RSA No.2847 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2847 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 15, 2011 Soma Devi and another .....Appellants v. State of Haryana through Collector, Karnal .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.D.Bawa, Advocate for the appellants. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 1.4.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide which appeal filed by present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 11.6.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karnal, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, present appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining respondent-State from dispossessing them from the land in dispute on the ground that they are in cultivating possession of the same and had been paying batai to the Mahant of Mandir Sita Mai. Suit was contested by respondent-State on various grounds. Plea has been taken that Basheshar Dass, who was Mahant of the property belonging to the Mandir Sita Mai tried to squander away the property of the RSA No.2847 of 2011(O&M) -2- Mandir by suffering decrees and lease deeds for 99 years in favour of several persons including his own wife and daughter, i.e., present appellants-plaintiffs. Proceedings under Section 5-A of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holding Act, 1972 (for short the `Act') were also initiated and husband and father of present appellants lost the said litigation even upto Hon'ble Apex Court. The property which was declared surplus vested in the State Government without any incumbrance under Section 12 of the Act and mutation no.239 was also sanctioned in this regard on 12.6.1996. Mahant Basheshar Dass was also removed from the post of Mahant on account of gross negligence and mismanagement of the property vide civil court judgment and decree dated 4.2.2004 passed in civil Suit No.322 of 1999. The various decrees and leases, which were suffered by the said Mahant in favour of various persons including the present appellants-plaintiffs, who are none else than his wife and daughter and in favour of his two other daughters were also set aside by the Civil Court. Now management of the remaining land of the Mandir is with Collector, Karnal and the said matter is also stated to be subjudice before this Court in separate proceedings. Hence on these pleadings preliminary issue was framed by learned trial Court regarding maintainability of this suit. Learned Court came to the conclusion that in view of these facts and in view of the pending litigation before this Court, the present suit is not maintainable. Appeal filed by present appellants against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is based on evidence and facts. It is not disputed that Mahant Basheshar Dass, who is none else than husband and father of present appellants, had suffered lease RSA No.2847 of 2011(O&M) -3- deeds in favour of the appellants, which had already been set aside in the earlier civil Court decree. He was also removed as Mahant due to gross negligence and mismanagement of property of the Mandir vide civil Court judgment and decree dated 4.2.2004. The property is now being managed by the Collector. This Court is already seized of the matter in separate proceedings and status quo regarding possession was also ordered to be maintained. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned first appellate Court that in view of the fact that status quo has already been ordered to be maintained regarding possession of the property in dispute by this Court in separate proceedings, the present suit is not maintainable. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 15.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge