JUDGMENT
N.K. Aggarwal, J.
1. This is a revision petition by the plaintiffs against the orders dated December 18, 1993 and December 9, 1997 passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Ambala City and Ihe Additional District Judge. Ambala, respectively under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. Civil Procedure Code.
2. The plaintiffs filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the management of and possession over the properly helonging to the Thakur Dawara at Village Adhoya Hinduan, District Ambala. The plaintiffs No. I and 2 claimed to be the Chcias of Mahant Prayag Dass. The said Mahant had died on May 22, 1992. He was managing the Thakur dwara, Mnndit and the properties of the Thakur Dwara as Mohatmim. The Mahant appointed plaintiffs No. I and 2 as his Chelas by executing a registered will. Thus, the plaintiffs claim that they have been appointed as the successors of the deceased mahant in accordance with the practice and tradition of the Beragi community, They are authorised to manage the property after the death of Mahant Paryag Dass. They, being the duly appointed Mohatmim of the Thakur Dwara, have a right to retain possession of the property. It has also been stated that a civil suit had been earlier filed by the Gram Panchayat claiming the property in question to be the property of the Gram Panchayat. That was a suit for ejectment under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. That suit was dismissed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on March 31, 1991. The Gram Panchayat went in appeal before the Collector but that was also dismissed on July 5,1992. The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants being former members of the Gram Panchayat wanted to usurp the property of the Thakur Dwara and they threatened the plaintiffs with dis-possession.
3. Sub Judge 1st Class, Ambala ordered the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to the possession over the property of the Thakur Dawara. The plaintiffs as well as the defendants went in appeal against the said order. The Additional District Judge, Ambala, noticed that both the parties are claiming possession over the suit property and it was not possible to find as to which party was in possession of which land. Certain lands situated in Village Adhoya, Thambadand Tolawaliare said to be in possession of a Committee constituted by some villagers. The Additional District Judge, therefore, upheld the order of status quo passed by the Sub Judge.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners has argued that there was no dispute with regard to the management and control of the Thakur Dwara and its properties till Mahant Paryag Dass was alive. He was managing the property as a Mohatmim. The dispute arose only after his death. The land in question is a Muafi land. Proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, were initiated and Tehsildar, Ambala, was appointed as a Receiver and Superdar with respect to the properties of the Thakur Dwara. The High Court has vacated the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that the plaintiffs also filed a complaint before the Chief Minister alleging therein that the defendants were taking forcible possession of the properties of the Thakur Dwara. Since plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 have been duly appointed as Chelas by the Ex-Mahant, they have every right to manage the affairs of the Thakur Dawara.
5. Learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has, on the other hand, contended that the plaintiffs have no right in the properties at all. they have not been duly appointed as Mohatnums. They are neither the owner nor in possession over the suit property. Paryag Dass had been actually appointed as a khidmatgar of the Thakur Dwara by the villagers. Paryag Dass was not the Mohalmim. He was managing the properties as a kiiidmatgar. He had no right, tide or interest in the suit property. As per the practice and tradition, the villagers had appointed Paryag Dass as the khidmatgar for looking after the properties of the Thakur Dwara and the Mandir. Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 were not in possession of any property. The property of the Thakur Dwara is owned by the Thakur Dwara. The respectable persons of the village have constituted a Committee for looking after the affairs of the Thakur Dawara. The said Committee is now comrolling and managing the properties. The Committee has also auctioned most of the land. It is alleged that the plaintiffs are wrongly claiming themselves to be the chelas of Paryag Dass. They have never been appointed as such. They are married persons and are not competent to be appointed as Chelas. They simply want to usurp the land. Since the property in question was not the personal property of Mahant Paryag Dass and he was not the owner, he had no power to appoint plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 as his successor-in-interest.
6. It has also been stated by the defendants that the Superintendent of Police, Ambala, sent a report to the D.I.G. to the effect that the plaintiffs claiming to be chelas as well as the Members of the Committee are trying to usurp the land with ulterior motives. Neither party had bond fide intention. At his instance proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code, were initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ambala.
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners had placed reliance on a decision of Ihe Madras High Court in D. Albert v. Lalitha and others, 1989 Civil Court Cases 559 (Madras). It has been held therein that where both the parties were claiming to be in possession the Court should not pass an order of stains-quo, The Court must decide as to which party is in possession. Drawing strength from the said decision, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners has argued
that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court were in error in ordering status-quo. The Court should have accepted the plaintiffs’ plea that they were in posses* sion.
8. Learned counsel for the defendant-respondents has, on the other hand, placed reliance on two decisions of this Court. In Guru Nanak Education Trust (Segd.) and others v. Sh. Balbir Stngh and others, 1995 PLJ 207:1995(3) RRR 722 (PAH), it has been held that the appellate Court should not interfere with the order passed by the trial Court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, unless it is noticed that the lower Court acted arbitrarily or perversely. The mere possibility of the appellate Court coming to a different conclusion on the same facts and evidence was not sufficient to justify interference by the appellate Court. In Man Singh v. H.S. Ko-hll (Harbhajan Singh Kohli), 1997(2) Recent Civil Reports (Civil) 370, similar view has been reiterated with the observation that the appellate Court will not interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court in deciding an application under Order 39 Rule 1, unless the findings of the trial court on which the order has been passed are perverse or suffer from patent illegality or the trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.
9. On a consideration of the controversy, it is found that the practice and tradition for appointing a Chela and Mohatmim for the purposes of the management of the Thakur Dwara are yet to be determined after recording evidence of both the parties by the trial Court. It cannot be stated at this stage as to how Paryag Dass had appointed plaintiffs No. 3 and 2 as the Chelas by a will. It has also been seen that the Collector has rejected the ejectment application filed by the Gram Panchayat against Mahant Paryag Dass. He had held in the appeal that Paryag Dass was the Mohatmim of the Thakur Dwara and was holding the properties as such. The report of the Superintendent of Police sent to the D.I.G. gives rise to an apprehension that there could be a breach of peace as bom the parties, namely, the plaintiffs and the defendants, are trying to usurp the land of the Thakur Dawara. The possession of some land situated in villages Adhoya, Thambad and Tolawali is said to have been taken over by the Members of the village Committee forcibly. These are the circumstances which prevented the civil Courts from allowing the plaintiffs’ application. Status-quo has been ordered inasmuch as the situation is unclear. Both the parties are claiming to be empowered to control the affairs of the Thakur Dwara. Since the land in question is a Muafi land, the control and management of the land have to be in proper hands. The question as to who is competent to control and manage the affairs is to be decided after recording the evidence of the parties. At this stage, no view can be expressed in favour of either of the parties. The order of status-quo does not, therefore, call for any interference.
10. In the result, the revision petition is found to have no merit. It is, therefore, dismissed.