Regular Second Appeal No. 1267 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1267 of 2011 Date of decision : March 16, 2011 Gulzar Chand alias Gulzar Giri ....Appellant versus Swarg Ashram Trust and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. RS Bains, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiff Gulzar Chand alias Gulzar Giri having failed in both the courts below is in second appeal. Plaintiff-appellant filed suit alleging that he is chela of Mahant Anand Gir since deceased. Mahant Anand Gir was owner in possession of the suit land and being his chela the plaintiff has inherited it and has become owner in possession thereof. The plaintiff sought declaration to this effect along with relief of permanent injunction and in the alternative for possession of the suit land. Defendants controverted the plaint allegations and pleaded that the suit land belongs to Hindus of the village, set apart for religious and Regular Second Appeal No. 1267 of 2011 -2- charitable purposes including cremation ground etc. Mahant Anand Gir was serving the said institutions located in the suit land but management and control of the suit land always vested with Hindus of the village who had been selecting management committee from time to time for this purpose. In 1985-86 representatives of the committee formed a Trust styled as Swarg Ashram Trust (defendant no. 1) for management of the suit property. The said Trust was got registered. The said Trust has been leasing out the suit land on yearly basis. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Batala vide judgment and decree dated 2.9.2009 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 8.11.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Even taking the plaint allegations at face value, the plaintiff- appellant cannot succeed. The plaintiff alleged that Mahant Anand Gir was owner in possession of the suit land. If it was so, the plaintiff as chela of Anand Gir could not be his legal heir regarding personal property of Anand Gir. Consequently, the plaintiff as chela could not inherit the suit land from Mahant Anand Gir. In other words, the plaintiff cannot be said to be owner in possession of the suit land even taking into consideration the averments made by him in the plaint. Regular Second Appeal No. 1267 of 2011 -3- In addition to the aforesaid, in revenue record the property is not depicted to be owned by Mahant Anand Gir. There is also no other documentary evidence to depict that Mahant Anand Gir was owner of the suit land. It is, thus, not proved that Mahant Anand Gir was owner of the suit land. Consequently, for this reason also the plaintiff cannot succeed. The plaintiff could not derive ownership of the suit land from Mahant Anand Gir when Mahant Anand Gir himself was not owner thereof. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 16, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'