IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.3802 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.1.2010 Murti Thakur Ji Mandir Thakur Dwara and another. ....... Appellants. Versus Bhullan and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the appellants. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. C.M.No.11636-C of 2009 The application is allowed as prayed for. R.S.A.No.3802 of 2009& C.M.No.11637-C of 2009 This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 13.8.2008 and 19.8.2009 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Panipat (referred to hereinafter as `the first appellate Court') whereby the suit and the appeal of the plaintiffs-appellants have been dismissed. R.S.A.No.3802 of 2009 (O&M) -2- .... The appellants had filed a suit for declaration pleading that Murti Thakur Ji, Mandir Thakur Dwara at village Barana is possessed of certain properties which were being managed by its Mahants. A dispute broke out earlier regarding the management of the properties by the said Mahants and the same was decided by the Collector, Karnal to the extent that the properties will vest in Murti Thakur Ji and their management will be done by the elected body of the village voters, i.e., Gram Panchayat and that all beneficiaries and worshippers were entitled to participate in the management and for betterment of the religious institution. Thereafter, there has been no dispute regarding the appointment of trustees. According to the appellants, the religious institution is owner and in possession of 647 kanals of agricultural land which has been mutated in the name of Mandir Thakurji vide mutation no.1508 by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade as per the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal in case No.93 of 1985-86 decided on 27.11.1986. The appellants had averred that earlier to that, a suit came to be filed by Chelas of Dharam Dass regarding some property (measuring 112 kanals 18 marlas of land ) belonging to Mandir Thakurji to whom the claim had been laid by them and that suit was dismissed on 24.10.1981, but in appeal, the matter was compromised and a decree was obtained by the said Chelas, namely, Ram Dass, Baru Dass and Ram Narain. The revenue entries were changed in their names on the basis of this compromise qua the said property to the extent of 1/3rd share each vide mutation no.1907. It was alleged that Ram Narain Dass sold 55 kanals and 12 R.S.A.No.3802 of 2009 (O&M) -3- .... marlas of land out of the land so mutated in his name vide sale deed dated 9.10.1998 in favour of defendant-respondent no.1, namely, Bhullan, for a consideration of Rs.4,70,000/-, whereas Ram Dass alienated 37 kanals 13 marlas of land vide sale deed dated 2.2.1999 in favour of defendant- respondent no.2, Ved Parkash, for a consideration of Rs.4,90,000/-. It was pleaded that these sale deeds as well as mutations sanctioned on their basis are null & void as Ram Narain Dass and Ram Dass had no right to sell the property of Mandir Thakurji. The mortgage created qua some of the land in dispute had also been challenged by the appellants. In addition, the appellants had also challenged mutation no.1340 sanctioned on 26.12.1972 on the basis of the registered will of Baba Dharam Dass being illegal, null & void. Gram Panchayat, Barana, who was impleaded as defendant no.1 in the suit, appeared and filed a separate written statement pleading that the land in dispute is not covered by mutation no.1508 and denied all other averments of the appellants. Ram Narain Dass, Ram Dass, Bhullan, Ved Parkash and legal heirs of Baru Dass, who were arrayed as defendant nos. 2 to 12, filed a joint written statement, resisting the suit, who, apart from taking objections regarding its maintainability etc., pleaded that there was no dispute regarding 647 kanals of land which was subject-matter of mutation no.1508 in favour of Mandir Thakurji, but defended mutation no.1907 sanctioned in favour of Ram Dass, Ram Narain Dass and Baru Dass. It was pleaded that the land covered by mutation no.1907 belonged to Baba Dharam Dass and R.S.A.No.3802 of 2009 (O&M) -4- .... not to Mandir Thakurji. The decree passed in favour of Ram Dass, Ram Narain Dass and Baru Dass was stated to be not collusive and it was averred that the property covered by the said decree was distinct and had been bifurcated and segregated from the property of the Mandir Thakurji. It was further averred that the land in dispute was firstly mutated in favour of Dharam Dass and subsequently in favour of his Chelas, namely, Ram Narain Dass, Ram Dass & Baru Dass as per law. The alienation and mortgage of some of the property in dispute was also stated to be justified. 1. Whether the mutation No.1340 dated 26.12.1972 is illegal?OPP 2. Whether the sale deeds dated 9.10.1988 and 2.2.1999 and mutation no.1943 are null and void?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties?OPD 5. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD 6. Whether proper court fees has not been affixed?OPD 7. Whether the suit is barred under Section 92 CPC?OPD 8. Relief. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court concluded that the property in question did not belong to Mandir Thakurji, whereas 647 kanals of land was undisputedly owned by it. It was further concluded that the property in question was standing in the name of Dharam Dass in his personal capacity R.S.A.No.3802 of 2009 (O&M) -5- .... and which was never challenged by Mandir Thakurji and which,later on, devolved upon by Ram Narain Dass, Ram Dass and Baru Dass and that the same was rightfully alienated by them. Consequently, the suit and the appeal of the appellants were dismissed. Feeling dis-satisfied with the findings of the Courts below, the appellants, who are residents of the village, have filed the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants have contended that the suit land belonged to Mandir Thakurji and Baba Dharam Dass had no concern with the same and consequently, his Chelas, namely, Ram Narain Dass, Ram Dass and Baru Dass derived no right qua it. He argued that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and deserve to be set aside as there was sufficient evidence on record to prove that Mandir Thakurji was the owner of the suit property. I have thoughtfully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the lower Courts' records which was summoned. The revenue record speaks in favour of the respondents. Baba Dharam Dass died in the year 1972 and mutation no.1340 was sanctioned on the basis of a registered will left by him. Thereafter, the suit property which was his personal one, devolved upon his rightful Chelas which was never questioned ever since. Later on, the same was mutated in favour of Ram Narain Dass, Ram Dass and Baru Dass vide mutation no.1907. It was established that the land comprised in Khewat Nos. 192, 208 and 209 measuring 647 kanals was mutated in favour of Mandir Thakurji through R.S.A.No.3802 of 2009 (O&M) -6- .... Mohtmim Baru dass etc. vide mutation no.1508 and the land in dispute was distinct from this land and was under the ownership of Dharam Dass in his individual capacity and the same devolved upon his three Chelas, namely, Ram Narain Dass, Ram Dass and Baru Dass. These findings of fact have been recorded on the basis of the revenue record and no material has been shown to this Court from where it can be inferred that the same are inconsistent with it so as to hold that the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below is erroneous. No question of law has been shown to have arisen for consideration of this Court in the instant appeal which is totally devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. C.M.No.11637-C of 2009 which has been moved for staying the operation of the impugned judgments is also dismissed in view of the above. January 18,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge