Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2249 (PNJ)

Gurdawara Sahib, Barnala v. Tarsem Lal

2010-08-05

L.N.MITTAL

body2010
JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- CM No. 14666.C of 2009 For reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 57 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM No. 14667.C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. RSA No. 4963 of 2009 Plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. 2. Suit was filed by appellants i.e. Gurdwara Sahib, Lakwinder Singh and Surinder Singh against respondent Tarsem Lal alleging that the suit land measuring 8 marlas is site reserved for Gurdwara Sahib plaintiff no. 1. Plaintiffs no. 2 and 3 being Sikhs are entitled to defend the property of plaintiff no. 1 Gurdwara Sahib. Defendant threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs forcibly from the suit property. Accordingly, plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering with the suit site reserved for plaintiff no. 1 Gurdwara Sahib. In the alternative, plaintiffs also sought relief of possession of the disputed site. 3. The defendant resisted the suit and inter alia pleaded that Gram Panchayat was owner of the suit land and it was reserved for common purposes during consolidation of holdings. In the year 1975, Gram Panchayat by passing resolution gave the suit land to temple and accordingly temple was constructed there. The said temple is of Arya Samaj Mandir. Therefore, Arya Samaj Mandir which is owner in possession of the suit property since the year 1975 is necessary party to the suit. Defendant is not in possession of the suit property. Earlier also similar suit was filed by Gurdwara Sahib plaintiff no. 1 but the same was dismissed. The instant suit is barred by resjudicata. Allegations of the plaintiffs were denied. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 21.8.2006 dismissed the plaintiffs suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Tract Court, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 13.1.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 6. Earlier suit by Gurdwara Sahib plaintiff no. 1 was filed along with Piara Singh who is none else but uncle of Lakwinder Singh plaintiff no. 2. The said suit was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 6. Earlier suit by Gurdwara Sahib plaintiff no. 1 was filed along with Piara Singh who is none else but uncle of Lakwinder Singh plaintiff no. 2. The said suit was dismissed. Consequently, the instant second suit is barred by resjudicata as the suit is virtually on behalf of Gurdwara Sahib only and the earlier suit was also by Gurdwara Sahib. 7. In addition to the aforesaid, the plaintiffs have intentionally taken false plea that defendant was threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property. On the other hand, as per evidence of both the parties, Mandir is existing in the suit property since the year 1975 i.e. for almost three decades before filing of the instant suit. Even electricity connection was obtained on 24.3.1975 in the name of Mandir. In spite of these hard facts, the plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of the suit property and sought permanent injunction. The plaintiffs are, thus, not entitled to any relief. 8. Defendant is not in possession of the suit property but the suit has been filed against him. On the other hand, Arya Samaj Mandir is in possession of the suit property but Arya Samaj Mandir has not been impleaded as party in spite of objection raised by the defendant. In this context it is significant to notice that in the previous suit Arya Samaj Mandir was also party but in spite thereof Arya Samaj Mandir has not been impleaded as party to the instant suit although said Mandir is in existence in the suit property for almost three decades before the filing of the suit. 9. Plaintiffs no. 2 and 3 appeared in the witness box but their self serving oral statements are not sufficient to prove that the disputed site is of Gurdwara Sahib. No document has been produced to depict that the suit land was reserved for Gurdwara Sahib or was allotted for this purpose. On the other hand, in revenue record, Mustarka Malkan is recorded to be owner of the suit property. Consequently, plaintiff no. 1 has no claim over the suit property as there is no document on record to depict its allotment to plaintiff no. 1 Gurdwara Sahib in any manner. On the other hand, in revenue record, Mustarka Malkan is recorded to be owner of the suit property. Consequently, plaintiff no. 1 has no claim over the suit property as there is no document on record to depict its allotment to plaintiff no. 1 Gurdwara Sahib in any manner. Entry in the revenue record depicting possession of plaintiff no. 1 Gurdwara Sahib over the suit land is of no evidentiary value when admittedly plaintiff no. 1 is not in possession thereof. The said entries in the revenue record are, thus, against the factual position. On the other hand, Mandir is in existence in the suit property since the year 1975. Consequently, on the basis of entries in the revenue record depicting possession of plaintiff no. 1 over the suit property, no relief can be granted to the plaintiffs as the said revenue entries are factually incorrect. Plaintiffs no. 2 and 3 while appearing in the witness box have admitted the existence of temple in the suit property and existence of electricity connection therein for which relevant record was also produced from the Electricity Board. Possession of the temple over the suit property was also admitted by plaintiff no. 3 but in spite thereof, Mandir has not been sued. 10. Resolution of Gram Panchayat has also been produced whereby the suit land was given to Arya Samaj Mandir. Plaintiff no. 2 while appearing as witness in the earlier suit also admitted that temple and also temple’s school exist in the suit property and temple is in possession thereof since the year 1975. Thus, the entire claim of the plaintiffs is unfounded and based on false assertions. 11. Both the courts below have come to concurrent finding against the plaintiffs. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is fully justified by evidence on record and is supported by detailed reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely frivolous and vexatious and is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.