R.S.A. No. 1993 of 2004 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1993 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.02.2009 Mohinder Pal ....Appellant Versus Hira Lal and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. M.R. Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 8.11.2000 and 16.3.2004 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents in representative capacity under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands decreed. The plaintiff/respondents challenged the execution of lease deed by defendant No. 2 i.e. Smadh Baba Darbar Puri in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 on the ground that the same was illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the worshippers. It was without any legal necessity and not in benefit of Smadh Baba Darbar Puri. The challenge was also that the lease for 99 years was in the nature of R.S.A. No. 1993 of 2004 (O&M) -2- transfer of land. The Mahant did not have the authority to alienate. The learned Courts below, on appreciation of evidence, have recorded a concurrent fining of fact that the lease deed was illegal, null and void and not affecting the rights of the worshippers. The decree of declaration and injunction, as sought, was granted in favour of the plaintiff/respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below primarily on the plea that the suit, as framed, was not competent, as in the suit for declaration the plainitff/respondents had not sought consequential relief of possession, which admittedly is in the possession of the appellant/defendant, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted, as the suit was in representative capacity on behalf of worshippers. They were admittedly not owners of the property in dispute to seek possession. The consequential relief of injunction stands granted by the learned Courts below. The plaintiff/respondents have the right to watch the interest of Smadh Baba Darbar Puri and, therefore, it could not be said that the suit was not competent. The learned counsel for the appellant also contends that the suit filed was time barred, as the lease deed was executed on 1.1.1981 by way of registered document whereas suit was filed on 23.5.1998. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the registration of doucment was notice to all and, therefore, it could not be said that the plainitff/respondents did not have the knowledge of the execution of lease deed to claim the starting point of limitation from the R.S.A. No. 1993 of 2004 (O&M) -3- date of knowledge. The learned Courts below, therefore, were wrong in deciding the issue of limitation against the appellant/defendant. However, there is no force in the contention. The learned Courts below have not rejected the plea of limitation on the ground of same being within three years of date of knowledge, but on the ground that the lease deed, which was held to be illegal, gave a fresh cause of action on each day. The finding recorded by the learned Courts below is based on established principle of law. No substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in this appeal. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge February 03, 2009 R.S.