2009 the plaintiff-appellant over the shop and the room annexed to Dharamshala. Defendant-respondent Nos.1 & 2, had contested the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of absence of locus standi and he having not come to the Court with clean hands and having suppressed material facts from the Court. The original ownership of Gainda Ram was admitted. Its user by plaintiff was also admitted. It was admitted that the plaintiff had been in possession of the shop situated at Gainda Ram Dharamshala. The Will of Gainda Ram dated 11.03.1931 was admitted. It was claimed that no doubt Daya Ram had been given a right to manage and maintain Dharamshala and in case of his failure, the Gram Panchayat, Naraingarh was given a right to maintain the Dharamshala. Defendant Nos.1 & 2, admitted that in order to increase the income of Dharamshala, it had been decided to let out the same vide resolution but the same has already been withdrawn. The trial Court, on the basis of pleadings framed the following issues: - 1. Whether the alleged agreement dated 27.11.1986, is null and void? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as alleged?OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD. . . . 4 RSA No.1398 of 2009 4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands?OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? 6. Relief. The trial Court on the basis of evidence led by the parties, decided issue No.1, holding resolution dated 27.11.1986 to be null and void by virtue of which the plaintiff-appellant and defendant No.3, had allegedly surrendered their rights in Dharamshala and shop in favour of defendant No.1 and admitted the same to be used for other purposes as they have expressed their helplessness to maintain the shop and Dharamshala, as such, it was held that defendant No.1, vide resolution dated 16.04.2000, has decided to let out the same to some Bank or other Govt. or Semi Govt. Department to generate income to be used for maintenance of the Dharamshala but it had been withdrawn vide resolution dated 16.07.2000. The trial Court also held that defendant No.1 had no right to manage and maintain Dharamshala, but it was the Gram Panchayat, Naraingarh, which was competent to maintain it. Issue No.2, was decided holding that defendant Nos.1 & 2, cannot interfere in the possession of the plaintiff and defendant No.3 even if the plaintiff and defendant No.3, are not able to manage the Dharamshala. Issue No.3, was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant Nos.1 & 2. Issue Nos.4 & 5, were decided against defendant Nos.1 & 2 and in favour of the plaintiff. The suit of the . . . 5 RSA No.1398 of 2009 plaintiff was thus decreed holding that the plaintiff and defendant No.3, being male descendants of Daya Ram are entitled to maintain the Dharamshala in dispute and in case of their failure to maintain it, the Gram Panchayat, Naraingarh, only will have a right to maintain it. Since, defendant Nos.1 & 2, had withdrawn resolution dated 27.11.1986 vide resolution dated 16.04.2000, the relief of declaration sought for by the plaintiff was rendered infructuous. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, defendant Nos.1 & 2, filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court. The finding on Issue No.1, was reversed holding that the resolution dated 27.11.1986, being not the result of fraud could not be held to be invalid. The finding of the trial Court that the said resolution dated 27.11.1986, was invalid and ineffective was set aside on the ground that the same had not been proved to have obtained by fraud. So far as Issue No.2, is concerned, the plaintiff was held entitled to injunction only regarding the shop and one room and not qua entire Dharamshala. As findings on issue Nos.3, 4 & 5, were not challenged, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and injunction was granted to the plaintiff- respondent only regarding the shop and one room attached to Dharamshala. It was clarified by the lower appellate Court that in case of failure of the plaintiff-appellant to maintain the Dharmshala, it was Panchayat and not the Gram Panchayat of the village which would be entitled to maintain the Dharamshala as held by the trial Court. . . . 6 RSA No.1398 of 2009 Learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Sudhir Paruthi, at one stage had made a statement in the Court on 02.11.2010, that they there were chances of compromise but subsequently it was informed that the matter could not be compromised between the parties. The judgment of reversal regarding resolution dated 27.11.1986, has been challenged by the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that the signatures of plaintiff and defendant No.3, had been obtained on blank papers and that the plaintiff and defendant No.3, had never given up their right to maintain the Dharamshala, for public purposes. I have considered the contentions of the counsel for the appellant and I am of the opinion that resolution dated 27.11.1986, has been challenged by the plaintiff-appellant to be not operative on their rights on 20.05.2000 i.e., after a gap of 14 years. Moreover, plaintiff having not been able to establish by leading any cogent evidence that Daya Ram or plaintiff along with defendant No.3, had been managing Dharamshala, for the purposes mentioned in the registered Will of Gainda Ram, the challenge to resolution dated 27.11.1986, bearing signatures of plaintiff and defendant No.3, after a period of 14 years would not entitle the plaintiff to challenge the same after an inordinate delay of 14 years. The prayer of the plaintiff-appellant that the judgment of the trial Court should be restored cannot, for any reason, be accepted as the trial Court has held that in case of failure of Daya Ram or his male descendants to manage the property after the death of original owner Gainda Ram, . . . 7 RSA No.1398 of 2009 does not entitle the Gram Panchayat of the village to maintain the property but it is the Panchayat, which would be the governing body of the community. The lower appellate Court has arrived at a finding of fact to the effect that the agreement dated 27.11.1986, was operative and would govern the rights of the parties. The necessary ingredients of fraud and misrepresentation could not be established by the plaintiff and no cogent evidence was produced by the plaintiff- appellant to establish that the signatures of the plaintiff were not the result of free consent of the appellant. No ground is made out to interfere in the finding of fact arrived at by lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court has rightly granted the relief of injunction to the plaintiff-appellant restraining the defendants No.1 & 2 from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff and defendant No.3, from the shop and one room attached to the Dharamshala. No substantial question of law has been raised warranting interference by this Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE March 21, 2011. rka . . . 8