SATGUR SINGH Vs. DERA AKHARA DHARAM DHAJJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiffs Satgur Singh, Satpal Singh and Bharpur Singh, all sons of late Sh.Udey Singh, residents of village Jhandi, Tehsil and District Patiala had filed a suit against Dera Akhara Dharam Dhajja, Patiala through Mahant Gian Dev, Chela Mahant Balbir Singh, resident of Dera Akhara Dharam Dhajja, Top Khana More, Patiala, seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs are lessees of the land measuring 31 bigha 5 biswas detailed in head-note of the plaint situated at village Jhandi, Tehsil and District Patiala and khasra girdawari to be corrected in the name of the plaintiffs instead of Udey Singh. The plaintiffs also sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and persons claiming under it from dispossessing the plaintiffs from such land.

(2.) As per the case of the plaintiffs, their father Sh.Udey Singh since died was in possession of the suit land as lessee @ Rs.225.00 per year under the defendant since the year 1960; during the lifetime of Sh.Udey Singh, all the CHAKOTA had been paid and name of Udey Singh was reflected to be in possession of the suit land in the girdawari; Udey Singh had been given suit land on CHAKOTA since the year 1960, however in the ownership column of the jamabandi name of defendant had been recorded; after death of Mahant Balbir Singh, Mahant Gian Dev succeeded as Mahant; the plaintiffs had already deposited CHAKOTA amount for the year 2007; Udey Singh had expired on 22/9/2002 and he had executed a registered will in favour of the plaintiffs on 24/11/1988 vide which all the rights had been transferred in favour of the plaintiffs and after death of Udey Singh, the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession of the suit land and they have been cultivating the same paying the CHAKOTA to defendant after death of their father Udey Singh.

(3.) On notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement raising various legal objections that suit was barred; the plaintiffs had not come to the Court with clean hands; suit was barred under Sec. 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. On merits, the defendant submitted that Udey Singh had no right to execute the Will in favour of the plaintiffs regarding the land owned by Dera Akhara Dharam Dhajja; the tenancy of the land of religious institution of the said Dera is not heritable; no CHAKOTA had been accepted by the Dera; an application for correction of khasra girdawari had been filed by the plaintiffs, which was dismissed and appeal filed was also dismissed by Collector, Patiala; the plaintiffs had chosen to avail the remedy under Land Revenue Act before the revenue authorities. Refuting the remaining assertions, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.