R. S. A. No. 2730 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2730 of 2010 Date of Decision : March 23, 2011 Ram Chander and others .... Appellants Vs. Smadh Baba Daulat Giri through its Mahant/Mohtmim Shambhu Giri and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. J. P. Dhull, Advocate for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendants Ram Chander etc. having failed in both the courts below are in second appeal. Suit was filed by respondents/plaintiffs against the appellants. Respondent-plaintiff no.1 is Smadh Baba Daulat Giri – a juristic person. Respondent-plaintiff no.2 claimed himself to be Mohtmim/Manager of respondent no.1. The plaintiffs in the suit challenged lease of suit land granted by Santosh Giri – the then Mohtmim of plaintiff no.1, in favour of R. S. A. No. 2730 of 2010 2 defendants vide lease deed dated 25.05.1973 for thirty years. The plaintiffs alleged that the said lease deed was executed without consideration and legal necessity. Possession of the suit land was also claimed. Defendants contested the suit and denied the plaint allegations. It was alleged that lease deed is legal and valid and was executed for consideration and legal necessity. Claim of plaintiff no.2 to be Mohtmim of plaintiff no.1 was also challenged. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal, vide judgment and decree dated 02.05.2008, decreed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by the defendants has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Kaithal, vide judgment and decree dated 07.10.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Both the courts below have concurrently held plaintiff no.2 to be Mohtmim of plaintiff no.1. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence led by parties and is not shown to be perverse or illegal. Both the courts below have also held that the lease deed was without legal necessity. However, learned counsel for the appellants contended that one other lease deed of same date pertaining to another parcel of land belonging to plaintiff no.1 executed by same Mahant Santosh Giri has been upheld by the courts below in a different suit. However, in that case, the lessee might have R. S. A. No. 2730 of 2010 3 produced proper evidence to prove legal necessity, but in the instant case, the courts below have found that the defendants have failed to prove legal necessity. In addition to it, even if the lease deed is assumed to be for legal necessity, for the sake of argument, even then the defendants cannot succeed because the lease period has already expired almost eight years ago. In view thereof, the plaintiffs are entitled to seek possession of the suit land from the defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that suit to challenge the lease deed is barred by limitation having been filed after thirty years. However, the lease provided recurring cause of action to challenge the same and therefore, the suit cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Apart from it, even if the suit to challenge the lease deed is assumed to be barred by limitation, the suit regarding relief of possession, which is the substantive relief, is not barred by limitation in any manner. Consequently, aforesaid contention canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants also does not help the appellants in any manner. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any 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. March 23, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE