Regular Second Appeal No. 1928 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1928 of 2011 Date of decision : May 12, 2011 Baldev Singh ....Appellant versus Dera Baba Ram Dass Ji, Chaurawala and others ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant Baldev Singh having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. The dispute relates to 8 biswas land belonging to plaintiff- respondent no. 1 Dera Baba Ram Dass Ji. Suit was filed by both the respondents i.e. by plaintiff no. 1 Dera and by Mahant Sadhu Ram claiming himself to be Mohatmim of the Dera. Plaintiffs alleged that Charan Dass was previous Mohatmim of the Dera. Charan Dass died on 30.8.1988. As per custom of Bheikh Udasian to which the Dera belongs, plaintiff no. 2 Mahant Sadhu Ram has become Mohatmim of the Dera as appointed by Charan Dass by registered Will and as also accepted by the Bheikh Udasian Regular Second Appeal No. 1928 of 2011 -2- as per custom. Plaintiff no. 1 Dera is owner of the suit land. Defendant- appellant is in illegal possession thereof. Lease deed allegedly executed by Mahant Charan Dass was in fact not executed or signed by him. Moreover, Mahant Charan Dass was not competent to execute the alleged deed of the suit land for 99 years. The alleged lease deed could also not survive after the death of Charan Dass. The lease deed was also not for legal necessity or benefit of the Dera. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought possession of the suit land along with ancillary relief of permanent injunction. Defendant denied that plaintiff no. 2 is Mohatmim of plaintiff no. 1-Dera. Defendant also alleged that Mahant Charan Dass leased out the suit land vide lease deed dated 26.4.1988 in favour of Amrik Singh for 99 years and Amrik Singh leased the suit land to the defendant vide lease deed dated 23.5.1988 for the remaining lease period of 98 years 11 months and 4 days and accordingly, the defendant is in possession of the suit land as lessee. He has also raised construction of three rooms, kitchen, bath room and toilet in the suit land by spending Rs 5 lacs. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 20.2.2007 decreed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by defendant has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 17.2.2011. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the Regular Second Appeal No. 1928 of 2011 -3- case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that Sadhu Ram plaintiff no. 2 is not Mahant of plaintiff no. 1 Dera. The contention cannot be accepted. There is unrebutted evidence of the plaintiffs in this regard. There is also judgment and decree dated 26.9.1994 Ex. P1 and P2 passed by civil court holding plaintiff no. 2 to be Mahant of plaintiff no.1-Dera. As regards lease deed allegedly executed by Mahant Charan Dass on behalf of the Dera, it was specifically pleaded in the plaint that the said lease deed was not signed or executed by Charan Dass. In spite of this specific plea, the defendant did not lead any evidence to prove that the said lease deed dated 26.4.1988 was actually signed and executed by Charan Dass in favour of Amrik Singh. No attesting witness of the said lease deed has been examined nor original lease deed has been placed on record. Consequently, defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit land so as to continue in possession thereof because his predecessor/transferor Amrik Singh himself had no right, title or interest in the suit land as alleged lease deed in favour of Amrik Singh on behalf of plaintiff no. 1-Dera has not been proved. Consequently, Amrik Singh could not transfer better title than he himself had to the defendant. Secondly lease of land of the Dera could not continue beyond the life time of the person who executed the lease deed on behalf of Dera (charitable/religious institution). In the instant case, Mahant Charan Dass Regular Second Appeal No. 1928 of 2011 -4- who allegedly executed the lease deed has since died on 30.8.1988 i.e. before the filing of the suit. Consequently, even if any such lease had been executed the same came to an end with the death of Charan Dass. For this reason as well, the defendant has no right to retain the possession of the suit land. Thirdly, Charan Dass allegedly obtained permission from the Government for leasing out of the suit land. One of the conditions of the said permission was that land of Dera would be leased out for agricultural purpose only. In the instant case, however, the suit land is 8 biswas only and the same has not been leased out for agricultural purpose. It is defendant's own version that he has raised construction of residential house in the suit land. Consequently, the condition of the permission granted by the Government to Charan Dass to lease out the land of the Dera has also been violated. For this reason also the defendant has no right to continue in possession of the suit land. No necessity for leasing out suit land for 99 years is also established. For this added reason also the alleged lease became invalid. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below for decreeing suit does not warrant interference in second appeal because the said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and law and is supported by reasons and is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or Regular Second Appeal No. 1928 of 2011 -5- misappreciation of evidence. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. The appeal is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) May 12, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'