GEETA BHAVAN, MANDI Vs. BALBIR SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-Plaintiff, (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') , claiming itself to be Hindu Religious Institution, filed a suit for possession on the basis of title, averring therein that it is a registered society established with the sole purpose of imparting education in Hindu religion. Plaintiff further averred that property comprising Khata Khatauni No.125/158, Khasra Nos.368, 369, 370, 371, 801/372, 802/372 and 373, measuring 535.05 square meters, situate in Mohal Paddal, Mandi Town is a part and parcel of plaintiff institution and was never separately acquired property of Shri Devi Nand, who had expired on 9.1.1999. Plaintiff further averred that property shown in the name of Sri Dev Ashram under the management of Shri Devi Nand Brahamchari is a part and parcel of the plaintiff's institution and at no point of time it was separately acquired property of Shri Devi Nand. Plaintiff further alleged that Devi Nand, who died on 9.1.1999, had executed a Will of suit property in favour of defendant No.1 on 7.7.1989, on the basis of which mutation was attested in favour of defendant No.1. Plaintiff also laid challenge to aforesaid Will alleging that Devi Nand had no right to execute the Will of the suit property as he was not owner in possession of the suit property; rather he was simply a manager of plaintiff's institution. Plaintiff, while claiming that defendants No.2 to 4 are in wrongful possession of the suit property, claimed for possession by way of suit, referred hereinabove.

(2.) Defendant No.1 refuted the aforesaid claim, as set up in the plaint, on the ground of limitation and jurisdiction. Defendant No.1 categorically stated that Devi Nand was exclusive owner in possession of the property in question as it was constructed by him of his own money and not as a Manager of the property. Defendant No.1 further averred that the suit property was owned and possessed by Devi Nand and he had every right to execute the Will qua the same. Defendant No.1 further stated in written statement that defendants No.2 to 4 are the tenants in the suit property. Defendants No.3 and 4 in their written statement also not admitted the title of the plaintiff and claimed that earlier they were tenants under Devi Nand and now under defendant No.1. In the aforesaid background, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) By way of replication, the plaintiff, while denying the allegations made in the written statement(s) reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint and controverted the contrary averments made in the written statement(s) .