Regular Second Appeal No.1214 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1214 OF 2011 DATE OF DECISION: 10 th MARCH, 2011 Jagir Singh .... Appellant Versus Darbar Sahib Tahli Sahib .... Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. R. S. Pandher, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.3339-C of 2011: Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal: Jagir Singh, defendant No.2 having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Darbar Sahib Tahli Sahib through Mahant Karan Dass filed suit against Ajit Singh defendant No.1 (since deceased) and defendant No.2-appellant Jagir Singh alleging that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 4 Kanals 1 Marla comprised of Khasra No.37R/26. There is an old room, old well and two samadhs in the suit land. The suit land and other land was previously being looked after by Mahant Sudarshan Dass Chela Isher Dass. After his death, the suit property is being looked after by Mahant Karan Dass. Previously also, the plaintiff had to file Regular Second Appeal No.1214 of 2011 -2- suit against Baba Lakha Singh and others, which was decreed. Defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. But they threatened to dispossess the plaintiff therefrom. Accordingly, plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of plaintiff over the suit property and from raising any construction therein and from changing the nature thereof. The defendants pleaded that the suit property is historical Gurudwara having building of Gurudwara, Bauli (well), Langar Room, Nishan Sahib and a Samadh. The plaintiff has not mentioned about the aforesaid construction. Gurdwara in the suit land is managed by local committee of which defendants are also members. Defendants are sewadars of the Gurdwara. Karan Dass is not owner of the suit property. Local committee comprising of respectables of the area and worshipers and followers of the Gurdwara is managing it. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Batala vide judgment and decree dated 12.09.2006 decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by both the defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.2 has preferred the instant second appeal whereas defendant No.1 is said to have since died. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Entire documentary evidence placed on record reveals that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property and defendants have no concern therewith. Defendants have alleged the formation of some local committee. However, such local committees are self-styled bodies mainly formed to grab Regular Second Appeal No.1214 of 2011 -3- such properties. The alleged local committee has no legal status. Defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. It appears that there is persistent move to grab the suit property. Earlier Baba Lakha Singh and others tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Plaintiff filed suit No.65 dated 20.06.1995 against them. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 04.06.1997. Thereafter, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property and the plaintiff had to file the instant suit on 15.07.1999, which has also been decreed. The previous suit against Lakha Singh etc. pertained to suit land and as well as other land. In all the Jamabandis, plaintiff Darbar Sahib Tahli Sahib has been recorded to be owner in possession of the suit property. Previously the plaintiff was recorded to be owner in possession through Mahant Sudarshan Dass. Now the plaintiff is recorded to be owner in possession of the suit property through Mahant Karan Dass in the revenue record. It is thus apparent from the consistent entries in the revenue record that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property and defendants have no right, title or interest therein. Entries in Jamabandis carry presumption of correctness. The said presumption has not been rebutted by the defendants in any manner. On the other hand, the said presumptions gets strengthened because there are consistent entries spread over more than three decades before the filing of the suit. Defendants have miserably failed to depict that they are Sewadars of the Gurdwara allegedly existing in the suit property. The plaintiff alleged that there are two Samadhs in the suit property whereas defendants alleged that there is only one Samadh. Be that as it may, the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property and defendants have no right, title or interest therein and consequently defendants cannot interfere in possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Regular Second Appeal No.1214 of 2011 -4- Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that according to report of Local Commissioner, there is Gurudwara hall in about 10 marlas land out of the suit land and there is Parkash (light) of Shri Guru Granth Sahib and there is also Nishan Sahib, Well and Langar hall. It was accordingly contended that suit property is Gurdwara and, therefore, the plaintiff should have sought declaration that it is not Gurdwara. The contention is completely misconceived. The plaintiff claims to be owner in possession of the suit property and has proved so. If the defendants had any grievance, they could seek proper remedy in accordance with law. But defendants have no right to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property forcibly or illegally. The defendants did not make any counter-claim in the suit to seek any such declaration that the suit property is Gurdwara. Moreover, even if it be assumed that the suit property is Gurdwara, even then defendants have no right to interfere in plaintiff's possession over suit property. Concurrent finding by the lower courts in favour of the respondent- plaintiff is fully justified by oral as well as documentary evidence and the said finding is supported by various reasons recorded by the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to demonstrate that the aforesaid finding is perverse or illegal or is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not call for interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 10.03.2011 'raj'