RSA No.1808 of 2011 -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1808 of 2011
Date of decision: July 14, 2011.
Partapa
... Appellant(s)
v.
Smadh Baba Dault Giri & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Shri Arvind Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant(s).
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral):
This is defendants’ regular second appeal. The plaintiff –
Smadh Baba Dault Giri through its Mahant/Mohatmin Shambhu Giri Chela
Narain Giri had instituted a suit seeking a decree for declaration to the effect
that the lease deed Ex.P2 is non-est and void ab-initio as Mahant Santosh
Giri Chela Sunder Giri, who was Manager of the Dera, could not execute
lease deed in favour of the appellant-defendant.
It is averred that Santosh Giri Chela Sunder Giri was succeeded
by Narain Giri and present Mahant Shambhu Giri chela Narain Giri had
succeeded Narain Giri. It was pleaded by the plaintiff in the suit that
Santosh Giri Chela Sunder Giri had executed a lease deed No.307/1 dated
25.5.1973 in favour of the defendants. According to the plaintiff, Santosh
Giri Chela Sunder Giri was not competent to create a lease for a period of
30 years on a meagre amount of Rs.100/- per annum.
On notice, appellant-defendant appeared and filed a written
RSA No.1808 of 2011 -: 2 :-
statement. He questioned the locus standi of plaintiff No.2 to file the suit.
It was further stated that dispute regarding succession of defendant No.2 to
the office of Mohatmin is challenged by one Harnand Giri Chela Mahant
Narain Giri. Another plea was raised that the suit is barred by way of
limitation.
Learned trial court relied upon various judgments to hold that
Mahant of a Dera can alienate property only in case of an unavoidable
necessity. The court further relied upon Iqbal Singh v. Santokh Singh &
anr. AIR 1984 P&H 366 to hold that power of Mahant regarding alienation
of property of a Dera are similar to those of a Hindu widow.
The trial court further held that the defendants have failed to
prove that the land was leased out to them 30 years ago due to some legal
necessity. The lower appellate court negated this argument by holding that
a property has been transferred without a legal necessity, cause of action
accrued on each day till it is set aside. Counsel for the appellant has very
fairly stated that on identical facts another regular second appeal bearing
No.1807 of 2011 (Satpal v. Smadh Baba Daulat Giri) has been dismissed.
Counsel has stated that it will be difficult for him to persuade this Court to
take a contrary view.
Concurrent findings of fact have been returned by the courts
below. No question of law, much less substantial, has been projected before
me which may arise for interference.
Hence, the present appeal is dismissed in limine.
[Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia]
July 14, 2011. Judge
kadyan