Custom requires specific pleading and proof of continuity, certainty, long usage, reasonableness. Second appeals under Section 100 CPC permit no re-appreciation of evidence absent perversity. Fabricated documents rejected; managing committee appointment upheld for public religious property.

The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 20.07.2005, as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Sub Judge-II, Dharamshala dated 31.07.1999 have been affirmed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of learned Sub Judge-II Dharamshala for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that orders dated 25.09.1989 and 29.06.1991 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, whereby defendants No. 1 to 6 were appointed as members of the Managing Committee and an application for cancellation of order dated 25.09.1989 was dismissed, be declared as null and void.

3. It was submitted that the land comprised in Khata No. 247, Khatauni Nos. 587 and 588, Khasra Nos. 2558 to 2562, 2566 & 2567, Plots No.7, measuring 0-54-58 hectares, situated at Mohal Lidbar, Mauza Nagrota, Tehsil and District Kangra, owned by Mandir Balak Rupi under the management of Shankar Gir, Chela Kailash Gir, Chela Ranbir Gir, resident of local place is possessed and cultivated by Mohtmim vide jamabandi for the year 1982-83. It was averred that in fact Balak Rupi is not a Temple and it is a place of ‘Samadhi’ of Gossain Sect. There are 12-13 ‘Samadhi’ and one of ‘Samadhi’ was covered by lintel roof. Neither there is a temple nor there is ‘Charrahat’ of Gossain community at the spot. The general public have no access to this place and the same is exclusively a religious and sacred place of Gossain sect. which is a religious sect. The plaintiff is Chela of Shankar Gir Mohtmim and said Shankar Gir had nominated the plaintiff as Chela during his life time. Said Shankar Gir, Guru of Math, Balak Rupi, died on 07.03.1989 and on his death, the plaintiff stepped into the shoes of his Guru Shankar Gir as Mohtmim of Balak Rupi according to custom and plaintiff’s succession as Mohtmim was also confirmed by the Gossain brotherhood.

4. It was further averred that the defendants/respondents are strangers to the Gossain community. On 06.04.1989 the defendants gathered together and held meeting in which the defendants decided to do something for betterment of the Mandir Balak Rupi. On 13.04.1989, the defendants preferred an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, with the averments that they were the Sewaks and public of Nagrota Bagwan, Tehsil & District Kangra and Mohtmim, Shankar Gir of Temple Balak Rupi, died on 07.03.1989 and after his death there was none to perform ‘Puja’ in the Temple and manage the land in question.

5. The Sewaks and public of Nagrota vide its resolution decided to approach the Government that Committee for management of land attached to the Temple may be constituted as the Mahant did not do any development work and was only concerned with the income of the Temple. The Deputy Commissioner Kangra forwarded the application to the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil) Kangra for enquiry and re