RSA No.2905 of 2011

#1#

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.2905 of 2011

Date of Decision: 07.09.2012

Ram Pal

....Appellant

Versus

Mandir Thakurdwara Dharam Arth

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:

Mr. Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate for the appellant/

defendant.

Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent/

plaintiff.

JASWANT SINGH, J

Defendant-appellant is in second appeal against the

concurrent findings of both the courts below whereby the suit of the

plaintiff-respondent for possession has been decreed and the findings

affirmed in the appeal.

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed

a suit for possession being owner of the land described in the head note

of the plaint situated in Village Lassara, Tehsil Phillaur, District

Jalandhar. Upon notice, the suit was resisted by filing written

statement. After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court decreed the

suit vide judgment and decree dated 30.7.2007. On an appeal having

been filed by the defendant-appellant, the same has been dismissed by

the learned Appellate Court vide judgment & decree dated 10.3.2011,

hence the present second appeal.

RSA No.2905 of 2011

#2#

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both the

courts below have gravely erred while decreeing the suit of the

plaintiff-respondent. As a matter of fact, in view of the jamabandi for

the year 1980-81 (Ex.P.1), the appellant-defendant is proved to be in

possession of the suit property since 1971, therefore, there is no

question for taking the possession by the defendant-appellant illegally

after 21.12.1983.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-

respondent contended that the judgment and decree passed by both the

courts below are perfectly legal and justified and do not require any

interference by this Court especially in view of the fact that the

defendant-appellant has already lost upto Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

earlier litigation regarding the land in dispute.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing

the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal

and the same deserves dismissal.

It is an admitted fact that the defendant-appellant had filed

a suit against Ram Murti for declaration and permanent injunction

restraining him from interfering or dispossessing from the land in

dispute but the same was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide

judgment and decree dated 10.10.1980 (Ex.P.2 and P.3). An appeal was

preferred but the same was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District

Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.1983 (Ex.P.4).

Aggrieved against both the aforesaid judgment and decrees, a regular

RSA No.2905 of 2011

#3#

second appeal was filed before this Court, which was also dismissed

and ultimately, the matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and

the SLP was dismissed.

A perusal of paragraph 11 of the judgment passed by the

learned first Appellate Court reveals that in the earlier RSA, two

substantial question of law were framed i.e (i) Whether the claim of the

defendant-appellant/Ram Pal for declaration that he had been appointed

as Mahant by will and confirmed by Bhek can be upheld? (2) Whether

the finding of the courts below that the respondent Ram Murti is

entitled to succeed as Mahant solely on account of his being the eldest

son irrespective of his being discipline or his appointment by the

previous Mahant or by Bhek can be upheld?

The first point was decided against the defendant-appellant

and the second point was decided against the respondent-Ram Murti

therein but this Court made it clear that the question as to whether the

defendant-Ram Murti therein could be allowed to continue was left

open to be decided in the appropriate proceedings.

It is the case of the defendant-appellant that during the life

time of Ragh