The lease deed executed by the 'Mohatmim' was held to be illegal, null and void, creating no rights in favor of the plaintiff. Unlawful possession cannot be the basis for an injunction against the true owner.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

This Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2005, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Civil Appeal No.22-N/13 of 2002, reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2002 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmuar, whereby suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record, are that on 20.12.1969, the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’), came in possession of the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No.12/15 min, Khasra No.135/1 (now bearing Khata Khatauni No.486 min/609, Khasra No.594/437/269 min), measuring 1 bigha, situated in Devinagar Mohalla in Paonta Sahib Town, District Sirmaur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land), which was owned and possessed by Thakur Dwara Dei Ji Sahiba Mandir (for short the ‘Temple’), on the strength of lease deed, created by ‘‘Mohatmim’ ’ of the Temple Shri Ramanuj for a period of 99 years. It is averred by the plaintiff that the rent was agreed @ Rs.100/- per annum payable every year on 20th June and 20th December, respectively. It is further averred by the plaintiff that possession of the land was delivered to her and since then she is in continuous possession of the suit land and is paying the rent regularly. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the Temple Officer unilaterally cancelled the lease vide his order No.499 dated 4.7.1999 and started interfering in the possession. It is also averred by the plaintiff that she through her attorney Shri Dalip Singh made an application for obtaining copy of order, but neither the Temple Officer nor Patwari Halqua gave copy of the report of Roznamcha No.479 dated 13.8.1999. It is alleged that Temple Officer was not competent and authorized by law to cancel the lease and take forcible possession and as such, order No.499 dated 4.7.1999, is null and void. It is further averred by the plaintiff that she has not been afforded any opportunity of being heard against the order passed by the Temple Officer. It is further averred by the plaintiff that in November, 1999, defendant tried to take forcible possession, but his action was resisted. In this background, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that she is a permanent lessee of the suit land and that the order passed by the Temple Officer cancelling the lease is illegal, void and not binding on her rights. As a consequential relief, she also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession over the suit land.

3. Defendant, by way of filing written statement, refuted the claim of the plaintiff on the grounds of maintainability, locus standi and jurisdiction. On merits, it is alleged by the defendants that the lease deed is illegal, void and that it has already been cancelled for breach of condition No.6. It is also pleaded that lease deed was not for the benefit of temple and it did not create any right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiff. It is claimed that Urmil Gupta has left India and settled in foreign country after 1974 and she is not in possession of the suit property and has not paid rent after 1974. It is further averred by the defendant the ‘Mohatmim’ of the Temple was not competent to execute the lease deed. In nutshell, the defendant refuted the case of the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues for determination:-

“1. Whether order dated 4.7.1999 passed by Temple Officer is illegal. If so, its effect?? OPP.

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction? OPP.

3. Whether plaintiff committed breach of term No.6. If so, its effect? OPD.

4. Whether this court has no jurisdiction in view of section 32 of H.P. Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1984? OPD

5.