TARSEM LAL Vs. DHARAMSHALA JANJ GHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants second appeal filed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-appellants to remove Beer of Shri Granth Sahib and to remove the Nishan Sahib from the building of the Jain Ghar/Dharamshala fully detailed in the plaint.

(2.) LEARNED Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide his judgment dated 8.10.2002 has affirmed the findings of fact recorded by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Phillaur. The Civil Judge vide his judgment dated 20.8.1999 has held that there is a separate Janj Ghar and separate Gurdwara in Patti Pakhopur for ad-dharmies and there was no question of shifting the Gurdwara to Janj Ghar. It has further been held that the grant has been received from the Government for construction of Janj Ghar on the land allotted by Rehabilitation Department, Punjab. It has also been held that there is a managing committee to look after the management of the Janj Ghar and, therefore, the use of the property cannot be changed without the resolution or permission of the meaning committee. The land allotted by the Rehabilitation Department was for the purpose of Janj Ghar and not for construction of Gurdwara. It has been further held that the Government fund cannot be utilized for religious purpose and placing of the Beer on the first floor of the Janj Ghar amounts to total change of user of the suit property. The compromise which has been set up by the defendant-appellants has also been dealt with in detail. It has been held that the compromise was made under undue influence and was not ratified by the managing committee. Therefore, no sanctity could be attached to such a compromise.

(3.) THE argument raised by Mr. Khanna does not deserve any detailed examination because no such argument was raised before the first Appellate Court and secondly, the plaintiff-respondents have got registration effected after the filing of the suit on 15.4.1994. The objection that the suit was not originally instituted by a registered society cannot be deemed to have been filed by an unregistered society. Even that objection has been overcome. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise there is nothing in Section 6 of the 1860 Act which creates a bar on an unregistered society to institute a suit. Section 6 of the 1860 Act reads as under :