R.S.A. No.4442 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.4442 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:15.07.2011 Murti Thakurji Maharaj ......Appellant Versus Puran Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Mukesh Yadav, Advocate, for the respondents. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present appeal and emanating from the record is, that Murti Thakurji Maharaj-appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Puran Singh and others-respondent-defendants (for brevity “the defendants”), from breaking open the wall in question, in any manner, with a consequential relief of mandatory injunction, to restore the original position of the boundary wall, inter alia, pleading that although the plaintiff- Mandir has already constructed the boundary wall of the entire property for security reasons, but the defendants are bent upon to break it, for carrying their camel carts/tractors etc., through the property of the plaintiff-Mandir, without any legal right. They have opened space of 3x3 feet in the boundary wall in this regard. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of permanent/mandatory injunction against the defendants, in the manner indicated hereinabove. R.S.A. No.4442 of 2010(O&M) 2 2. The defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement, taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, concealment of facts, estoppel, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff. 3. The case set up by the defendants, in brief, insofar as relevant was, that the Committee of the Mandir and other devotees, including the defendants, contributed the funds and constructed the boundary wall of the Mandir, in the month of July 1999. A platform of 5 feet in height and 3x3 feet in width was voluntarily left for ingress and egress to the Mandir by the devotees. The defendants and other persons had spent 50% amount for construction of the platform, so, that the animals could not enter inside the land of the Mandir and the devotees can easily go for worship through this passage. Mahant Mangal Dass was stated to have concocted a false version and filed the false suit. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the essential issues, depicted in its judgment, for proper adjudication of the case. The parties to the litigation in order to substantiate their respective pleas, brought on record oral as well as the documentary evidence. 5. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire oral as well as the documentary evidence brought on record by the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 08.05.2007. 6. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the appellant-plaintiff filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 26.03.2010. 7. The appellant-plaintiff still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone R.S.A. No.4442 of 2010(O&M) 3 through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the appeal in this regard. 9. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the plaintiff- Mandir is proved to be owner of the property in dispute, so, the Courts below committed a mistake in dismissing its suit, is not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well. 10. As is evident from the record that the plaintiff-Mandir is the owner of the property in dispute and a boundary wall was constructed around it. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants now intend to break the wall, so as to create the passage. On the contrary, the defendants claimed that the boundary wall was constructed with the funds of the devotees, including the defendants in the year, 1999. A platform of 5 feet in height and 3x3 feet in width was kept open, to enable the devotees, to ingress and egress the Mandir for worship. 11. Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of the evidence on record, the trial Court, after scrutinizing the entire evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective, has recorded a finding of fact that the platform was constructed for the convenience of the defendants and other devotees, who believe in worshipping the plaintiff-Mandir, through the medium of impugned judgment and decree dated 08.05.2007, which in substance is, as under:- “I have given thoughtful consideration of the arguments put forwarded by learned counsel for the parties and on an appraisal of entire oral as documentary evidence, it is apparent from the face of record that Mohatmin Mangal Dass has been looking after and managing the affairs of Mandir Murti Thakur Ji Maharaj. This Mandir Murti Thakurji Maharaj was constructed for the religious purpose. Therefore, every religious person from the public has right to worship therein. Admittedly, the houses of defendants are situated on Northern side of the land of temple. Further this boundary wall was constructed after collecting fund from donators and therefore plaintiff being Mohatmin has no right to create hurdle for worshipper whosoever believes in the temple. He had only right to manage R.S.A. No.4442 of 2010(O&M) 4 and to look after the property of Murti Mandir Thakurji Maharaj, in the interest of Mandir as well as in the interest of religious person whosoever believes in worship at Mandir Thakurji Maharaj. On careful scrutinize evidence on file, it is nowhere established that the defendants have forcibly raised construction of stair upto height of 5 feet for egress and ingress to temple nor any camel cart/tractor etc. can enter nor entry of worshipper through this stair would cause any loss to property of temple. Therefore, if there are in existence any easier way for approaching this temple Murti Mandir Thakurji Maharaj, then Mahatmin has no right to seek injunction against religious inhabitants who are not causing any loss to temple property any manner. They being religious persons have every right to worship in the temple and if there is in existence any easier way for them then it should not be stopped in any manner. Plaintiff Mohatmin could not exercise his power beyond the interest of worshipper, whosoever, believes in Mandir Thakurji Maharaj. Since defendants did not raise any construction of stair forcibly and this alleged passage of 3x3 feet was left for convenience of defendants and other persons whosoever believes in worshipping of Mandir Murti Thakurji Maharaj, therefore, they have every right to use this easier way 3x3 for egress and ingress to the land of temple. However, it if clarified that defendants and others have no right to cause any type of loss to temple property in any manner. Resultantly, I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff being Mohatmin has no right to stop the defendants from worshipping in the temple through this easier way 3x3 feet which is in existence in the shape of stair upto the height of 5 feet which was left for the convenience of nearby religious inhabitants.” 12. Not only that, the decision of the trial Court was affirmed by the first Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 26.03.2010 in its entirety and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff. 13. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, to assail the findings of the Courts below. All the remaining contentions, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on its behalf, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below, in this relevant direction. 14. Above all, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, having R.S.A. No.4442 of 2010(O&M) 5 scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, have rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and recorded the valid grounds in the impugned judgments and decrees. Such judgments, containing the valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of the well-reasoned decision arrived at by the Courts below, in this context. 15. Meaning thereby, the entire crux revolves around the re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since, no question of law, much less substantial, is involved in this regular second appeal, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh Versus Harnam Singh and another, 2008(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 688: 2008 AIR (SC) 1749, so, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, as contemplated under Section 100 CPC, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 16. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 17. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. July 15, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE