RSA No. 4040 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 4040 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.11.2011 Maghar Singh and another ........ Appellants Versus Udasian Dera Ramsar and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Aftab Singh Khara, Advocate for the appellants. JORA SINGH, J. CM No. 12525-26-C of 2011 Applications are allowed as prayed for. Annexures A-1 to A-3 are taken on record. RSA No. 4040 of 2011 (O&M) Maghar Singh-appellant, preferred this Regular Second Appeal to challenge the concurrent findings of the Courts' below. Contesting respondents No. 1 and 2 filed main suit for permanent injunction on the allegation that previously respondent No. 1 was managed and looked after by Baba Ishar Dass. After the death of Baba Ishar Dass, Baba Ragho Ram, started maintaining the property in dispute and after the death of Baba Ragho Ram, Baba Brahu Muni RSA No. 4040 of 2011 (O&M) -2- started looking after the property in dispute but after the death of Baba Brahu Muni, Baba Swaran Dass, used to manage the property in dispute. Respondent No. 2 Baba Bhan Dass Cehla of Baba Swaran Dass, was appointed as pujari/administrator vide writing executed on 24.12.1993. Since then respondent No. 2 is managing the affairs of the dera but the appellants and proforma respondent No. 3-Major Singh, threatened to dispossess respondent No. 2 from the property in dispute. Upon notice appellants filed joint written statement and contested the claim of the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2 on the allegation that Udasia Dera Ramsar was not in possession of respondent No. 2, in fact the property in dispute is within the revenue estate of village Dhamot Khurd. Dera actually is a Gurudwara Sahib and construction of the same was raised by Gram Panchayat. Kulwant Singh is the Granthi and Gurnam Singh is the Sewadar in the said Gurudwara. Remaining land measuring 19 bighas 9 biswas is agricultural land and was let out by the Gram Panchayat to Balbara Singh @ ` 15,000/- per annum. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the Court? OPD RSA No. 4040 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 4. Whether the plaintiff No. 2 has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Relief.” After evidence led by both the parties suit for permanent injunction was decreed vide judgment dated 30.4.2009, rendered by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna. Finding of the trial Court was upheld by the learned Ist Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 18.7.2011. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that property in dispute is a Gurudwara and the same is managed by Gram Panchayat. Kulwant Singh is Granthi whereas Gurnam Singh is working as a sewadar in the Gurudwara. Except the building of the Gurudwara, remaining land measuring 19 bighas 9 biswas was let out by the Gram Panchayat and the same was cultivated by one Balbara Singh @ ` 15,000/- per annum. Contesting respondents No. 1 and 2 have no concern with the property in dispute. After going through the file, I am of the opinion that findings of the trial Court as well as of the Ist Appellate Court are correct. After appreciating the evidence on file, learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of Udasia Dera Ramsar through Baba Bhan Dass Chela Baba Swaran Dass. Revenue record on the file i.e. Ex. PA jamabandi for the years 1994-95, Ex. PB jamabandi for the years 1974-75, Ex. PC jamabandi for the years 1989-90, Ex. PD jamabandi for the years 1984- 85, Ex. PE jamabandi for the years 1979-80, Ex. PF jamabandi for the years 1969-70, Ex. PG jamabandi for the years 1963-64, Khatauni Pamaish Ex. PA/1, Khasra Girdawari, Ex. P-1, shows that Gram RSA No. 4040 of 2011 (O&M) -4- Panchayat is owner in possession of the property in dispute known as Udasian Dera Ramsar, bearing khasra Nos. 488, 489, 490, 492 and 493. As per Khatauni Paimaish Ex. PA/1 there is a gair mumkin bara in khasra No. 489. Perusal of jamabandi Ex. PA 1994-95 shows that gair mumkin Dera Ramsar has been constructed in khasra No. 488 measuring 6 bighas 5 biswas whereas the remaining land of Dera Ramsar is under cultivation. DW-1 Shinderpal Singh, in examination-in-chief supported the case of the appellant but in cross-examination admitted that there is no Nishan Sahib in the building but there is one Gugga mari and Smadh of Baba Ragho Ram in the building. Writing dated 24.8.1993, is on the file executed by Gurmit Singh one of the appellant but Gurmit Singh (DW-4) appeared in Court and stated that this writing was not executed by him admitting Baba Bhan Dass in possession of the Dera as Pujari. Disputed signatures of Gurmit Singh on the writing were compared with his standard signatures. Disputed signatures and the standard signatures were found to be by one and the same person as per report Ex. PX. As discussed earlier, as per record suit property is owned by Gram Panchayat but possession of the property is with Dera Ramsar. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that property in dispute is owned and managed by the Gram Panchayat but main suit was decreed against the appellants and proforma respondent No. 3. Kapoor Singh-defendant is not impleaded as one of the appellant or respondent. Smadh of Ragho Ram and existence of Gugga Marhi is also clear in view of the statement of Chinder Pal Singh RSA No. 4040 of 2011 (O&M) -5- (DW-1), appearing on behalf of the appellants. Chinder Pal Singh, also admitted that as per Sikh religion no Samadhi is constructed in the Gurudwara Sahib and in every Gurudwara Sahib there is a Nishan Sahib but in the present case there is no Nishan Sahib but existence of Samadh of Baba Ragho Ram, Gola Sahib, Gugga Marhi in Dera Ramsar is very much clear. Regarding construction there was no documentary evidence. No resolution was passed by the appellants as to from where building material was purchased. If construction was raised by the Panchayat and some of the property except the building is under cultivation and the same is let out by the Panchayat then Gram Panchayat of village Dhamot Khurd or Dhamot Kalan, Tehsil Payal District Ludhiana, is at liberty to let out the property. Appellants in their individual capacity have no right to interfere in the peaceful possession of the property in dispute. As Panch or Sarpanch on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, Panchayat can let out this property. As discussed earlier, dispute is regarding possession only. No substantial question of law is involved. No reason to differ with the concurrent findings of both the Courts' below. For the reasons record above, appeal without merits is dismissed. November 7, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE