Mahesh Grover,J.
C.M.No.11636-C of 2009
The application is allowed as prayed for.
R.S.A.No.3802 of 2009& C.M.No.11637-C of 2009
This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and
decrees dated 13.8.2008 and 19.8.2009 passed respectively by the
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat (hereinafter described as
`the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Panipat (referred to
hereinafter as `the first appellate Court') whereby the suit and the appeal of
the plaintiffs-appellants have been dismissed.The appellants had filed a suit for declaration pleading that
Murti Thakur Ji, Mandir Thakur Dwara at village Barana is possessed of
certain properties which were being managed by its Mahants. A dispute
broke out earlier regarding the management of the properties by the said
Mahants and the same was decided by the Collector, Karnal to the extent
that the properties will vest in Murti Thakur Ji and their management will be
done by the elected body of the village voters, i.e., Gram Panchayat and that
all beneficiaries and worshippers were entitled to participate in the
management and for betterment of the religious institution. Thereafter,
there has been no dispute regarding the appointment of trustees.
According to the appellants, the religious institution is owner
and in possession of 647 kanals of agricultural land which has been
mutated in the name of Mandir Thakurji vide mutation no.1508 by the
Assistant Collector IInd Grade as per the orders of the Deputy
Commissioner, Karnal in case No.93 of 1985-86 decided on 27.11.1986.
The appellants had averred that earlier to that, a suit came to be
filed by Chelas of Dharam Dass regarding some property (measuring 112
kanals 18 marlas of land ) belonging to Mandir Thakurji to whom the claim
had been laid by them and that suit was dismissed on 24.10.1981, but in
appeal, the matter was compromised and a decree was obtained by the said
Chelas, namely, Ram Dass, Baru Dass and Ram Narain. The revenue
entries were changed in their names on the basis of this compromise qua
the said property to the extent of 1/3rd share each vide mutation no.1907.
It was alleged that Ram Narain Dass sold 55 kanals and marlas of land out of the land so mutated in his name vide sale deed dated
9.10.1998 in favour of defendant-respondent no.1, namely, Bhullan, for a
consideration of Rs.4,70,000/-, whereas Ram Dass alienated 37 kanals 13
marlas of land vide sale deed dated 2.2.1999 in favour of defendantrespondent
no.2, Ved Parkash, for a consideration of Rs.4,90,000/-. It was
pleaded that these sale deeds as well as mutations sanctioned on their basis
are null & void as Ram Narain Dass and Ram Dass had no right to sell the
property of Mandir Thakurji. The mortgage created qua some of the land in
dispute had also been challenged by the appellants.
In addition, the appellants had also challenged mutation
no.1340 sanctioned on 26.12.1972 on the basis of the registered will of
Baba Dharam Dass being illegal, null & void.
Gram Panchayat, Barana, who was impleaded as defendant no.1
in the suit, appeared and filed a separate written statement pleading that the
land in dispute is not covered by mutation no.1508 and denied all other
averments of the appellants.
Ram Narain Dass, Ram Dass, Bhullan, Ved Parkash and legal
heirs of Baru Dass, who were arrayed as defendant nos. 2 to 12, filed a
joint written statement, resisting the suit, who, apart from taking objections
regarding its maintainability etc., pleaded that there was no dispute
regarding 647 kanals of land which was subject-matter of mutation no.1508
in favour of Mandir Thakurji, but defended mutation no.1907 sanctioned in
favour of Ram Dass, Ram Narain Dass and Baru Dass. It was pleaded that
the land covered by mutation no.1907 belonged to Baba Dharam Dass and
not to Mandir Thakurji. The decree passed in favour of Ram Dass, Ram
Narain Dass and Baru Dass was stated to be not collusive and it was averred
that the property covered by the said decree was distinct and had been
bifurcated and segregated from the property of the Mandir Thakurji. It was
further averred that the land in dispute was firstly mutated in favour of
Dharam Dass and subsequently in favour of his Chelas, namely, Ram
Narain Dass, Ram Dass & Baru Dass as per law. The alienation and
mortgage of some of the property in dispute was also stated to be justified.
1. Whether the mutation No.1340 dated 26.12.1972 is
illegal?OPP
2. Whether the sale deeds dated 9.10.1988 and 2.2.1999 and
mutation no.1943 are null and void?OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD
4. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary
parties?OPD
5. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD
6. Whether proper court fees has not been affixed?OPD
7. Whether the suit is barred under Section 92 CPC?OPD
8. Relief.
After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court
as well as the first appellate Court concluded that the property in question
did not belong to Mandir Thakurji, whereas 647 kanals of land was
undisputedly owned by it. It was further concluded that the property in
question was standing in the name of Dharam Dass in his personal capacity
and which was never challenged by Mandir Thakurji and which,later on,
devolved upon by Ram Narain Dass, Ram Dass and Baru Dass and that the
same was rightfully alienated by them. Consequently, the suit and the
appeal of the appellants were dismissed.
Feeling dis-satisfied with the findings of the Courts below, the
appellants, who are residents of the village, have filed the instant appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants have contended that the suit
land belonged to Mandir Thakurji and Baba Dharam Dass had no concern
with the same and consequently, his Chelas, namely, Ram Narain Dass, Ram
Dass and Baru Dass derived no right qua it. He argued that the findings
recorded by the Courts below are perverse and deserve to be set aside as
there was sufficient evidence on record to prove that Mandir Thakurji was
the owner of the suit property.
I have thoughtfully considered the contentions of the learned
counsel for the appellants and have perused the lower Courts' records which
was summoned.
The revenue record speaks in favour of the respondents. Baba
Dharam Dass died in the year 1972 and mutation no.1340 was sanctioned on
the basis of a registered will left by him. Thereafter, the suit property
which was his personal one, devolved upon his rightful Chelas which was
never questioned ever since. Later on, the same was mutated in favour of
Ram Narain Dass, Ram Dass and Baru Dass vide mutation no.1907. It was
established that the land comprised in Khewat Nos. 192, 208 and 209
measuring 647 kanals was mutated in favour of Mandir Thakurji through....
Mohtmim Baru dass etc. vide mutation no.1508 and the land in dispute was
distinct from this land and was under the ownership of Dharam Dass in his
individual capacity and the same devolved upon his three Chelas, namely,
Ram Narain Dass, Ram Dass and Baru Dass. These findings of fact have
been recorded on the basis of the revenue record and no material has been
shown to this Court from where it can be inferred that the same are
inconsistent with it so as to hold that the conclusion arrived at by the Courts
below is erroneous.
No question of law has been shown to have arisen for
consideration of this Court in the instant appeal which is totally devoid of
any merit and the same is dismissed.
C.M.No.11637-C of 2009 which has been moved for staying
the operation of the impugned judgments is also dismissed in view of the
above.
January 18,2010 ( Mahesh Grover )
“SCM” Judge
