Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 457 (UTT)

TIRATH RAM SAHNI v. KRISHAN KUMAR SHARMA

2007-08-22

B.C.KANDPAL, DHARMA VEER

body2007
Judgment Coram : Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This appeal, U/S 96 C.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.5.2004, passed by Additional District Judge/III F.T.C., Haridwar, in O.S. No. 262/2001, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreased for permanent injunction and the counter claim of the defendants was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants for permanent prohibitory injunction. According to the plaintiff Krishan Kumar he is owner in possession of the property shown at the end of the plaint, i.e. Dharamshala named as Jindal Ahata situated at Bara Bazar Haridwar. The plaintiff makes arrangements of stay etc of the pilgrims/Yajmans in the disputed property. Pandit Govind Ram, grand father of the plaintiff, executed the will dated 4.3.1918 with regard to disputed property in favour of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff got constructed four rooms on the first floor in the year 1954. Thereafter, the plaintiff got constructed latrine etc on the disputed property. The father of the plaintiff also executed will dated 20.11.1963 pertaining to the disputed property in favour of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff has died on 25.2.1962 and thereafter the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the property in dispute. It is also alleged that the plaintiff and his ancestors have been in possession of the property in dispute from before 50 years and they have perfected the ownership rights over the same. The plaintiff and his ancestors have been peacefully using the property with the knowledge of the defendants and their ancestors but they have never challenged the exercising rights of the plaintiffs pertaining to the disputed property. The plaint case further is that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 often visit Haridwar and used to stay in the disputed Dharamshala and the defendant No. 5 has a bad-eye over the disputed property from before a long period. Before filing the suit, the defendants threatened the plaintiff to execute sale deed of the property in their favour, otherwise they will prepare forged documents of the property in their favour and will throw him away from it with the help of the police. On 13.6.1997 also the defendants made efforts to take forcible possession of the property. Before filing the suit, the defendants threatened the plaintiff to execute sale deed of the property in their favour, otherwise they will prepare forged documents of the property in their favour and will throw him away from it with the help of the police. On 13.6.1997 also the defendants made efforts to take forcible possession of the property. On 14.6.1997 the plaintiff sent telegrams to S.P. Haridwar and other authorities in this regard. The plaintiff sought relief of permanent prohibitory injunction directing the defendants not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the disputed property. 3. The defendants 1 to 4 contested the suit by filing written statement as well as the counter claim. They denied the rights of the plaintiff and his ancestors over the property in dispute. According to them Late Bhagirath Lal, father of the plaintiff, used to look after the property on behalf of the defendants / trustees. Whatever work he had done, that was done as a caretaker. Bhagirath Lal is not the son of Pandit Govind Ram. Govind Ram was Pandit of the defendants. Suraj Mal was one of the son of Govind Ram, who was married with Smt. Ratan Devi. Suraj Mal has died in the life time of Govind Ram and after the death of Govind Ram in 1921 the whole property was devolved to Smt. Ratan Devi. In Mohalla Imali Kankhal Govind Ram had a house over which Smt. Ratan Devi was recorded as owner, Bhagirath Lal never raised any objection to it. With regard to another house situated at Kankhal there arose dispute between the plaintiff and his mother Smt. Kalawati on the one hand and Smt. Shanti Devi and others on the other. Suit No. 236/87 was filed before Munsif Haridwar in which plaintiff and his mother filed joint W.S. and alleged that Bhagirath Lal was adopted son of Pandit Govind Ram and after the death of Govind Ram the plaintiff became owner in possession of house situated at Kankhal. The wills dated 4.3.1918 and 20.11.1963 are forged documents. According to the defendants before partition, there was a District Atak in undivided India, which at present exists in Pakistan. In Atak District there was an area named as Kaimbalpur, in which there was a Khukhrayan Community. The people of the said community used to worship Ganges and come to Haridwar. The wills dated 4.3.1918 and 20.11.1963 are forged documents. According to the defendants before partition, there was a District Atak in undivided India, which at present exists in Pakistan. In Atak District there was an area named as Kaimbalpur, in which there was a Khukhrayan Community. The people of the said community used to worship Ganges and come to Haridwar. At Haridwar often they felt difficulty for stay etc., therefore, the Kohali, Bhasin, Sahani and Anand families prepared Jandal Bhawan which is the disputed Dharamshala. In the Jandal area the panditai wok on behalf of Smt. Ratan Devi was being performed by Bhagirath Lal. The trustees of the Dharamshala permitted Bhagirath Lal to lookafter the Dharamshala, but the control over the property was of the trustees. In the year 1935 there was settlement at Haridwar and in absence of the trustees Bhagirath Lal got recorded the Dharamshala (Khasra Nos. 295 and 297) along with the appurtenant property in his name. Bhagirath Lal got entered his name as Manager over the property in dispute in the Municipality Haridwar. The defendants alleged that the property in dispute is being looked-after by the trustees of Khukhrayan Community. The defendants also alleged that the plaintiff used to collect the donation from the pilgrims of Dharamshala and issue the receipts of them. The case of the defendants is that the plaintiff is doing the work in the Dharamshala as a Care-taker/Manager. The defendants claimed the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction directing the plaintiff not to interfere in the management and conduction of the disputed property and in the alternative if felt necessary the possession be handed over to the defendants. It was also prayed that the plaintiff be asked to give the details of income and expenditure of the Dharamshala/disputed property and the income of the trust be handed over to them by the plaintiff. 4. Plaintiff also filed written statement against the counter claim and denied the assertions made in it. He alleged that the property is not trust property. The counter claim is barred by the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6-A and 6-B C.P.C and sections 34 and 41 of Specific Relief Act. Plea of court fee and valuation was also taken by the plaintiff. 5. Defendants also filed replication and reiterated the facts of the counter claim. 6. He alleged that the property is not trust property. The counter claim is barred by the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6-A and 6-B C.P.C and sections 34 and 41 of Specific Relief Act. Plea of court fee and valuation was also taken by the plaintiff. 5. Defendants also filed replication and reiterated the facts of the counter claim. 6. The learned Additional District Judge on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the sole owner in possession of the disputed property, given at the end of the plaint?. 2. Whether the defendants are trying to interfere illegally in the possession of the plaintiff over the property in disputed? If so, its effect?. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit?. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief?. 5. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of party, as alleged in para 9 of W.S. 11-Ka-1?.. 6. Whether the disputed property mentioned at the end of the plaint is the property of Waqf Banam Dharamshala? 7. Whether the plaintiff has no ownership right over the disputed property of his being Manager of the same? 8. Whether the defendants are the trustees of the disputed property?. 9. Whether the alleged Will dated 20-11-63 of Bhagirath Lal Sharma is forged one? If so, its effect?. 10. Whether the counter claim of defendants 1 to 4 is barred by the provisions of Section 34 and 41 of Specific Relief Act?. 11. Whether the counter claim filed by defendants 1 to 4 legally is not maintainable?. 12. Whether the defendants have devalued the counter claim and less court fee has been paid?. 13. Whether the defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to get the relief claimed in the counter claim? If so, to what relief?. 14. Whether the disputed property is being conducted by defendants 1 to 3 on behalf of Khukhrayan Biradari Charitable Trust? 15. Whether the counter claim is barred by the provisions of Order-8 Rule 6(A) an 6(B) of the C.P.C.? 7. Parties led evidence in support of their claims. Thereafter the learned Addl. District Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record decreed the suit of the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 3 on merit and against defendants No. 5 exparte. 7. Parties led evidence in support of their claims. Thereafter the learned Addl. District Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record decreed the suit of the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 3 on merit and against defendants No. 5 exparte. The defendants were prohibited by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction not to interfere in the peaceful possession and management of the disputed property. As the defendant No. 5 did not take part in the proceedings before the trial Court, the suit was also decreed against him exparte. However, the counter claim filed by the defendants 1 to 4 was dismissed. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants 1 to 4 have preferred this appeal before this Court. 9. The plaintiff/respondent also filed cross-objection against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, challenging the findings on issue Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 9. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the findings of the trial court are self-contradictory as on the one hand it has held that plaintiff was acting only as Manager of the Dharamshala and Dharamshala was a Public Charitable Trust and on the other hand the court passed the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel also submitted that the suit was barred under Section 41 (j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. He also submitted that the trial court failed to consider the facts and evidence adduced by the defendants/appellants thereby committed error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 12. On the other hand the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has opposed the submission raised by the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants and urged that the defendants are not the trustees of the disputed property. The property does not belong to any trust and the plaintiff has perfected his ownership right over the said property and he is sole owner in possession of the same. The learned counsel also challenged the findings of the trial court on issue Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 9. The property does not belong to any trust and the plaintiff has perfected his ownership right over the said property and he is sole owner in possession of the same. The learned counsel also challenged the findings of the trial court on issue Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 9. He also alleged that the plaintiff/respondent is in actual physical possession of the property and in view of Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act he would be deemed owner thereof, burden is on the defendants to prove that the plaintiff, who is in possession is not the owner. The trial Court erred in holding that the plaintiff could not prove his title. 13. To evaluate the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be reasonable to go through the material on record and the finding recorded by the trial court. 14. Perusal of the impugned judgment and decree shows that the trial Court while deciding issue Nos. 1,6,7,8,9 and 14 has held that the plaintiff is not the owner of the disputed property, he was in possession of the same in the capacity of a Manager, the property belongs to Waqf Banam Dharamshala Jindal, the Will dated 20.11.63 executed by late Bhagirath Lal in favour of the plaintiff is not a reliable document and cannot be given effect to, and the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are not the trustees and the management and control of Khukhrayan Community as charitable trust over the disputed property is not established. 15. The disputed property is known with the name of Jindal Ahata. The claim of the plaintiff/respondent is that he inherited the property from his father Bhagirath Lal through will dated 20.11.1963. Bhagirath Lal also inherited the property from Pandit Govind Ram, the grand father of the plaintiff, through Will dated 4.3.1918. According to him Pt. Govind Ram got the property from one Nanak Chand. But no document was filed to show how the property was given to Govind Ram by Nanak Chand. The plaintiff in order to prove this fact has examined himself and his son Vikash Sharma P.W.1. Vikash Sharma, P.W.1 could not tell as to whether Nanak Chand had executed any document in favour of Govind Ram or not. He simply said that the disputed property was got by Govind Ram from Nanak Chand S/o Pannu Ram. The plaintiff in order to prove this fact has examined himself and his son Vikash Sharma P.W.1. Vikash Sharma, P.W.1 could not tell as to whether Nanak Chand had executed any document in favour of Govind Ram or not. He simply said that the disputed property was got by Govind Ram from Nanak Chand S/o Pannu Ram. He deposed that Nanak Chand had died before his birth. The plaintiff could not establish as to how the property came to Govind Ram. So far as the Will dated 4.3.1918 is concerned the defendants/respondents have denied the same and alleged that it is a forged document and was prepared in order to show ownership of the property. The plaintiff could not establish that Govind Ram was the owner of the disputed property and once it is established that Govind Ram was not owner of the property, he had no right to execute the will in favour of Tirath Lal with regard to the property. The name of Pt. Govind Ram was not recorded over the property in dispute in revenue records. According to the plaintiff the will dated 4.3.1918 was executed by Pt. Govind Ram and Kalu Ram and Nimmi alias Hukm Devi have signed it as witnesses. Witness Vikas Kumar, P.W.1, in his cross examination has admitted that perhaps Kalu Ram was the friend of Govind Ram or Bhagirath Lal and Nimmi was the younger sister of Ratan Devi. He has admitted that he had not seen these persons. The so called will dated 20.11.63 was executed by Bhagirath Lal in favour of plaintiff with regard to the property inherited by him from Govind Ram and it was signed by Smt. Kalawati wife of Bhagirath Lal and Sita Ram. All these three persons have also died. It is also important to mention here that according to the Will dated 4.3.1918 paper No. 125-Ka-1, the property of Govind Ram was to devolve to his grand-son. Madan Lal real brother of plaintiff who is alive and therefore, according to the will dated 4.3.1918 the property was to devolve among the plaintiff and his brother Madan Lal. It is also important to mention here that according to the Will dated 4.3.1918 paper No. 125-Ka-1, the property of Govind Ram was to devolve to his grand-son. Madan Lal real brother of plaintiff who is alive and therefore, according to the will dated 4.3.1918 the property was to devolve among the plaintiff and his brother Madan Lal. The trial Court has discussed the point in detail and we are in full agreement with the view taken by the trial Court that the alleged Will dated 4.3.1918 and 20.11.1963 are not reliable documents and cannot be the basis for holding the ownership rights of the plaintiff over the disputed property. 16. So far as the ownership of the property in dispute is concerned, it is an admitted fact that Jindal Area was in undivided India and after partition it is within Pakistan and the people of Jindal Area were of religious nature and used to come to Haridwar, whose Purohits were Smt. Ratan Devi, Pandit Bhagirath Lal and the plaintiff. They were also the Purohits of the defendants. According to the defendants one Pandit Ganga Prasad S/o Suraj Mal sold the disputed property to Jindal Committee through sale deed, true copy of which is paper No. 227-C and the sale deed was registered on 5.7.1921. Harish Chand Sahani, D.W.2 has given the location of the property and alleged that the property was sold to Jindal Committee through registered sale deed. The plaintiff has not challenged the location of the said land. There is mention in the sale deed that the property was mortgaged on 25.3.1918 for five years in favour of Sardarani Nanki Devi. Submission was raised that for this reason the Nindal Community could not have got possession of the property and, therefore, the sale deed of 1921 is void. This submission has no substance. “sale” has been defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which reads as follows:- “54. “Sale” defined. “Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised. Sale how made- Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. “Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised. Sale how made- Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.” 17. The disputed sale deed relates to tangible immoveable property and it is a registered document and in view of the aforesaid provision of law, the sale-deed is a valid document and can be given effect to. The mortgaged property can be redeemed on making payment to the mortgage. The defendants case is that the mortgage money has already been paid and thereafter the sale deed was executed and possession of the property was handed over to the Jindal Committee. Further it is also admitted fact that in 1935 Settlement the disputed property is recorded as Manager Bhagirath Lal of Waqf Banam Dharamshala Jindal R/o Kankhal. The plaintiff has disputed the entry in revenue record but he has not adduced any reliable evidence against the entry made in the settlement of 1935. It is also relevant to note that according to alleged will dated 4.3.1918 Pandit Govind Ram has shown his residence Jindal Ahata Bada Bazar, i.e. the disputed property, whereas before 1921 the owner of the said property was Ganga Prasad son of Suraj Mal and the case of the plaintiff is not that Pandit Govind Ram had purchased the land from Ganga Prasad. It is also not proved that Nanak Chand S/o Punnu Ram, resident of Jindal Area, was the owner of the said property and the same has devolved to Govind Ram. It is also not proved that Nanak Chand S/o Punnu Ram, resident of Jindal Area, was the owner of the said property and the same has devolved to Govind Ram. It is also an admitted fact that Bhagirath Lal, father of the plaintiff, was Purohit of Jindal Area and after purchase of the land the Jindal Committee converted it into a Dharamshala and Bhagirath who was the Purohit was appointed as Manager of the Dharamshala and that may be the reason that the entry in the settlement of 1935 has been made. In this settlement the residential place of Bhagirath Lal has been shown as Kankhal. The plaintiff has deposed that he and his family are residing in the disputed property at Kankhal. The plaintiff has deposed that he and his family are residing in the disputed property and he has no concern with the property at Kankhal. The statement of the plaintiff is against the documentary evidence paper No. 74-C/10 which is assessment paper made on 1.4.1992 relating to the residential place of the plaintiff. Although the witnesses P.W.1, Vikas Sharma, and P.W.2, Ram Kumar Mishra have stated that the plaintiff has been residing on the disputed property, but P.W.4, Chandra Sekhar, witness of the plaintiff, in his cross examination has specifically deposed that three sons of Krishna Kumar Sharma (plaintiff) were born in the house at Kankhal. The daughter of the plaintiff was also born at Kankhal. Paper No. 246-Ka-1 is the birth certificate issued by Health Department, according to which Vikas Sharma (P.W.1) was born in 1970 at Imali Kankhal. Bhagirath Lal father of the plaintiff also died in Kankhal, and in this regard death certificate paper No. 187-Ka-1 has been filed. The above facts clearly establish that Bhagirath Lal and the plaintiff were residing at their house situated at Kankhal and the plaintiff and his witnesses are not deposing true facts regarding the ownership of the disputed property. 18. Plaintiff also filed telephone bill paper No. 14-Ka-1 and water bill 15-Ka-1 and some other bills issued by Municipal Board in the name of the plaintiff. But by issuing bills in the name of the plaintiff cannot entitle him the owner of the property. The plaint case is that the disputed property is a ‘Teerth Purohit Gaddi’. Bahi is maintained there in which names of the pilgrims coming there are entered. But by issuing bills in the name of the plaintiff cannot entitle him the owner of the property. The plaint case is that the disputed property is a ‘Teerth Purohit Gaddi’. Bahi is maintained there in which names of the pilgrims coming there are entered. Plaintiff makes arrangements for their stay etc in the said disputed property. The aforesaid assertion of the plaintiff indicates that the disputed property is a religious place where pilgrims visit and perform the ceremony and plaintiff use to make arrangements for their stay etc in the disputed property like a Manager. We are in agreement with the view taken by the trial Court that the disputed property belongs to Waqf Banam Dharamshala Jindal and the plaintiff is not the owner of the same. The submission of learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent that the plaintiff be deemed owner of the property on the basis of physical possession has no substance. As we have already held that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his title over the disputed property, and he is in possession of the property as Caretaker/Manager, therefore, burden of proof as to ownership was on the plaintiff/respondent to which he has not been able to prove in the present case. 19. Now the next question before us in whether the defendants/appellants are the trustees of the disputed property and the property is being run by Khukhrayan Community Charitable Trust. The defendants 1 to 3 claim themselves to be the trustees of Khukhrayan Biradari Charitable Trust and according to them this trust has taken over the management and control of the disputed Dharamshala in the year 1987 and the plaintiff was removed from the post of Manager and in his place Chaman Lal was appointed as Manager and from that time the property in dispute is in the management and control of Khukhrayan Biradari Charitable Trust. According to 1921 sale deed Lala Diwan Chand, Radha Krishna, Jai Ram and Bishan Das were the members of Jindal Committee. D.W.3, Ved Prakash has deposed that the above Radha Krishna, Narayan Das Jai etc were the member of Jindal Dharamshala upto 1947 and thereafter Ram Lubhaya, Ganga Bishan Bhasin and Sri Ram became the members. This witness could not tell as to how Ganga Bishan Bhasin and Sri Ram became trustees of the Dharamshala. D.W.3, Ved Prakash has deposed that the above Radha Krishna, Narayan Das Jai etc were the member of Jindal Dharamshala upto 1947 and thereafter Ram Lubhaya, Ganga Bishan Bhasin and Sri Ram became the members. This witness could not tell as to how Ganga Bishan Bhasin and Sri Ram became trustees of the Dharamshala. According to defendants Ganga Bishan Bhasin has formed the Khukhrayan Biradari Charitable Trust on 14.1.1984. D.W.2, Harish Chand Sahani in his examination in chief has deposed that in the year 1987 Ganga Bishan Bhasin made a resolution to take the control of the disputed Dharamshala in Khukhrayan Biradari Charitable Trust. The document 34-C was executed in this regard. From the perusal of the said document it is not clear as to in what capacity Ganga Bishan Bhasin has made the said resolution. Although Ganga Bishan Bhasin and Ram Bhasin treat themselves as trustees of the Dharamshala but there is no material on record to give support to this particular fact. Defendants case is that Bhagirath Lal was appointed care-taker of the disputed property and thereafter plaintiff became the care-taker/manager of the property. But they have not filed any reliable evidence to show that in fact they had appointed Bhagirath Lal and thereafter the plaintiff as care-taker of the Dharamshala. Defendants also filed some vouchers in order to prove that Ganga Bishan Bhasin had got constructed the Latrine act in the Dharamshala but D.W.4. Chaman Lal in his cross examination has admitted that these vouchers were issued in the name of Khukhrayan Biradari. Defendants also filed payment vouchers made to mason, painter etc but no one has been examined to prove these vouchers. Statement of Chaman Lal, D.W.4, allegedly the Manager appointed by the defendants, with regard of his being Manager of the Dharamshala is not convincing and is self-contradictory. 20. It is also pertinent to mention here that the defendants/appellants have alleged that on 26.11.87 the Khukhrayan Biradari Charitable Trust was given the management and control over the disputed Dharamshala. D.W.3, Ved Prakash Sahani, in his cross examination has deposed that Waqf Jindal Ahata Dharamshala Trust was terminated on 26.11.87 and the management and control of its property was given to Khukhrayan Biradari Charitable Trust. The document-dated 26.11.87 is not a registered document and in view of the provision of Section 49 of Registration Act it is void. D.W.3, Ved Prakash Sahani, in his cross examination has deposed that Waqf Jindal Ahata Dharamshala Trust was terminated on 26.11.87 and the management and control of its property was given to Khukhrayan Biradari Charitable Trust. The document-dated 26.11.87 is not a registered document and in view of the provision of Section 49 of Registration Act it is void. The defendants also filed letter paper No. 65-Ka-1 and 66-Ka-1 given to Municipal Board by the plaintiff in which it has been alleged that ordinarily the expenses exceed the income of donation, therefore, more money is taken in donation from the owners of the Dharamshala and other rich persons. These papers do not confer the right upon the defendants that they are owners of the Dharamshala. These documents are neither in the name of Ganga Bishan Bhasin nor in the name of Trust or in the name of any of the defendants. The trial Court has given detailed reasons that the defendants are not the trustees of the disputed property. We are also of the considered view that the defendants have not able to establish themselves as the trustees of the disputed Dharamshala and related to the said property in any manner and they have no control over the same. 21. From the evidence on record it is amply proved that the plaintiff in the capacity of Manager is in possession of the disputed Dharamshala. Therefore, the defendants/appellants cannot interfere unauthorizedly in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the disputed property and in the management of the Dharamshala. 22. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the defendant/respondents that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 41(j) of Specific Relief Act, is concerned, it has no substance. Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 forbid grant of injunction when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter. From the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the plaintiff had no personal interest in the disputed property. The plaintiff was in possession of the disputed Dharamshala for a long period. His father was also caretaker of the said Dharamshala. The plaintiff was managing the Dharamshala and his livelihood was depending upon the earning of the Dharamshala hence he had personal interest in the property. The plaintiff was in possession of the disputed Dharamshala for a long period. His father was also caretaker of the said Dharamshala. The plaintiff was managing the Dharamshala and his livelihood was depending upon the earning of the Dharamshala hence he had personal interest in the property. As we have already held the defendants/appellants are not the trustees of the disputed property and they have no concern with it and as the defendants/appellants were trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and management of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be refused injunction with regard to the Dharamshala against the defendants/appellants. 23. For the reasons recorded above, the defendants/appellants cannot be held entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction to hand over them possession and management of the disputed property by the plaintiff. 24. We have also gone through the findings recorded by the trial Court on other issues and we are in full agreement of the findings recorded by the trial Court on these issues and the same do not require any interference by this Court. 25. In view of above discussion the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The cross objection filed by the plaintiff/respondent also lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 26. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The cross-objection filed by the plaintiff/respondent is also dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 29.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/III F.T.C. is hereby upheld. No order as to cost.