A second appeal under Section 100 CPC requires the identification of a substantial question of law; concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts will not be disturbed unless shown to be perverse or illegal.

Heard Sri Bhanu Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the lower court record.

The second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2021 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.10, Mathura, in Civil Appeal No.129 of 2018 and judgement and decree dated 25.7.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mathura, in Original Suit No.74 of 1992 (Kamlanand @ Kamal Singh and another Vs. Amar Singh and others).

The plaintiffs’ case before the trial court was that Ashram in dispute is situated in Sant Colony, Kaimarvan, Vrindavan, Tehsil and District Mathura, consisting of one room and Varanda, which is used for stay of Sadhu-Sant and is being used for public purposes. The Ashram is a dedicated and public religious charity. The land of the Ashram was purchased after collecting money from the public by defendant No.6, and his disciple, Shivanand, for an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 23.03.1985 and constructions were made from the donations of common people and Shivanand had died. The plaintiff No.2 is his disciple and also successor as per the Sanyasi Sampradaya. Plaintiff No.1 is the senior disciple of defendant No.6 and is successor of defendant No.6. namely, Govindanand @ Radhe Lal. Defendant No.6 is aged about 100 years. His senses are not in order and he is not able to see properly. Defendant No.1 is nephew of defendant No.6 in relation and has influence over defendant No.6. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are close to defendant No.1. Defendant No.4 is also earlier resident of village Madhani, Paragana Saidabad, District Mathura. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and Navratan, father of defendant No.1, took the defendant No.6, on 11.5.1989 and after giving him intoxicant in milk on 12.5.1989 got a lease of the Ashram executed in favour of the defendant No.1. The aforesaid lease is not binding on the plaintiffs. Defendant No.6 had no right to execute the same. At the time of execution of lease, the property of the Ashram was valued above Rs.50,000/-. Before executing the lease, no permission under Section 7 of Uttar Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Properties) Act, 1962, was taken from the Commissioner. By means of the aforesaid lease, no possession was transferred to the defendant No.1. The cause of action for instituting the suit arose on 04.12.1991 and on 10.01.1992 when the defendant No.1 alongwith some anti-social elements tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the property in dispute.

Defendant No.1 filed his written statement denying the pleadings of the plaint. It was stated that the owner of the disputed property was Smt. Babita Devi and others and defendant No.6 and his younger brother, Shivaram @ Shivanand, purchased the same for an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 28.8.1995 and defendant No.6 became the sole owner of the same, after the death of his brother, Shivaram @ Shivanand. Defendant No.6, Govindanand, got a room having Varanda constructed over the same from his own resources. The plaintiff No.1, Kamlanand, is a very shrewd and cunning person. Plaintiff No.2, Premwati, is also resident of some other place and is residing with plaintiff No.1 as his kept. Both are not Sadhus nor they are the disciples of defendant No.6. Since defendant No.6 is alive, they have no interest in the property. Defendant No.6 is the sole owner of the property and he had every right to execute the lease in favour of the defendant No.1. Plaintiffs have no right to institute the suit and the provisions of Section 7 of Uttar Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Properties) Act, 1962, do not apply to the proceedings.

Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are not the necessary parties to the suit. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed their written statement denying that they have any concern or possession over the property in dispute. Property belongs to defendant No.6 and