TIRATH RAM SAHNI Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, U/S 96 C.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.5.2004, passed by Additional District Judge/III F.T.C., Haridwar, in O.S. No. 262/2001, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreased for permanent injunction and the counter claim of the defendants was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants for permanent prohibitory injunction. According to the plaintiff Krishan Kumar he is owner in possession of the property shown at the end of the plaint, i.e. Dharamshala named as Jindal Ahata situated at Bara Bazar Haridwar. The plaintiff makes arrangements of stay etc of the pilgrims/Yajmans in the disputed property. Pandit Govind Ram, grand father of the plaintiff, executed the will dated 4.3.1918 with regard to disputed property in favour of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff got constructed four rooms on the first floor in the year 1954. Thereafter, the plaintiff got constructed latrine etc on the disputed property. The father of the plaintiff also executed will dated 20.11.1963 pertaining to the disputed property in favour of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff has died on 25.2.1962 and thereafter the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the property in dispute. It is also alleged that the plaintiff and his ancestors have been in possession of the property in dispute from before 50 years and they have perfected the ownership rights over the same. The plaintiff and his ancestors have been peacefully using the property with the knowledge of the defendants and their ancestors but they have never challenged the exercising rights of the plaintiffs pertaining to the disputed property. The plaint case further is that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 often visit Haridwar and used to stay in the disputed Dharamshala and the defendant No. 5 has a bad -eye over the disputed property from before a long period. Before filing the suit, the defendants threatened the plaintiff to execute sale deed of the property in their favour, otherwise they will prepare forged documents of the property in their favour and will throw him away from it with the help of the police. On 13.6.1997 also the defendants made efforts to take forcible possession of the property. On 14.6.1997 the plaintiff sent telegrams to S.P. Haridwar and other authorities in this regard. The plaintiff sought relief of permanent prohibitory injunction directing the defendants not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the disputed property.

(3.) THE defendants 1 to 4 contested the suit by filing written statement as well as the counter claim. They denied the rights of the plaintiff and his ancestors over the property in dispute. According to them Late Bhagirath Lal, father of the plaintiff, used to look after the property on behalf of the defendants / trustees. Whatever work he had done, that was done as a caretaker. Bhagirath Lal is not the son of Pandit Govind Ram. Govind Ram was Pandit of the defendants. Suraj Mal was one of the son of Govind Ram, who was married with Smt. Ratan Devi. Suraj Mal has died in the life time of Govind Ram and after the death of Govind Ram in 1921 the whole property was devolved to Smt. Ratan Devi. In Mohalla Imali Kankhal Govind Ram had a house over which Smt. Ratan Devi was recorded as owner, Bhagirath Lal never raised any objection to it. With regard to another house situated at Kankhal there arose dispute between the plaintiff and his mother Smt. Kalawati on the one hand and Smt. Shanti Devi and others on the other. Suit No. 236/87 was filed before Munsif Haridwar in which plaintiff and his mother filed joint W.S. and alleged that Bhagirath Lal was adopted son of Pandit Govind Ram and after the death of Govind Ram the plaintiff became owner in possession of house situated at Kankhal. The wills dated 4.3.1918 and 20.11.1963 are forged documents. According to the defendants before partition, there was a District Atak in undivided India, which at present exists in Pakistan. In Atak District there was an area named as Kaimbalpur, in which there was a Khukhrayan Community. The people of the said community used to worship Ganges and come to Haridwar. At Haridwar often they felt difficulty for stay etc., therefore, the Kohali, Bhasin, Sahani and Anand families prepared Jandal Bhawan which is the disputed Dharamshala. In the Jandal area the panditai wok on behalf of Smt. Ratan Devi was being performed by Bhagirath Lal. The trustees of the Dharamshala permitted Bhagirath Lal to lookafter the Dharamshala, but the control over the property was of the trustees. In the year 1935 there was settlement at Haridwar and in absence of the trustees Bhagirath Lal got recorded the Dharamshala (Khasra Nos. 295 and 297) along with the appurtenant property in his name. Bhagirath Lal got entered his name as Manager over the property in dispute in the Municipality Haridwar. The defendants alleged that the property in dispute is being looked -after by the trustees of Khukhrayan Community. The defendants also alleged that the plaintiff used to collect the donation from the pilgrims of Dharamshala and issue the receipts of them. The case of the defendants is that the plaintiff is doing the work in the Dharamshala as a Care -taker/Manager. The defendants claimed the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction directing the plaintiff not to interfere in the management and conduction of the disputed property and in the alternative if felt necessary the possession be handed over to the defendants. It was also prayed that the plaintiff be asked to give the details of income and expenditure of the Dharamshala/disputed property and the income of the trust be handed over to them by the plaintiff.