IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

R.S.A. No. 4252 of 2012 (O&M)

Date of decision : April 08, 2015

Raj Rani and others

... Appellants

vs.

Hanuman Ji Mandir/Dera Sh. Hanuman,

Raghumajra, Patiala and others

... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate

for the respondent no.1.

Surinder Gupta, J

Respondent no.1-Hanumanji, Mandir/Dera Hanumanji,

Raghomajra, Patiala through its Mohatamim Lal Nath Chela Hardwari Nath

filed suit for possession of land bearing khewat khatauni no.3656/5900,

khasra no.1855 (3-0) situated at Patiala alleging that the suit land is owned

by the plaintiff as per entries in jamabandi for the year 1991-92. Earlier

Sohan Nath being Mohant/Mohatamim/manager of the Dera of Mandir was

cultivating the suit land and after his death, the same was under the

cultivation of Lal Nath, who was performing Pooja and managing the Dera.

Sohan Nath was an illiterate person and khasra girdwari was recorded in

the name of Hari Ram son of Ram Lal in an illegal manner. Hari Ram had

died several years back and the entries in the khasra girdwari continued to

be recorded in the name of a dead person. Defendant Raj Rani (since

deceased now represented by her legal heirs), Mohan Lal and Raj Kumar

(appellants) took forcible possession of the suit land in January, 1994 from

Sohan Lal. The matter was reported to the competent authority but no

action was taken. A panchayat was convened and the appellants were

requested by the Panchayat and plaintiffs to hand over possession of the suit

land, but in vain. Appellants earlier filed suit for injunction which was

disposed of on a statement that they will not be dispossessed from the suit

DEEPAK KUMAR

2015.04.21 16:43

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

R.S.A. No. 4252 of 2012 (O&M)

-2-

land except in due course of law.

In written statement, appellants admitted ownership of suit

property by Dera/Mandir Hanumanji, Raghomajra, Patiala but denied the

status of plaintiff Lal Nath and Sohan Nath as Mohatamim/Manager of

Mandir/Dera Hanumanji, Patiala or that they were performing pooja in the

temple. They pleaded that Hari Ram father of defendants no.2 to 4, namely,

Sham Lal, Mohan Lal and Raj Kumar and husband of defendant no.1-Smt.

Raj Rani was a tenant in the suit property and after death of Hari Ram,

defendants inherited the 'tenancy rights' along with his other legal heirs.

Earlier entries in khasra girdawri recorded in the name of Hari Ram were

never challenged by any one. The defendants applied for the correction of

the entries in Khasra Girdawari in their names, as they continued to be in

possession of the suit land and had already paid the rent. The

plaintiffs/respondent No.1 tried to take forcible possession of the suit land

but could not succeed and filed the instant suit with the plea that the

property is owned by Dera.

The plaintiff-respondent no.1 re-asserted its case in the

replication and contested and controverted the averments of the appellants

that Hari Ram was tenant over the suit property.

Pleadings of the parties led to the framing of issues as

follows :-

1.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit

land as prayed for?OPP

2.

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the

present form?OPD

3.

Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred

under law?OPD

4.

Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs of

Rs.10,000/-?OPD

5.

Whether the defendants are in possession of the suit land

by way of their tenancy rights along with other legal

notice (sic heirs)?OPD

6.

Relief

DEEPAK KUMAR

2015.04.21 16:43

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

R.S.A. No. 4252 of 2012 (O&M)

-3-

Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Patiala decreed the suit for

possession of suit land with the observations that defendants are