RSA No.2002 of 2011 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2002 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: 05.05.2011 Ishwar Chand and others ……Appellants Versus Smadh Baba Daulat Giri and another …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Balraj Singh Dhull, Advocate for the appellants. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Legal heirs of original defendant-Puran since deceased have filed the instant second appeal after the defendant remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Respondents/plaintiffs i.e. Smadh Baba Daulat Giri and its Mohatmim/Mahant Shambu Giri filed suit against defendant Puran seeking declaration that lease deed dated 24.05.1973 of the suit land measuring 18 kanals 12 marlas executed by Santosh Giri, the then Mohatmin of plaintiff No.1- Smadh Baba Daulat Giri, in favour of defendant leasing out the suit land for 30 years with effect from 15.06.1973 to 14.06.2003 is illegal, null and void being without necessity and for inadequate consideration and being for a long period of 30 years. Consequential relief of possession of the suit land was also claimed. Plaintiffs alleged that plaintiff No.1 is owner of the suit land. Santosh Giri was looking after and managing it. On RSA No.2002 of 2011 (O & M) - 2 - his death, Narain Giri was appointed as Mahant of the Smadh Baba Daulat Giri and after death of Narain Giri, plaintiff No.2 Shambu Giri was appointed as Manager/Mohatmim of the Smadh Baba Daulat Giri. Since the lease deed is invalid, the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit land. Defendant while admitting that he is lessee over the suit land broadly denied the other plaint allegations. It was denied that plaintiff No.2 is Chella of Narain Giri or has been appointed as Mahant of plaintiff No.1-Smadh Baba Daulat Giri. Grounds to challenge the lease deed were repudiated. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 01.10.2009 decreed the plaintiffs’ suit. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 26.02.2011. Feeling aggrieved, legal representatives of defendant have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Impugned lease deed was executed by Santosh Giri as Mahant/Manager of plaintiff No.1- Smadh Baba Daulat Giri. Admittedly Santosh Giri has since expired. Consequently lease deed on behalf of Samadh became inoperative after his death. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the suit is time barred. RSA No.2002 of 2011 (O & M) - 3 - The contention cannot be accepted because this is suit for possession based on title. Moreover, date of death of Santosh Giri has perhaps not come on record. Even otherwise, lease period expired on 14.06.2003. Consequently, defendant was left with no right, title or interest in the suit land and had no right to retain possession thereof. It is correct that the suit was filed on 05.06.2003 i.e a few days before the expiry of the lease period. However, the suit cannot be dismissed because the lease period expired on 14.06.2003 and, thereafter the defendant has no right to retain possession of the suit land. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below in favour of the plaintiffs is justified by the evidence on record and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence so as to call for interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. 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) JUDGE 04.05.2011. A.kaundal