R.S.A.No. 4742 of 2003 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4742 of 2003 Date of decision: 31.7. 2009 Mahant Arjan Puri ......Appellant Versus Puran Chand and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. S.P.Jain, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Dheeraj Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 Puran Chand filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was decreed by the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 30.5.1995. In appeal, filed by Defendant No.1 Mahant Arjan Puri, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.2002. Hence, the R.S.A.No. 4742 of 2003 2 present appeal by defendant No.1. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the trial Court in para Nos. 2 to 4 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present suit are that plaintiff is in possession of suit land which belongs to Mandir/Dera Khakian Wala Sanauri Gate Patiala as lessee. That the aforesaid suit property was taken on lease by the plaintiff for a period of 9 years from Shri Ram Sunder Dass Mohtmim of the said Dera through his power of attorney Shri Om Parkash Chela Shri Ram Sunder Dass vide registered lease deed dated 18.5.1974. That defendant No.1 claims himself to be Mohitmim of the said Dera. Similarly defendants No.2 and 4 claim themselves to be Chela of Mahant Ram Sunder Dass, while defendant No.3 claims to be power of attorney of defendant No.1. In fact, defendant No.1 was never appointed as Mohant of Dera by Bhaikh. That defendants are threatening of dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property unlawfully. It is further submitted that plaintiff was seriously injured in Bomb blast which took place in District Courts on 19.2.1988 and plaintiff was admitted to Rajinders Hospital, Patiala and the lower part of his left leg was amputated. The defendants are taking benefit of the absence of the plaintiff and they are R.S.A.No. 4742 of 2003 3 threatening his son and his employees to take forcibly possession of the suit land. Hence, this suit. 3. Defendants No.1 and 3 filed joint written statement alleging that plaintiff has got revenue record prepared in his name wrongly in collusion with the revenue department. That the suit property is in possession of defendant No.1 and plaintiff has nothing to do with the land in question. That defendant No.1 Mohant Arjan Puri is the Mohitmim of the property in question, who was appointed by Mohant Ram Sunder Dass by a registered Wasika dated 23.12.1976 and all the legal rights of Mohitmimship were devolved on the answering defendant. The mutation in this regard has also been sanctioned in favour of defendant. After the death of Mohant Ram Sunder Dass all the last rites were performed by the defendants. Even during his life time more than 50,000/- was spent for keeping up the Mandir in every respect. That defendant is cultivating the suit land through his power of attorney Pawan Kumar Sharma and alleged Khasra girdawari of the suit land in favour of plaintiff are false. It is denied that suit property was taken on lease by the plaintiff for a period of 99 years from Shri Ram Sunder Dass Mohitmim through his alleged power of attorney Om Parkash. It R.S.A.No. 4742 of 2003 4 is further submitted that plaintiff got filed a suit for declaration through one Ram Kumar Dass which continued for years together and ultimately the suit was dismissed and he admitted the answering defendants as Mohitmim of the property in question. That defendants No. 2 and 4 have no right, title or interest in any manner whatsoever in the suit property. The property belongs to Mandir and no previous permission as required under Section 92 C.P.C. has been obtained. Hence, suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. In his written statement, defendant No.4 admitted that plaintiff is occupying the suit land as leasee of Ram Sunder Dass. That defendant No.1 has no right, title or interest of the suit property of Dera Mandir Khakian. That answering defendant is the chela of Mohant Ram Sunder Dass and has every right to control and manage the property. It is further alleged that suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is occupying the suit land as lessee? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction R.S.A.No. 4742 of 2003 5 as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is premature as alleged in para No.4 of further objections? OPD 7. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of permission under Section 92 CPC? OPD 1 & 3 8. Whether defendant No. 1 and 3 are entitled to special costs? OPD 1 & 3 9. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merit. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession as lessee of the agricultural land belonging to the Mandir. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, has only raised one submission that since the possession of the property had been handed over to the State Government in pursuance of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue and Dharamarth Board, vide Rapat Number R.S.A.No. 4742 of 2003 6 453 dated 29.7.1997, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. However, there is no force in the said argument. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendants that they should not interfere in his peaceful possession. The said suit was decreed as the plaintiff was found to be in possession of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit. In these circumstances, the defendants could not be allowed to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. In case the possession of the suit land is with the State Government, then the plaintiff, if so advised, may seek his remedy available to him but so far as the suit of the plaintiff qua the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession having been decreed, the same calls for no interference. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 31 , 2009 anita