Civil Revision No.4483 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4483 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 26, 2011 Mahant Inder Dass .......Petitioner Versus Kulwant Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.Jasbir Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate for the respondents. <><><> AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the petitioner-plaintiff praying for setting aside the order dated 4th May, 2011 affirming the order dated 20th October, 2010 passed by trial Court whereby his application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. 2. As per the case set up by the petitioner-plaintiff, he is the Mohatamim Mahant of Dera Maufidar (hereinafter referred to as “Dera”) Village Dulwan being Chela of Mahant Bant Dass. Earlier, Mahant Bant Dass was the Mahant of the Dera who had been managing the affairs of the Civil Revision No.4483 of 2011 2 said Dera. After the demise of Mahant Bant Dass on 24.11.2004, the plaintiff became Mohatamim of the Dera. The further pleading of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 had never been the Chela of the Dera and he had been claiming succession on the basis of a Will dated 10th September, 2002 in regard to which even Mutation bearing No. 1815 was also entered. The said mutation was subsequently sent to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab wherein the Gram Panchayat of the village endorsed the Mohatamimship of the plaintiff. It has further been averred that a suit titled “Faryad Ali v. Mahant Karam Dass and others” was filed by defendants in connivance with each other which is pending in Civil Court. An application filed by the plaintiff for impleading him as a party was declined by the trial Court against which revision petition was dismissed but with the observation that any judgment and decree passed therein shall not be binding on the rights of the petitioner. The plaintiff made a prayer that the defendants had no concern with the property of the Dera, they be restrained from interfering in the management and affairs of the Dera and also from taking possession of the Dera from him forcibly. 3. The prayer made in the application was stoutly opposed by the defendants. Defendants No. 1 and 3 filed reply stating that defendant No. 1 was the chela of Mahant Bant Dass and after his death he became the Mahant of the Dera. Succession of Mahant Bant Dass was also claimed on the basis of will dated 10.9.2002. Separate reply was filed by defendant No.2 who claimed to be in possession of the suit property on the basis of lease deed dated 10.2.2002 for a period of 20 years upto 10.2.2022. The newly added, defendant no. 4 also filed reply wherein he claimed that there Civil Revision No.4483 of 2011 3 was a will dated 17th March, 2004 executed by the earlier Mahant Bant Dass Chela Mahant Ram Dass Chela Phuman Dass in his favour wherein his Mohatamimship was approved. It was specifically submitted that the plaintiff had never become Mohatamim of the Dera and, thus, he was not entitled to the relief of injunction as claimed by him. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner, however, submitted that the plaintiff was in possession and was, thus, entitled for grant of ad- interim injunction by the Court. On the other hand, the assertion of the plaintiff/petitioner was controverted by the learned counsel for the defendants-respondents who relied upon the judgment of the trial Court in the Suit No. 253 dated 24.3.2006 filed by defendant No. 2 against defendant No. 1 for permanent injunction which was decreed on 24.1.2011. He referred to the finding recorded therein to the effect that the plaintiff therein Faryad Ali- defendant No. 2 was held to be in possession of the property in dispute. Learned counsel submitted that though the said finding may not be binding on the plaintiff as the plaintiff-petitioner herein was not the party to that suit but it was sufficient to prima facie show that defendant No. 2 was in possession and no injunction could be granted against him. 6. The trial Court dismissed the injunction application. 7. The Additional District Judge in the appeal carried by the plaintiff came to the conclusion that there was dispute regarding ownership of the property of the Dera and defendant No.1 had propounded will dated 10.9.2002 executed by Mahant Bant Dass whereas defendant no. 2 was claiming himself to be in possession of the suit property on the basis of lease deed dated 10.2.2002. It was also noticed that defendant No. 4 was Civil Revision No.4483 of 2011 4 also claiming ownership and possession of the property of the Dera on the basis of a will dated 17.3.2004 executed in his favour by Mahant Bant Dass during his lifetime. Appellate Court further observed that the possession of the plaintiff on the basis of which he could claim injunction was not established on record and the same was to be still determined on appreciation of evidence to be led by the parties. The relevant observations of the Appellate Court made in this regard are as under:- “So, since on one hand, appellant is claiming himself to be Mohatamim of the Dera of Maufidar of village Dulwan and on the other hand, respondent No. 1 Mahant Karam Dass is claiming to be Mohatimim of the said Dera on the basis of the Will dated 10.9.2002 so executed by Mahant Bant Dass in her favour and at the same time respondent No. 2 is claiming himself to be in possession of the suit property on the basis of the lease deed dated 10.2.2002 and at the same time, respondent no. 4 Mahant Maghar Dass is also claiming himself to be the owner in possession of the Dera property on the basis of the Will dated 17.3.2004, so executed by Mahant Bant Dass in his favour, this Court feels that whether the appellant, or respondent No. 1, or respondent No. 4 are Mohatimim of the said Dera on the bass of their claim as portrayed by them before the learned lower Court or respondent No. 2 is in possession of the suit property on the basis of the lease deed, same can be appreciated when the parties will lead evidence in their support. Further in the copy of the jamabandi for the year 2004-2005 it simply stands mentioned that mutation No. 1815 has been Civil Revision No.4483 of 2011 5 sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 1 Karam Dass after the death of Mahant Bant Dass. Further copies of the Khasra girdwari of the year 2005-2006 to 2008, it no where shows that any of the parties in the present case is in established possession of the suit property. So, since the dispute is regarding dera’s property as the parties are claiming their possession over the same being Mohatimims and on the basis of the lease deed etc, and as discussed above, same can be appreciated when the parties will lead evidence in their support and as such this Court feels that the learned Lower Court rightly dismissed the injunction application of the present appellant, as no party could establish that any of them is in established possession of the suit property. Thus, the appeal being meritless, as such the same is hereby dismissed. Further it is made clear that above observations have been made only for the disposal of the appeal and shall have no affect on the merits of the case. Lower Court record be returned.” 8. The observation of both the Courts below were not shown to be erroneous wherein the plaintiff-petitioner was not found to be in possession and thus, the essential ingredient for grant of injunction, i.e., prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, is not satisfied. The balance of convenience is also, therefore, not in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. It has also not been shown that any irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff-petitioner in case ad-interim injunction prayed by him is refused. 9. In view of the above, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Nothing observed herein shall have Civil Revision No.4483 of 2011 6 any bearing on the merits of the suit to be decided after evidence is led by the parties. ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) September 26, 2011 JUDGE SRM