Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.K.Jhanji, J.
Sewa Singh Etc.
Versus
Kirpal Singh
Regular Second Appeal No. 2924 of 1979,
Decided On : JULY 8, 1998
POSSESSION - SUIT FOR - PRIOR POSSESSION - TITLE - PROOF - NOT NECESSARY - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - ARTICLE 64 - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTIONS 5, 6, 8, 9.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute, claiming that he was the Chela of the previous Manager of the Dharamshala and succeeded to the office as Manager upon his death. The defendants, who were in possession of the land, claimed that it was a Sikh Gurudwara and that the plaintiff had no right to it.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the first appellate court found that the land in dispute belonged to the sect of Udasi Faqirs and not to the Sikh Gurudwara, and that the plaintiff had been in possession of the land before he was dispossessed by the defendants. The courts also found that the defendants had failed to prove any right or title to the property.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had locus standi to file the suit for possession. 2. Whether the plaintiff had proved his title to the property. 3. Whether the defendants had proved their right or title to the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a suit for recovery of possession on prior possession within 12 years is maintainable and title need not be proved unless the defendant can prove one. The court relied on Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a period of 12 years for a suit "for possession of immovable property based on previous possession and not on title, when the plaintiff while in possession of the property has been dispossed."
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree of the lower courts granting possession of the land to the plaintiff.
V.K.Jhanji, J.
1. This is defendants second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff for possession of the land in dispute has been decreed.
2. In brief, the facts are that Dharamshala Killawali (Gurudwara) is entered in the revenue record as owner of the property in dispute. Gurdial Singh, i.e. father of the plaintiff was the Manager (Mohtmim) of the Dharamshala. Gurdial Singh died on 8.10.1970. As per case set out by the plaintiff, Gurdial Singh during his life time appointed plaintiff as his Chela. Plaintiff averred that according to the custom of Udasi Faqirs, Chela is to succeed to the office of Mohtmim. Plaintiff averred that he being Chela and son of Gurdial Singh succeeded to the office as Manager in place of Gurdial Singh. Plaintiff further entered into possession of the land, but defendants interfered in his possession. Plaintiff- firstly filed suit for permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 4 which was partly decreed in respect of the portion found to be in possession of plaintiff, but was dismissed qua the property in dispute as it had been found that the plaintiff had been dispossessed from the said portion by the defendants. Plaintiff however, was given liberty to file suit against the defendants to seek possession. Plaintiff thus, averred that defendants have no right to remain in possession and plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession. On notice of the suit, defendants in their written statement denied that the property is an Udasi institution. According to the defendants, it is a Sikh Gurudwara and is being used as such since the time immemorial. Defendants alleged that Gurdial Singh was its Granthi and was looking after the affairs of the Gurudwara only in that capacity. Defendants also stated that plaintiff being an illiterate, could not be appointed as Granthi and so, on the death of Gurdial Singh, villagers appointed a Committee under the name of "Sudhar Committee Gurudwara" Dharamshala Killawali. Locus-standi of the plaintiff to file suit was contested and it was stated that he was never appointed as Mahant of the Dera Udasian at any point of time. Trial Court framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is Chela of Gurdial Singh ? OPP.
2. Whether there is any custom whereby the succession goes from Guru to Chela in respect of the office of Mohtamim (Manager) ? OPP.
3. Whether the land in dispute belonged to the Gurudwara ? OPD.
4. Whether the institution property in dispute belongs to sect of Udasi faqirs and its effect ? OPP.
5. Whether the property marked A is in fact a Gurudwara and the suit against defendant No. 1 to 4 as such is competent ? OPP.
6. Relief.
3. The learned Sub Judge on the basis of evidence brought on record decided all issues in favour of plaintiff and decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendants filed first appeal but the learned District Judge by a detailed judgment dated 14.9.1979 dismissed the appeal. Hence, the second appeal by defendants.
4. Finding on issues 3, 4 and 5, i.e. whether the land in dispute belongs to Gurdwara or belongs to sect of Udasi Faqirs, has not been seriously contested by learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants. Otherwise too, finding recorded on these issues on appreciation of evidence, being a finding of fact, calls for no interference in second appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants however, is seriously contesting the finding in regard to locus-standi of the plaintiff to file suit for possession. Counsel has contended that the first appellate Court has recorded a clear finding that there is no evidence of the existence of custom regarding succession of the Mahant of the institution or installation or appointment of the plaintiff as Mahant of the institution. Counsel further contended that the first appellate Court having held that only some one from the paternity of Udasi sect could alone maintain a suit for possession of the pro
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
