Civil Revision No.5469 of 2006 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5469 of 2006 Date of Decision: April 03, 2008 Santosha Nand Chela Sant Kumar Chela Gopal Dass ...Petitioner VERSUS Dera Faquir Udasian Popularly known as Dera situate in village Saraud, Tehsil Malerkotla and Samadh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.D.Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1,2,3 and 5. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the trial court granting permission to the respondents to file suit under Section 92 CPC. Civil Revision No.5469 of 2006 : 2 : The petitioner claims himself to be Udasi Sant and Chela of Sant Kumar Chela Gopal Dass and Manager of Dera Faquir Udasian for the last many years. He further claims that apart from the property belonging to the Dera, the petitioner also owns 24 bighas and 7 biswas of land in the village. The respondents moved an application for sanction to institute suit under Section 92 CPC for removal of the petitioner and also for declaration that certain decrees suffered by the petitioner with regard to 24 bighas 7 biswas of land are malafide. In addition, pleas for rendition of accounts, appointment of receiver and declaration that petitioner is only a Manager of the Dera and land 9 bighas and 10 biswas is of the Dera are also raised. Learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the entries in the jamabandi to say that land measuring 24 bighas 7 biswas is owned by Gopal Dass Chela Bhagwan Dass, which is shown to be as “Khud Kashit”, whereas the entries in regard to land measuring 9 bighas and 10 biswas show Nagar Panchayat to be the owner. Entry in the cultivation column showing “Makbooza Dera Zer Benitmam Gopal Dass Chela Bhagwan Dass Kaur Faqir”. From this, it is urged that the land measuring 24 bighas and 7 biswas is not a land of Dera, but of the petitioner and permission under 92 CPC in regard to this land could not have been granted. Counsel representing the parties are heard. The whole case set up by the petitioner is that the land measuring 24 bighas and 7 biswas is owned by the petitioner himself and not by the Dera. For this, the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the entries in the revenue record, which have been referred to and reproduced above. Civil Revision No.5469 of 2006 : 3 : On the other hand, Mr.Arun Palli, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents would say that the entries, as mentioned, cannot be read to conclude that this land is in the ownership of the petitioner, but it still is continuing to be a land of the Dera. He would refer to the observations made by this Court in Tek Ram Vs. Mange Gir Mahant, 1992(1) Recent Revenue Reports 235. It is noticed by this court that if the property has devolved from Guru to Chela, then inference can be drawn that the property was dedicated for religious and charitable purposes and had nothing to do with the personal capacity of the Mahant. It is further observed that mere entries in the name of Mahant will not prove that the property was his individual property. Reference can also be made to the case of The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust Vs. Biseshwar Dass, AIR 1971 SC 2057. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in this case that there was no evidence that the property was ever gifted to Guru in personal capacity. Finding that the property has been devolving from Guru to Chela, it is noticed that if it was owned in personal capacity, the property would have gone to the natural heirs. As per Narayana Pillai Vs. Jyothi, 1992 Civil Court Cases 26 (Kerala), it is only the allegations in the plaint that are to be looked into in the first instance to see whether the suit falls within the ambit of Section 92 CPC. Reference is also made to the case of S.K.S.Rangacharyulu & Anr. Versus Kailash Vyas & Ors. 1998(2) Civil Court Cases 285 (Rajasthan) to urge that at the time of granting leave, the Court has only to see the allegations in the plaint. It is further observed that if after evidence it is found that breach of trust alleged is not made out and the prayer for declaration of Civil Revision No.5469 of 2006 : 4 : the court is vague and is not based on any solid foundation of facts or reason but is only made with a view to bring the suit under the Section, then such a suit must be dismissed. The aspect of entries, as highlighted by the counsel for the petitioner, would not advance his case to show that this land is owned by the petitioner in his personal capacity. Taking the entries to be what these are, the property still would continue to be the property of the Dera and mere entry in the name of Mahant etc. will not be sufficient to prove that the same is owned by him in his individual capacity. Further for grant of permission under Section 92 CPC, the allegations contained in the plaint are to be looked into as has been held in the cases of Narayana Pillai and S.K.S.Rangacharyulu (supra). Otherwise, no objection has been raised in regard to maintainability of a suit. Mr.Palli would point out that the petitioner has resorted to sale of the land measuring 24 bighas and 7 biswas to his wife Jaspal Kaur and son Inderjit illegally. It is also pleaded that he does not maintain the account of the income of the Dera and as such he is not a fit person. The intentions are clear and apparent. In view of the settled provision of law, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out and the same is, as such, dismissed. April 03, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE