The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove ownership to protect possession, and the implications of unauthorized construction of religious places and usurpation of public property.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The plaintiffs are in the revision petition challenging the order passed by the Courts below on application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein the defendants were restrained from illegally and forcibly interfering in the Mandir building measuring 69 sq. yards but injunction in respect of the remaining area was declined.

2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the effect that plaintiff No. 1 is a registered Society under the Registration of Societies Act where plaintiff No. 2 are the devotees of the temple existing on the suit property since year 1922. The suit property measures 330 sq. yards and comprises of portions of land owned by the then residents of the Mohalla and was given to the plaintiff Society long ago. The devotees of the temple are having possession and ownership of the suit land since the year 1922.

3. It is further pleaded that some influential persons in connivance with the Punjab Wakf Board and officials of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, had attempted to grab the properly in dispute and for this purpose got issued a receipt dated 2.6.1983 from the Punjab Wakf Board as well as receipt dated 11.7.1983 from the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. A plan for the house to be constructed in the name of Mrs. Raj Kumari w/o Hans Raj- was also got sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. It was, thus, alleged that the Municipal Corporation had no claim in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs have further alleged that on the basis of fabricated documents Smt. Raj Kumari along with Smt. Janak Jain and Santosh Goel had instituted a civil suit No. 84 dated 26.3.1984 for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants of the said suit from interfering in the alleged possession of the suit property. The said suit was dismissed in default on 10.10.1991.

4. It alleged that the plaintiffs are regularly attending the religious prayers, rituals and gatherings. Akhand Paths and Jagratas are frequently held there. Religious trees and plants are worshipped by the devotees and, thus, a decree for permanent injunction on an area measuring 330 sq. yards of plot bearing No. B/IV 1/44/1 was claimed.

5. The Municipal Corporation contested the said suit and alleged that the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands. Under the garb of religious sentiments, they want to encroach upon the disputed site for which the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest. It was admitted that the Mandir building is constructed in an area of 69 sq. yards in the vicinity of the site in suit and the defendants are not initiating any action against the Mandir building to honour the sentiments of the devotees. It was further alleged that the suit land is a Nazool land and belongs to the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. The possession of the plaintiffs over the site in dispute since the year 1922 was denied. It is further stated that the building plan submitted by Smt. Raj Kumari and others was rejected and that the defendants have no connection with the suit filed by Smt. Raj Kumari etc.

6. The learned trial Court found that once a party claims possession on the basis of ownership, possession can only be protected if ownership is proved. The learned trial Court found that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the ownership of the residents of the Mohalla since the year 1922 who allegedly gave the suit property to the Mandir and, thus, declined to grant the relief of injunction over the entire land measuring 330 sq. yards but restrained the defendants to interfere in the possession of the Mandir over an area measuring 69 sq. yards.

7. The learned first appellate Court affirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court. It found that the pleadings of the plaintiffs are contradictory with the documents placed on the record. The plaintiffs have pleaded that t