Regular Second Appeal No. 4074 of 2005 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4074 of 2005 Date of Decision: August 06, 2009 Gurdwara Sahib Bouran Kalan ......... Appellant versus Manager, Dera Baba Ajay Pal Singh and others .......... Respondents Present:- Shri Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant. Shri H.N. Mehsempuri, Advocate for respondent No.1 HEMANT GUPTA, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is owner in possession on the basis of possession alone, was dismissed. The plaintiff has also claimed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of land measuring 304 Kanals 7 Marlas situated in village Bir Bouran, Tehsil Nabha. The plaintiff is Gurdwara Sahib alleged to be managed by Local Committee consisting of Gurnam Singh, President, and Ban Singh, Vice President. The plaintiff has filed the suit claiming possession of the suit property for the last more than 100 years. The plaintiff has sought correction of revenue record in the name of plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants have no right, title or interest of any kind in the suit Regular Second Appeal No. 4074 of 2005 [2] property. In the written statement, the stand of the defendants was that Gurdwara Dera Baba Ajay Pal Singh Ghorian Wala Nabha is a statutory body of Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (S.G.P.C.), Amritsar. The plaintiffs, who are styling themselves as President and Vice President of plaintiff Gurdwara, have nothing to do with the property in dispute as they were not appointed such by any Committee. It was alleged that the residents of the village can not form any such Committee in supersession of the rights of the S.G.P.C. The suit land is in the possession of the S.G.P.C since the notification dated 30.11.1959 and the land is continuously coming in the possession of the S.G.P.C through its lessee to whom the land was leased out on yearly basis. PW1 Gurnam Singh has admitted that one Banta Singh was in possession of the suit property on behalf of Gurdwara . The plaintiff appearing as PW2 has failed to establish that the suit property was in possession of the Committee headed by him. The plaintiff has not produced any account books so as to prove that the suit property was being auctioned by it and to whom and what was the revenue earned and what were the expenses incurred. The plaintiff has failed to disclose as to whom the land was ever auctioned. Learned trial Court further found that in the revenue record Exhibit P-2 to P-11, Provincial Government is shown to be the owner. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that plaintiff is the owner or in possession was negated. The numerous documents produced by the defendants show auction of the property from year to year since the year 1989-90. In fact, it was found that resolutions Exhibit D-1, D-2, D-4, D-5, Regular Second Appeal No. 4074 of 2005 [3] D-7 to D-10 show that Gurnam Singh claiming to be the President of the plaintiff Committee have signed on these documents as Vice President, participating in the proceedings when defendant No.1 was managing the affairs of the suit property belonging to Gurdwara Sahib Bouran Kalan. With the said findings, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. In appeal, the findings were affirmed. The resolutions Exhibit D-1 to D-22, D-66 and D-73 show that Gurnam Singh has been participating in the proceedings of the Committee of Gurdwara Sahib constituted in the year 1965. Vide Exhibit D-4, Bhai Waryam Singh Granthi of Ramgarh Bauran was transferred to Dera Baba Ajay Pal Singh Nabha of which Gurnam Singh is again a signatory. Thus, the plaintiff Gurdwara was not being managed by any independent body but it was managed by S.G.P.C., and it was the said Committee which has transferred the Granthi of the plaintiff Gurdwara. The plaintiff has claimed possessory title by adverse possession. Any such suit for declaration is not maintainable in view of the judgment in Bhim Singh vs. Zile Singh, 2006 (3) PLR 159. Apart from the said fact, the evidence on the record shows that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. It is the Gurdwara managed by S.G.P.C., through defendant No.1 is in possession and, thus, the finding of fact recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or material irregularity which may give rise to any substantial question of law for determination by this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. August 06, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE