IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 753 of 2007 Date of Decision : April 28, 2008 Bihari Lal ....Appellant Versus Nand Lal and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Vinod Kumar Kaushal, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellant was dismissed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dasuya on 1.5.2004. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant filed first appeal, which has also been dismissed by learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur on 3.11.2006. He has now filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant claimed to be Pujari of the temple in dispute. He asserted that he and his ancestors were Pujaris of the temple and the management and control of the affairs of the temple vested in him and his ancestors. The appellant examined himself as PW3. In his cross- examination, he admitted that he was not the owner of the land underneath the temple and the ownership was that of the Gram Panchayat. He also stated that he served the Railway Department from Regular Second Appeal No. 753 of 2007 where he retired in the year 1982 and about 8/10 years prior to his retirement, his father had passed away. After the death of his father, his elder brother became the Pujari of the temple. It was from the year 1982 when he retired from the Railway Department that he became the Pujari. However, he feigned ignorance of opening any account in the name of the temple in Punjab National Bank, Kamahi Devi Branch, although, it stood proved that account No. 7656 was opened in the name of Mandir Baba Gorakh Nath. In fact, that account was opened by the Managing Committee of the temple in question and not by the plaintiff. Similarly, he also did not dispute the fact that the Managing Committee of the temple had applied for and obtained registration No. 1142 of 1997-98 on 13.10.1997 in respect of the temple in question. All this shows that the plaintiff was never the Pujari of the temple in question nor he had anything to do with the affairs of the same. No case is made out for any interference in the impugned judgments passed by the learned lower Courts, as the same are based on correct appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. Concurrent findings of facts cannot be disturbed in the second appeal. No substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, arise for determination. The appeal is devoid of any merit and, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) April 28, 2008 JUDGE satish - 2 Regular Second Appeal No. 753 of 2007 Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO - 3