Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 861 (PNJ)

Siya Ram Hanuman Mandir Sabha v. Mahant Ram Dass

2003-07-02

VINEY MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present revision petition is directed against order dated March 13, 1995 passed by the learned executing Court dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner-Society. A suit for declaration, possession and consequential relief of permanent injunction was filed by the decree holder-respondent No. 1 Mahant Ram Dass Chela Garib Dass against the defendant judgment debtor - Charan Dass. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated June 7, 1978. An appeal was filed against the aforesaid judgment and the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment and decree dated February 7, 1980 accepted the said appeal and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. A decree for declaration was granted by the first appellate Court to the effect that the mutation in favour of the defendant was illegal. However, other relief claimed by the plaintiff was declined. Two separate appeals were filed before this Court being RSAs No. 1377 and 2013 of 1980 by the plaintiff as well as the de-fendant, respectively. This court vide its judgment dated April 12, 1989 allowed RSA No. 2013 of 1980 whereas RSA No. 1377 of 1980 was dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge was modified to the extent that the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for declaration that he was validly elected Mahant of the Mandir and he is entitled to control the affairs of the mandir in that capacity and the plaintiff was also granted the relief of injunction to the effect that the defendant cannot interfere in the management of the institution by the plaintiff in his capacity as mahant-Thereafter, an execution petition was filed by the plaintiff-decree holder against the defendant-judgment debtor. Ultimately after a long drawn contest, the judgment debtor made a statement before the learned executing Court that he would have no objection to the plaintiff-decree holder controlling and managing the affairs of the mandir as a ma-hanr and that he would not interfere in the affairs of the mandir in any manner. At that stage, an objection petition was filed by the present petitioner-Shri Siya Ram Hanuman Mandir Sabha (Regd.) Brahaman Wara, Ward No. 6, Baliabgarh. At that stage, an objection petition was filed by the present petitioner-Shri Siya Ram Hanuman Mandir Sabha (Regd.) Brahaman Wara, Ward No. 6, Baliabgarh. In the objection petition the petitioner-society claimed that in fact it was controlling and managing the affairs pertaining to a mandir known as Shri Siya Ram Hanuman Mandir, Ward No. 6, Brahman Wara Baliabgarh and under the garb of a decree passed in connection with one Chhatri Wala Mandir, the plaintiff-decree holder was trying to take forcible possession and control of the objector-Society over the said mandir situated in Ward No. 6, Brahaman Wara, Baliabgarh. 2. The learned executing Court vide the impugned order has rejected the aforesaid objection petition filed by the petitioner-Society. 3. Accordingly, the aforesaid order passed by the learned executing Court has been challenged by the petitioner-Society through the present revision petition. At this stage, it may be relevant to notice that the suit which was filed by the plaintiff-decree holder was to the following effect: "Suit for a decree to the effect that the plaintiff being a Mahant himself of Mandir Hai Brahm Dass Wala and Mokhar Wala alias Jumna Dass Wala of village Chhainsa belonging to Vaishnu Rama Nandi Bairagi Sect. is entitled to manage the Mandir Chhatriwala and properties attached to it on Muafi etc. situated at Ballabgarh, Tehsil Ballabgarh and is also entitled to claim and manage, compensation for the agricultural lands of Ajronda since acquired by the Haryana State attached to the said Mandir Chhatriwala with consequential relief that the mutation of inheritance No. 222 decided on 17.4.1972 of deceased Mahant Sia Ram Dass of Mandir Chhatriwala being void ab-initio and illegal; defendant be restrained from assuming Mahantship of said Mandir Chhatriwala and to manage properties attached to the said Mandir and claiming and managing the said compensation amount from the Land Acquisition Officer, Faridabad with costs of this suit." 4. Shri Arun Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Society has submitted that in fact the learned executing Court completely ignored the fact that suit in question was only with regard to one Mandir Chhatriwala at Ballabgarh whereas in execution of the aforesaid decree mandir known as Shri Siya Ram Hanuman Mandir situated in Ward No. 6, Ballabgarh was sought to be controlled and taken possession of. Shri Jain has further submitted that in fact the aforesaid Mandir-Shri Siya Ram Hanuman Mandir was in exclusive possession and control of the petitioner-society. Shri Jain has further submitted that the learned executing Court under some contusion has not even cared to notice that the two mandirs were separate and distinct properties. According to Mr. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner-Society it was necessary for the executing Court to fix the identity of the property under dispute. On the other hand Shri Adarsh Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-decree holder has submitted that in "fact decree in question pertained to the property which was known as Mandir Chhatriwala temple, Ballabgarh and according to him the two names i.e. Shri Siya Ram Hanuman Mandir Sabha, Ward No. 6, Ballabgarh and Mandir Chhatri Wala, Ballabgarh are two names of one and the same temple. 5. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the entire controversy raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the aforesaid controversy cannot be resolved without evidence on the record. Since the parties were seriously contesting the issue with regard to the identity of the suit property, it was necessary for the executing court to have framed issue in this regard and thereafter provide opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective stands. Because of not adopting of the aforesaid course; the case is unnecessarily dragging for a period of last eight years. 6. In view of the above discussion, the order dated March 13, 1995 passed by the executing Court, Faridabad is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned executing Court to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the aforesaid observations- The learned executing Court shall now frame the necessary issues arising from the objection petition and the reply thereof and thereafter afford opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence. The learned executing court shall fix two effective dates for the evidence of the objector-petitioner. Similarly two dates would be fixed for leading evidence of the decree-holder. It is made clear that though the court assistance for summoning the official witnesses shall be provided but the service of the aforesaid witnesses would be the sole responsibility of the respective parties themselves. Similarly two dates would be fixed for leading evidence of the decree-holder. It is made clear that though the court assistance for summoning the official witnesses shall be provided but the service of the aforesaid witnesses would be the sole responsibility of the respective parties themselves. No further opportunity than the two effective dates, as mentioned above would be given to the parties. After conclusion of the evidence, the learned executing Court shall decide the objection petition on the basis of the evidence on record. 7. The present petition is disposed of accordingly. 8. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the executing Court on September 16, 2003.