Delhi High Court
Buddhist Society Of India vs Bhante Naga Sena on 3 June, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 03.06.2011
+ R.S.A.No. 97/2011 & CM Nos. 11495/2011, 11496/2011 & 11497/2011
BUDDHIST SOCIETY OF INDIA ...........Appellant
Through: Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate.
Versus
BHANTE NAGA SENA ..........Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated
11.05.2001 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge
dated 22.02.2010 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff i.e
Buddhist Society of India seeking permanent injunction against
the defendant restraining him from interfering with the
possession of the plaintiff qua the suit land (as depicted in red
colour in the site plan) had been dismissed.
2. The plaintiff is a society; suit had been filed through
Attorney, Sh. R.S. Gautam; it had been set up by persons
belonging to the scheduled castes community of the Munirka
Villate since about four decades; it was carrying activities on the
Abadi land of the village; land had been assessed to house tax
since 1979 and comprised of a Bhavan and other rooms; it was in
an area of 1600 sq. yards of land; suit property was possessed and
managed by the plaintiff society; it was for worship and other
charitable purposes. Defendant being a native of the Village
Munirka, became a monk in June 1985 and since then he had been
showing all his zeal to preach Buddhist sermons; defendant had
plans to take possession of the building illegally and forcibly and
was threatening to usurp this property which would create a law
and order situation; this threat was first given on 12.11.1985; it
was again given on 17.11.1985; present suit was accordingly filed
in November, 1985 seeking the aforenoted reliefs.
3. In the written statement, it was denied that the plaintiff had
any concern with the Munirka Budha Vihar Trust; defendant was a
monk and preacher of Buddhist religion; defendant had
constructed four rooms, one toilet and one bath room in the
property in dispute and he had spent more than ` 14,000/- for the
said purpose; plaintiff had no connection with the said property;
suit was liable to be dismissed.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following five issues
were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff has locus-standi to file the
present suit? OPP
2. Whether the suit has not been property valued for the
purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction and whether this Court has
no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD
3. Whether the present suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
permanent injunction, as prayed in the plaint? OPP
5. Relief.
5. Oral and documentary evidence was led.
6. Both the fact finding courts were of the view that the
plaintiff had failed to disclose since when he was in actual
possession of the suit land; he had no possessory title. No details
have been furnished by the plaintiff. Trial Judge had noted that
this is not a suit for possession or declaration of title but since the
plaintiff had failed to show his legal possession in the suit land, he
was not entitled to any relief. This finding was endorsed in appeal.
7. This is a second appeal. It is yet at the stage of admission
and substantial questions of have had been embodied at page 2 of
the body of the appeal.
8. On behalf of the appellant, it has been urged that the courts
below have gone wrong to deal with the question of title and in a
suit for injunction, title is not relevant; it is only a settled
possession which has to be established which the plaintiff has
been able to establish.
9. The relief sought by the plaintiff is an equitable relief; he
had sought relief of injunction. Perusal of the plaint shows that
the plaintiff has given the impression that he is in legal possession
of the suit land; however, the plaint is sadly lacking in material
particulars; para 4 of the plaint states that this society has been
running since the last four decades but when the society came
into possession of this land has not been given. This is also
lacking in the deposition of the witnesses of the plaintiff and has
been rightly noted in the impugned judgment. PW-1 in his
examination-in-chief stated that they are in possession of the suit
land since 1967; it has come on record that this land is a
Government land; plaintiff was silent on this in his plaint; he had
willfully and intentionally concealed the fact that this so-called
society is operating from Government land. Plaintiff had not come
to the court with clean hands. No documentary evidence had also
been brought on record by the plaintiff to show his so-called
settled possession. Plaintiff was, in fact, not even aware of the
khasra no. in which this property was located.
10. In these circumstances, the equitable relief of injunction had
rightly been disallowed; there was a willful concealment by the
plaintiff and he had for ulterior reasons not disclosed this fact in
this plaint; this fact had emanated in his replication for the first
time when an objection was taken to the said effect in the written
statement filed by the defendant.
11. The impugned judgment had, in this context, noted as
follows:-
"It is a settled position of law that the legal remedy flows from a legal
right. In other words where there is no right there is no remedy.
Therefore, plaintiff in order to show that he is entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction has to show his right in the suit property.
However appellant in the entire plaint has no where mentioned as to
how he came into possession of the suit property. On the other hand
respondent has stated that the property in suit is a government land but
used and occupied by plaintiff for charitable purpose. The plaintiff has
failed to establish before the ld. Trial court that its occupation on the
said land was lawful. Ld. Civil Judge has rightly observed that plaintiff
has failed to adduce any evidence to show that he is entitled to run the
Buddha Vihar from the suit property. PW1 in cross examination
admitted that as per government record the suit property belong to the
government. The fact that suit property is a government land was within
the knowledge of the appellant but same was not disclosed in the plaint.
The report of the Local Commisioner in the ld. trial court record is also
against the appellant. The appellant has not challenged this report.
Appellant chose not to summon any document or witness from the DDA
or Land Acquisition Department to prove its title over the suit property."
12. No interference is called for in this finding. In no manner
can it be said to be perverse. No substantial question of law has
arisen; appeal as also the pending applications are dismissed in
limine.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JUNE 03, 2011
SS
