IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2521 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.11.2008. Mandir known as Khuhi Hai Labhu Bhagat and another ....Appellants Versus Resham Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr.Jatinder Kumar, Advocate for Mr.Parveen Moudgil, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the respondents. RAJESH BINDAL, J. **** The plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Court below whereby the suit filed by him for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the sewadari rights/management for Mandir known as Khui Hai Bhagat Labhu was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff with the plea that appellant No.1 was a private religious Mandir/Kutia known as Khui Hai Labu Bhagat constructed in Khasra No.61/1/0-13 Khewat/Khatauni No.198/270 as evident from Jamabandi for the year 1994-95. The khui was constructed about 90/100 years ago and Bhagat Jawala Dass who was the sewadar of Khui Labhu Bhagat had executed a Will on July 2, 1991 in favour of appellant No.2 and his grandsons namely Surinder, Gurdial sons of Sohan Singh, on the basis of which he inherited this property. However, the respondents were causing interference in the enjoyment of the appellant of the property in dispute and restraining them from serving the Temple. Both the Courts below did not find any merit in the claim set up by the appellants/plaintiffs for the RSA No.2521 of 2004 -2- reasons that in the Will dated July 2, 1991 which was executed by Bhagat Jagta in favour of appellant No.2 specific Khasra number had been mentioned. Earlier appellant No.2 filed a suit seeking inheritance on the basis of aforesaid Will which was decreed in his favour and in that suit also the claim was only with regard to Khasra number mentioned in the Will. The Will executed in favour of appellant No.2 was upheld upto this Court in RSA No.264 of 2004 decided on 13.11.2007. The trial Court in the earlier suit filed by appellant No.2 had decreed their claim vide judgment and decree dated September 23, 1997. In the earlier suit filed Khasra No.61/1/0- 13 was not mentioned for claiming inheritance thereof on the basis of the Will. The present suit came to be filed on April 5, 1999 stating that the appellants are in possession of Khasra No.61/1/0-13 and had inherited this property as well from Bhagat Jagta. The claim set up by the appellants is not borne out from the record as the Will which has been upheld upto this Court did not specify Khasra number which is owned by appellant No.1 of which appellant No.2 is a sewadar nor in the earlier suit filed by the appellants claiming inheritance of the property, the injunction regarding which is sought in the present litigation. Learned Courts below also found that the land pertaining to Khasra No.61/1/0-13 is shown to be in the ownership of Shamlat Patti Surjan and in the column of possession Jawala son of Labhu son of Kabul is recorded. With this evidence on record the findings recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be said to be perverse. No substantial questions of law arises. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 20.11.2008. JUDGE Reema