R.S.A. No. 625 of 2007 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 625 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.3.2009 Itehasic Gurudwara Patshahi 10th Qilla Ghanaula .......... Appellant Versus Om Parkash & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. V.M. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff / appellant by way of this regular second appeal has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below dismissing the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff / appellant. The plaintiff brought a suit for permanent injunction claiming itself to be a registered society with Ram Singh as its Chairman. The case set up by the plaintiff was that the property in dispute belongs to Gurudwara of village Ghanaula, which is being managed by the committee i.e. the plaintiff. It was claimed that the property in dispute is being given on lease on year to year basis by the plaintiff and the Theka / lease money is being used for the welfare of Gurudwara for the last many years. It was the case of the plaintiff that defendants were interfering in the possession and therefore the suit for injunction was brought. R.S.A. No. 625 of 2007 2 The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence brought on record have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff / appellant is self-serving society which failed to prove that it was managing the Gurudwara or the property in dispute. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration by this Court :- Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is outcome of misreading of gift deed executed by Umrao Singh in favour of the Gurudwara ? In support of the substantial question of law Mr. V.M. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the Gurudwara is Itehasic Gurudwara Patshahi 10th Qilla Ghanaula. However, the learned Courts below have wrongly held it not to be Itehasic Gurudwara on the plea that the mutation of the land in dispute was got sanctioned in the name of Itehasic Gurudwara Patshahi 10th Qilla Ghanaula during the pendency of the suit. The reading of the gift deed executed by Sh. Umrao Singh shows that the property was gifted to Gurudwara which is being managed by the Gurudwara and not by the committee as contended. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment and decree is outcome of misreading of gift deed is totally misconceived. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove that they were managing or controlling the affairs of Gurudwara Sahib or R.S.A. No. 625 of 2007 3 the suit land, the injunction was declined. The findings are not outcome of misinterpretation of document or misreading of evidence. The substantial question of law raised by the learned counsel for the appellant therefore does not arise for consideration by this Court in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of any merit is ordered to be dismissed in limine. 10.3.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'reena/sp' JUDGE