R. S. A. No. 2223 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2223 of 2009 Date of Decision : February 23, 2010 Netra Pal and others .... Appellants Vs. Mandir Morkhewala and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. R. M. Singh, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for respondent no. 1. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is second appeal by defendants no.4 to 6. Respondent no.1 Mandir Morkhewala through Deepa Dass and Narain Dass – Mohtmims of the Mandir, filed suit for permanent injunction alleging that plaintiff Mandir is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 112 kanals 19 marlas. The Mandir is being managed by Mahants since time immemorial. Garib Dass was Mahant previously. On his death, his chela Ram Dass took over the charge of management of the Mandir. Deepa Dass and Narain Dass, along with Ram Dass (who died during the pendency of the suit) were managing the Mandir. Defendants wanted to dispossess the plaintiff Mandir forcibly and illegally. R. S. A. No. 2223 of 2009 2 Defendants no.4 to 6 contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that presently Mandir and its property are being managed by Morkhewala Mandir Trust Committee (in short – the Committee). Previously, Mahant Ram Dass was Mohtmim/Mahant of temple including the land in dispute, but he indulged in nefarious activities prejudicial to the interest of the temple and had ceased to perform the duties as Priest of the temple for many years. Ram Dass and his sons were misappropriating the income of the suit land. Accordingly, Biswedaars and residents of the Village and members of Gram Sudhar Sabha, Chhainsa held a Panchayat on 14.12.1997. The Panchayat was attended by Mahant Ram Dass and his five sons. Persons present in the Panchayat decided that a Trust be created to manage the affairs of the plaintiff Mandir. Another Panchayat was held on 25.03.1998 and Mandir Morkhewala Trust Committee was formed. The said Committee removed Mahant Ram Dass from the office and management of the temple and agricultural land on 01.05.1998 and took over the affairs of the temple and the suit land. Defendants no.7 to 9 also took similar stand as that of defendants no.4 to 6. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.2008, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2009. The plaintiff's suit has been decreed restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from suit land and from interfering in plaintiff's possession thereon in any manner. Feeling aggrieved, defendants no.4 to 6 have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that R. S. A. No. 2223 of 2009 3 Ram Dass and his sons were removed from the management of the temple and its land by the Committee and therefore, the suit could not be decreed. The contention cannot be accepted. The suit has been filed by Mandir Morkhewala and not by Ram Dass or his sons, although the suit has been filed on behalf of the Mandir through Deepa Dass and Narain Dass, who are sons of Ram Dass. Nevertheless, the suit is by and on behalf of the Mandir and not by or on behalf of Deepa Dass, Ram Dass or Narain Dass in their individual capacity. Admittedly, Mandir was declared owner of the suit land being occupancy tenant. Admittedly, Ram Dass was Mahant- Mohtmim of the Mandir and was managing the suit land. Consequently, self-styled Committee formed by the defendants had no right, authority or power to remove Mahant Ram Dass and his sons from the management of the temple and to take over the management of the temple and its land. The approach of the Lower Appellate Court is perfectly correct and justified. The plaintiff Mandir is owner in possession of the suit land. If its Mahant or Mohtmim is indulging in prejudicial activities, the defendants may be at liberty to take action in accordance with law, but the defendants, of their own, cannot forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and cannot take over the management or possession of the suit land on their own, without due process of law. However, judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court have to be modified to the extent that defendants may take over management or possession of the suit land in due course of law, but not otherwise, because if income of the suit land is being misappropriated, defendants being interested persons, being residents of the Village, may have locus standi to take appropriate legal steps for change of management. In view of the aforesaid, the instant second appeal is disposed of by slightly modifying the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court to the extent that defendants shall stand restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land and from interfering in its possession thereon R. S. A. No. 2223 of 2009 4 except in due course of law. February 23, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE