R.S.A. No.3369 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
R.S.A. No.3369 of 2008
Date of Decision:30.10.2008
Maghar Ram and others
.....Appellants
Vs.
Sital Singh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. Kuljit Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
****
HARBANS LAL, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment/ decree dated
7.6.2008 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge,
Jalandhar whereby he dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment/
decree dated 20.4.2007 rendered by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Jalandhar, whereby she dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with no
order as to costs.
The facts are these: Previously, Maghar Ram, Dalip Chand,
Pritam Dass, Simar Dass, plaintiffs were the owners in possession of the
plot in dispute. In the month of March, 1998, they donated the said plot for
the purpose of constructing Shri Guru Ravi Dass Gurudwara. The
foundation stone was laid by a religious Guru in the presence of general
public. The same was converted into a building in the shape of the
aforesaid gurudwara in which holy Guru Granth Sahib has been installed.
The defendants are unnecessarily trying to interfere in the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and want to sabotage and
demolish some portion of the Gurudwara. On these allegations, this suit has
R.S.A. No.3369 of 2008 -2-
been filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering in any way in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of religious
place/ Shri Guru Ravi Dass Gurudwara being commonly used by the
plaintiffs and other community members and further restraining them from
sabotaging or demolishing any portion thereof. In their written statement,
the defendants have come up with the plea that some persons through their
ring leader Commrade Balwant Singh of Village Bundian tried to grab the
adjoining common property bearing Khasra No.103 measuring 4 marlas
“gair Mumkin Chahi Abndshi” including street 2 karam on north portion of
the said Khasra between houses of Dalip Chand and Sagli Ram plus portion
2 karams x 5 karam of street bearing khasra No.161. As alleged, there is no
proper demarcation of the suit property nor transfer of the same from the
name of plaintiffs No.1 to 4 in anybody’s name. While traversing other facts
in the plaint, it has been prayed that the suit may be dismissed.
The following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are owner of the suit property
comprised in khasra No.163 measuring 0-4 marlas as
alleged? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled
to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non
compliance of provisions of O. 1, Rule 8 CPC? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the
present suit? OPD
5. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non joinder of
necessary parties? OPD
R.S.A. No.3369 of 2008 -3-
6. Whether the plaintiffs have encroached upon khasra
No.161 and 103 as alleged, if so its effect? OPD
7. Relief.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining
the evidence on record, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. Feeling
aggrieved therewith, the plaintiffs went up in appeal, which has also been
dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar.
Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgment/ decree rendered by the
Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, the present appeal has
been filed by the plaintiffs.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants besides
perusing the findings returned by both the Courts below, with due care and
circumspection.
Mr. Kuljit Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellants urged with great eloquence that both the Courts below have
gravely erred by relying upon only the demarcation report which is full of
illegalities and ambiguities. It is further argued that the Gurudwara has
neither encroached upon any public street in Khasra No.161 or 103, which
is evacuee property and in possession of ad-dharmi community and
furthermore, there is no rasta (passage) in between the house of Sagli Ram
and Dalip Chand and that being so, their findings are liable to be reversed.
I have well considered these submissions. At the cost of
recapitulation of facts, it deserves to be pointed out here that as per version
of the plaintiffs, they being owners of the plot in dispute had donated the
same for the construction of Shri Guru Ravi Dass Gurudwara, but as is
borne out from the judgments recorded by both the Courts below they did
R.S.A. No.3369 of 2008 -4-
not produce and prove any document showing the transfer of the land in
dispute in favour of Gurudwara. They also did not produce any gift deed in
support of their such plea. As per jamabandi for the year 1995-96 produced
by the plaintiffs No.1 to 4, they are still owners of the land comprised in
Khasra No.163 with which the defendants have no concern. It is the
specific plea of the plaintiffs that in the month of March, 1998 they donated
the land in dispute for the above-mentioned purpose. They have not
adduced any transfer/ gift deed revealing transfer or donation of the
disputed land in favour of the said Gurudwara or the mutation sanctioned on
the basis of such documents. The learned trial Court has observed that the
Rasta allegedly comprised in Khasra No.161 never crossed Khasra No.163
belonging to the plaintiffs. There is no rasta (passage) in between the
houses of Sagli Ram as well as Dalip Chand. They also did not take the
pains to get the land bearing Khasra No.161, 103 and 163 demarcated. It
has been observed that the plaintiffs have encroached upon Khasra No.103
and 161 which is not their ownership.
In view of the above discussion, the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the appellants pale into insignificance. This apart, no
substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court in this
appeal. Sequelly, this appeal is dismissed.
October 30, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE
