SHAMBOO NATH Vs. S KAPOOR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plain ­tiffs over the lands in suit bearing plot Nos. 1424/4, 1962/1424/4 and 2304/1143/1. The total area of these lands comes to 29 Ka -nals and 10 Marlas. This total area of Plot No. 1424/4 is 19 Kanals, 12 Marias and con ­sists of the Dharamshalla which covers one Kanal and five Marias, the springs which cover two kanals and the rest of the area is a vacant land towards the Pahalgam road and is recorded as Banjar -i -Qadeem. Similarly plot No. 2304/ 1143/1 consists of vacant land covering four Marlas and lands where a number of houses are situated covering 9 Kanals and 14 Marlas. I might state here that in the course of the arguments the learned counsel for the plain ­tiffs conceded that the plaintiffs do not press their claim with respect to 9 Kanals and 14 Marias which are recorded as Abadi Deh and which contain houses of the defendants and some of the local Hindus. They confine their claim only to four Marias in this plot which is a vacant piece of land.

(2.) ALSO wanted to lay a foundation of Gur -dwara inside the Ahata of the shrine which was objected to by the Hindus and at the in ­tervention of the police and the Military, the defendants were prevented from translating their designs into action. Dewan was thereafter held outside the disputed premises in the camp ­ing ground. The case of license or permissive possession set up by the plaintiffs was based on a compromise Ex. PW 1/1 which is said to have been arrived at between the Dhamarth department (which was in charge of the admi ­nistration of the shrine at that time) and some of the leaders of the Sikh community who were also members of the then State Assembly.

(3.) THE suit has been resisted by the defendants who claim to be the representatives of the Sikh community and have denied all the allega ­tions of the plaintiffs. According to the defen dants, the disputed shrine is not exclusively a Hindu shrine but is regarded sacred by the Sikh community as well and is ascribed to the visit of the founder of Sikh religion Shri Guru Nanak Jee who had visited Kashmir and the present shrine where he had converted a Hindu Pandit called Braham Das. In commemoration of the visit of Shri Guru Nanak Jee seven Gurdwaras on three sides of the springs were constructed during the time of Maharaja Ranjeet Singhs rule in Kashmir and the Sikh rulers had granted several Jagirs and Pattas for the main ­tenance of the Gurdwaras as also for the fishes in the central spring. With the passage of time the Gurdwaras were found in a dilapidated con ­dition and under the orders of the Maharaja Partap Singh they were demolished and the present Dharamshalla was constructed for the benefit of the defendants who were given pos ­session of all the seven rooms therein where seven Granth Sahibs were being kept. The Dharamshalla was nin by the seven Granthis who were in charge of the old Sikh Gurdwaras. The defendants have denied that they were given permissive possession either by Maha ­raja Partap Singh or by the Dharmarth depart ­ment at any time. The defendants have further averred that they are not at all bound by the compromise Ex. PW 1/1 which was not entered into by the defendants with the Dharmarth department and the political leaders who are parties to this document did not belong to the locality where the shrine situated nor were they legal representatives of the Sikh community. The defendants have, in the alternative, claim ­ed that they have acquired title by prescription by being in adverse possession of the three rooms of the Dharamshalla for a period of more than 12 years before the suit. The defendants have further categorically denied the existence of any Sikh Gurdwara at Sangam and have averred that the grants of Patta and Muafi were in fact for the maintenance of the Gur ­dwaras at Mattan Shrine and when these Gur ­dwaras fell down, the Gurdwara was transferred to the present Dharamshalla.