SEWA SINGH ETC Vs. KIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff for possession of the land in dispute has been decreed.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that Dharamshala Killawali (Gurudwara) is entered in the revenue record as owner of the property in dispute. Gurdial Singh, i. e. father of the plaintiff was the Manager (Mohtmim) of the Dharamshala. Gurdial Singh died on 8. 10. 1970. As per case set out by the plaintiff, Gurdial Singh during his life time appointed plaintiff as his Chela. Plaintiff averred that according to the custom of Udasi Faqirs, Chela is to succeed to the office of Mohtmim. Plaintiff averred that he being Chela and son of Gurdial Singh succeeded to the office as Manager in place of Gurdial Singh. Plaintiff further entered into possession of the land, but defendants interfered in his possession. Plaintiff- firstly filed suit for permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 4 which was partly decreed in respect of the portion found to be in possession of plaintiff, but was dismissed qua the property in dispute as it had been found that the plaintiff had been dispossessed from the said portion by the defendants. Plaintiff however, was given liberty to file suit against the defendants to seek possession. Plaintiff thus, averred that defendants have no right to remain in possession and plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession. On notice of the suit, defendants in their written statement denied that the property is an Udasi institution. According to the defendants, it is a Sikh Gurudwara and is being used as such since the time immemorial. Defendants alleged that Gurdial Singh was its Granthi and was looking after the affairs of the Gurudwara only in that capacity. Defendants also stated that plaintiff being an illiterate, could not be appointed as Granthi and so, on the death of Gurdial Singh, villagers appointed a Committee under the name of "sudhar Committee Gurudwara" Dharamshala Killawali. Locus-standi of the plaintiff to file suit was contested and it was stated that he was never appointed as Mahant of the Dera Udasian at any point of time. Trial Court framed the following issues :

(3.) FINDING on issues 3, 4 and 5, i. e. whether the land in dispute belongs to Gurdwara or belongs to sect of Udasi Faqirs, has not been seriously contested by learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants. Otherwise too, finding recorded on these issues on appreciation of evidence, being a finding of fact, calls for no interference in second appeal.