Vinod Kumar And Others v. Shyam Sunder Dass And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** I.

Vinod Kumar and Others .....Appellants Vs.

Shyam Sunder Dass Chela Prayag Dass and Others .....Respondents II.

Kuldeep Singh and Others .....Appellants Vs.

Shyam Sunder Dass Chela Prayag Dass and Others .....Respondents Date of Decision.:19.02.2026 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Harsh Rana, Advocate and Mr. Anil Kumar Rana, Advocate for the appellants in RSA-1346-2025.

Mr. Tarunveer Vashisht, Advocate for the appellants in RSA-4464-2025.

Mr. Satyaveer Singh, Advocate, Mr. Abhyudaya Paliwal, Advocate for the respondents.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Both these appeals have arisen against same judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below. Suit for decree of permanent injunc2on regarding property in dispute filed by plain2ffs Shyam Sunder Dass Chela Prayag Dass and Others (respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 30.11.2018. Appeals filed by some of the

-2defendants was dismissed by the first Appellate Court on 19.12.2024, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court.

2.

Against the aforesaid concurrent findings, different set of defendants, have filed the present appeals.

3.

The conten2on raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that Courts below erred in apprecia2ng the evidence correctly; and that conferring of the Mahantship in favour of respondent No.1 Shyam Sunder Dass was not proved.

4.

The plain2ffs had ins2tuted the suit asser2ng that the suit property measuring about 77 Kanals 13 Marlas forms part of the religious endowment of Thakurdawara Thambar. The case of the plain2ffs is that the then Mahant, Prayag Dass Chela Mathura Dass, executed a registered Will dated 29.05.1989 appoin2ng plain2ff No.1 and his brother as successors to manage the ins2tu2on and its proper2es. A>er the death of the Mahant on 22.05.1992, plain2ff No.1 succeeded to the Mahantship and con2nued in management and possession of the endowment property. It was further pleaded that earlier li2ga2on between the par2es resulted in a decree dated 28.07.2007 recognizing the plain2ffs possession, which stood affirmed in appeal on 19.03.2009. Despite such adjudica2on, the defendants allegedly aAempted forcible dispossession, leading to the filing of the present suit.

5.

The defendants resisted the suit by asser2ng that the property belongs to PaB Peepal wali of village Thambar and that the villagers were using the land for Gaushala purposes and fodder cul2va2on. The plain2ffs 2tle and possession were denied.

6.

A>er apprecia2ng the evidence led by the par2es, both the Courts below concurrently held that the plain2ffs were in seAled possession and decreed the suit.

7.

Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the

-3appellants contends that the findings of the Courts below are perverse and based on misreading of evidence; that the property is village common land belonging to proprietors and not to the religious ins2tu2on; that villagers are running a Gaushala over the property demonstra2ng their possession; that earlier decree does not bind the appellants; and that injunc2on could not be granted without declara2on of 2tle.

8.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-caveators submits that revenue record consistently reflects the Thakurdwara and its Mohatmim in possession; that Mahantship succession through Will and customary prac2ce stands proved; that earlier li2ga2on corroborates possession; that defendants produced no documentary evidence regarding their possession; and that concurrent findings cannot be disturbed in second appeal.

9.

Heard. The jurisdic2on of this Court under Sec2on 100 CPC is confined to substan2al ques2ons of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, (1999) 3 SCC 722, and Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki, (2007) 1 SCC 546, has held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. Further, re-apprecia2on of evidence is impermissible in second appeal.

10.

It is no2ced that the Courts below relied upon Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari entries consistently reflec2ng the Thakurdwara and its Mohatmim as owner in possession. Such entries carry a presump2on of correctness under revenue law and can be displaced only by cogent documentary evidence. The defendants failed to produce any revenue or 2tle record suppor2ng their plea of proprietary possession. Their case rests primarily on oral asser2ons regarding use of Gaushala, which cannot dislodge documentary entries. The findings based on documentary evidence cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be

-4legally unsustainable.

11.

Further, the material on record demonstrates succession of plain2ff No.1 as Mohatmim through Will and customary prac2ce. It is seAled that property dedicated to a religious ins2tu2on vests in the ins2tu2on itself and the Mahant is only a manager or custodian. 12.

The Supreme Court in Radhakanta Deb v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, AIR 1981 SC 798, recognized that proper2es aAached to religious ins2tu2ons retain the character of endowment property and cannot be treated as private or village property merely because villagers par2cipate in religious ac2vi2es. 13.

Thus, the plea of village proprietorship cannot defeat the character of endowed property unless dedica2on itself is disproved, which has not been done.

14.

The defendant's principal argument rests on the alleged running of a Gaushala. However, permissive or charitable user does not translate into ownership or possessory 2tle. The Supreme Court has consistently held that permissive use or community benefit does not divest the endowment of its legal character nor confers any proprietary right upon users. A Gaushala func2oning over religious land, without proof of dedica2on of land to the village community, at best indicates permissive use and not hos2le possession. No plea or proof of adverse possession was either properly pleaded or established. Therefore, the Gaushala argument is legally insufficient to displace the plain2ffs possession. 15.

S2ll further, earlier decrees of 2007 & 2009 recognizing the plain2ffs possession, though not strictly res judicata against all defendants, cons2tute strong corrobora2ve evidence regarding the nature of possession and the status of the ins2tu2on. The Courts below were jus2fied in placing reliance on such adjudica2on.

-516.

It is seAled that a person in seAled possession is en2tled to protect such possession against forcible dispossession even against the true owner. Where possession is established and threat of dispossession exists, a suit for injunc2on is maintainable without seeking declara2on. 17.

Thus, the concurrent finding of seAled possession fully jus2fied the grant of injunc2on.

18.

The controversy raised by the appellants relates purely to apprecia2on of evidence regarding possession and nature of property. The findings recorded by both Courts below are based on documentary evidence; supported by seAled legal principles; and are neither perverse nor suffering from misapplica2on of law. No substan2al ques2on of law arises for determina2on.

19.

Consequently, it is held that the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are well reasoned and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or jurisdic2onal error. Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeals are dismissed. Pending applica2ons, if any, also stand disposed of.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE February 19, 2026 Nee2ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes