The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lease deeds were void ab initio due to the violation of the Hindu Public Religious Institution (Prevention of Dissipation of Properties) Act, 1962, and the plaintiffs were not in physical possession of the property for seeking the relief of prohibitory injunction.

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

As both the appeals titled above have arisen out of the same judgment and order dated 16.5.2003 rendered by the District Judge, Haridwar, hence have been taken up together for adjudication.

2. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that Appeal No. 34/2003 was admitted at its initial stage, while Appeal No. 48/2003 is still pending even for admission, but considering that the controversy between both the parties (where Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar and Haridwar Development Authority are on one side and Mr. Nek Pal as well as Captain Amrendra Singh, who are respondents no. 1 and 3 in each of the appeals, are on the other side) is identical and both these appeals are to be decided on the same substantial questions of law, hence this Second Appeal No. 48/2003 is also admitted for hearing.

3. Since the interest of Kailash Ashram Trust Society was not in controversy, so none turned up on its behalf. It seems that the interest of such respondent (if any) is under the shadow of the interest of rest of the respondents, whose Counsels have been heard at length.

4. It appears that Original Suit No. 10/1999 was initiated on 12.1.1999 by the respondents no. 1 to 3 disclosing the property to be a part of Khasra No. 81, minzumla area 0.233 hectare; Khasra No. 88, minzumla area 0.207 hectare and Khasra No. 91, minzumla area 0.59 hectare in Khata no. 6 and 5, Khewat No. 1 situated in Mauja Bhopatwala Khurd, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar. Later on, an application 354A was moved by the plaintiffs waiving their claim on whole of the property, which they mentioned in Schedule A and, instead, they added the Schedule B, which entailed a plot of land running 703 feet north-south, 122 feet running east-west, situated in Khasra No. 81, 88 and 91 at the said place Bhopatwala Khurd, which as averred was butted and bounded as under:

In the east – Property of Dera Baba.

In the west – Pawan Dham Road, thereafter Kamal Das Kutia, Prem Prakash and Dashnam Sanyas Ashram, etc.

In the south – Sarvanand Ghat Road.

In the north – Property of Dera Baba having 16 trees of mangoes, jamun, simbal where also a tinshed on a small yard is located.

5. This amendment application was allowed vide order dated 1.8.2002 by the Trial Court. So, it can be said that the suit property does not have any concern as has been disclosed in Schedule ‘A’ and the plaintiffs kept their claim confined only to the property described in Schedule ‘B’, which was later on added by way of seeking the amendment as aforestated.

6. In the suit, the decree of permanent injunction was sought restraining the defendants (appellants herein) not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs and they should also be restrained not to dispossess them illegally nay the restrainment was also sought against the defendants from interfering in the use of such property by the plaintiffs.

7. The suit was resisted by the defendants, but the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit with costs vide judgment and order dated 11.10.2002. Such judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) was challenged by way of filing the Civil Appeal No. 41/2001 initiated by Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar and Civil Appeal No. 42/2002 initiated by Haridwar Development Authority (hereinafter called as the ‘Authority’ for the brevity). Both the appeals were dismissed with costs by the learned District Judge on 16.5.2003 and such judgment has been put to challenge in these second appeals.

8. Since no substantial question of law was formulated at the time of admission of the appeal on 30.5.2003, hence having heard the matter partially and during the course of arguments, in the presence of learned Counsels of both the parties, this Court confined itself to adjudicate the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the alleged transaction of the disputed property was void ab initio being the violation of Section 7 of Hindu Public Religious Institution (Prevention of Dissipation of P