Delhi District Court
M/S. The Buddhist Society Of India vs Bhante Nagasena @ Puran Singh on 20 February, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VRINDA KUMARI,
CIVIL JUDGE : CENTRAL03 : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI.
Suit No. 569/2008
M/s. The Buddhist Society of India,
( A society duly registered under the Bombay Public Trust, 1950 ),
Head Office at Ambedkar Bhavan, Gokuldas Sasta Road,
Dadar ( Bombay ) Acting through its President
Mrs. M.Y. Ambedkar through her Attorney
Shri R.S. Gautam, President of the Local Office
of Buddhist Society of India, Branch No. 4,
Munirka Budh Vihar, Village Munirka,
New Delhi110067. ..................Plaintiff
Versus
Bhante Nagasena @ Puran Singh,
S/o Shri Goverdhan,
R/o House of Shri Arjun Singh, Village Munirka,
New Delhi110067. .................Defendant
Date of Institution : 18.11.1985.
Date of Decision : 22.02.2010.
2
Suit for Perpetual Injunction
J U D G M E N T
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of this suit for perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a duly registered corporate body under a public trust. Mrs. M.Y. Ambedkar is the President of the plaintiff society. She is competent to file the suit and proceedings on behalf of plaintiff and has authorized Shri R.S. Gautam, the President of the local office by way of a special power of attorney to file the present suit. The Munirka Budh Vihar, a public trust affiliated to the plaintiff society, has been carrying on its activities on the Abadi land of Village bearing Municipal Number 401/AB, Village Munirka, Delhi. It was 3 setup by the persons belonging to the scheduled caste community of the Munirka Village. The above said land is being assessed to house tax since 1979. The area of the land is 1600 square yards and a Bhavan and other rooms of the Budh Vihar exist on it. The suit property has been shown in red colour in the site plan. The defendant, who is also a native of the Village Munirka, became a monk. He returned to India in June, 1985 after staying abroad for about 25 years. The defendant had been preaching the Buddhist teaching and had been visiting the Budh Vihar for participating in the weekly prayers. It is alleged that the intention of the defendant, thereafter, turned malafide. He started proclaiming himself to be the selfstyled owner of the Budh Vihar and instigated anti social elements to take possession of the property and throw out the 4 scheduled caste people from the temple as well as from the religious order of the Vihar. It is alleged that the defendant and its associates were excluded from All India Bhikshu Sangh because of his bad antecedents. He is also involved in a criminal case for assaulting and beating a public servant. FIR No. 218 dated 18.08.1985 was registered in the Police Station Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, against him. It is alleged that the defendant is threatening to to usurp the property of the plaintiff under the facade of a selfstyled trust. The plaintiff prays for restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff by trespassing or encroaching in any manner whatsoever, in the land & building as shown in red colour in the site plan, that is, Munirka Budh Vihar, bearing Municipal No. 401/AB, Village Munirka, New Delhi. 5
3. In his written statement, the defendant has denied and controverted the allegations of the plaintiff and it is alleged that the plaintiff has no locusstandi to file the present suit. It is alleged that Mrs. M.Y. Ambedkar is not the President of M/s. Buddhist Society of India and it is Shri Ashok Ambedkar who is the President of the society. Therefore, Mrs. M.Y. Ambedkar could not authorize Shri R.S. Gautam to file the present suit. It is further alleged that the plaintiff society has nothing to do with the Budh Vihar ( the suit property in question ) as this Budh Vihar is being run by the residents of the Munirka Village who have formally embraced Buddhism through Diksha ceremony and not by Scheduled Caste Community. It is averred that Shri Ram Dass who is the President of the Munirka Buddha Vihar Trust has not been impleaded him in 6 the array of the parties. The defendant with the permission of the President Shri Ram Dass had constructed four rooms, one toilet, one bath room & also raised a statue of Lord Buddha in the suit property. The defendant has averred that he has spent more than Rs. 14,000/ in carrying out the construction of the rooms alongwith toilet and bath room. It is further averred that the DDA squad had tried to demolish the same, it was the defendant who had obstructed them. A report to this effect was lodged by the staff of DDA against the defendant at Police Station Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. He has averred that the FIR mentioned in the plaint was lodged against him as he was trying to protect the property of Munirka Budh Vihar. It is also submitted that the name of plaintiff does not figure in the list of Branches of Bhartiya Buddha Maha 7 Sabha, Delhi, as published in their official publication " Dharmma Darpan". The defendants claims to be in possession of the suit property and prays for dismissal of the present suit.
4. In its replication, the defendant has denied the allegations of the defendant and has reiterated its stand in the plaint. It is averred that there are seven rooms on the suit property and plaintiff has been in possession of the same since a long time. It is also alleged that defendant changed the locks of room No. 2 and room No. 7 after service of the stay order to show his possession during the visit of the Local Commissioner even though the articles inside these rooms belong to plaintiff. It is admitted that suit property is a Government land but it has been occupied by the plaintiff for charitable purposes.
8
5. Following issues were framed on 03.10.2002 : (1) Whether the plaintiff has locusstandi to file the present suit ? OPP.
(2) Whether the suit has not been properly 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 nonjoinder of necessary parties ? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed in the plaint ? OPP (5) Relief.
6. Plaintiff examined Shri R.S. Gautam as PW1. His affidavit of evidence is EX. PW1. Site plan is EX. PW1/1. Mark 9 PW1/2 is the copy of certificate of registration dated 06.07.1962 in favour of Buddhist Society of India. EX. PW1/3 is the Book of Rules of the Buddhist Society of India. EX. PW1/4 is the GPA dated 12.11.1987 executed by Smt. M.Y. Ambedkar in favour of Shri R.S. Gautam. EX. PW1/5 is the GPA dated 16.11.1985, executed by Smt. M.Y. Ambedkar in favour of Shri R.S. Gautam. EX. PW1/6 is the SPA dated 16.11.1985 executed by Shri Ashok Mukund Rao, Chairman Buddhist Society of India in favour of Shri R.S. Gautam. EX. PW1/7 is the Vandana Register of Bhartiya Baudh Maha Sabha, Munirka for the period from 10.02.1980 to 09.06.1985. EX. PW1/9 is the letter of Assistant Assessor & Collector dated 24.09.1986 addressed to Shri Chattar Singh regarding change in the name of Association from Buddhist Society 10 of India ( Registered ) to Munirka Budh Vihar. PW2 is Shri Banarasi Lal. His affidavit of evidence is EX. PW2/A. Shri Sanjay Gupta, LDC, Registrar of Societies is PW3. He produced the relevant summoned record. EX. PW3/A is the letter dated 04.10.1985 of Shri R.S. Gautam, the then President of Baudh Maha Sabha Delhi Pradesh BranchIV addressed to Registrar of Trust, Delhi regarding intimation ( objection ) of effort of some persons to grab Munirka Budh Vihar. EX. PW3/B is the letter dated 07.10.1985 of Shri Chattar Singh, General Secretary of Munirka Budh Vihar Trust addressed to the Assessor & Collector, D.M.C for change in the name of Association. EX. PW3/C is the letter dated 21.03.1986 of Registrar of Societies addressed to Shri R.S. Gautam. EX. PW3/D is letter dated 25.02.1987 of Registrar of 11 Societies addressed to Shri Dharam Pal Singh, General Secretary of Buddhist Society of India stating that cancellation of a registered society is not within the jurisdiction of Registrar of Societies. Shri Puran Singh, Zonal Inspector, MCD R.K. Puram is PW4. The record of first assessment of the house tax of property which is in the name of Buddhist Society of India is EX. PW4/A. EX. PW4/B is the letter dated 07.10.1985 sent by Shri Chattar Singh. EX. PW 4/C is the letter dated 18.02.1986 sent to Shri Chattar Singh regarding change in the name of Association. EX. PW4/D1 & EX. PW4/D2 are the indemnity bonds dated December, 1979 & 15.04.1986 respectively on the basis of which assessment of the house tax of the suit property was done. Defendant examined Shri Ganesh Kumar Budh ( attorney of the defendant ) as DW and his 12 affidavit of evidence is EX. DW1/A. During his crossexamination, he also admitted the letters written by him as Secretary of Bhartiya Budh Maha Sabha, Branch No. IV, Munirka ( EX. DW1/D1 to EX. DW1/D12 ).
7. Final arguments alongwith arguments on the application under Section 340 Cr.PC were addressed on 22.08.2009, 18.09.2009, 21.10.2009 & 02.02.2010. Records perused carefully.
8. My issuewise findings are as follows : ISSUE No. 2 The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. It has been pointed out that during his crossexamination, PW1 has admitted " Value of the land at the time of the filing of the suit might be Rs.20,000/ per square yards". However, the present suit 13 is not a suit for possession. The claim of the plaintiff is that it is already in occupation of the suit property and the defendant is trying to dispossess it and is interfering in its peaceful possession. The case of the defendant on the other hand is that the defendant has been in occupation of the suit property since long and two rooms in the suit property bear the locks of the defendant. In such circumstances, the plaintiff must show the extent of his legal possession qua the suit property. Its prayer for restraining the defendant from interfering in its possession shall be considered only in respect of the property or part of property that is in its legal occupation. The prayer of the suit can not be termed as a prayer for possession. The present suit is a suit for permanent injunction and the plaintiff has valued the present suit for the purpose of Court fees 14 and jurisdiction appropriately at Rs.130/. Appropriate Court fees of Rs.13/ has been filed by the plaintiff. The issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 3.
The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. The case of the defendant is that Shri Ram Dass, President of Munirka Budh Vihar Trust that is running the suit property is a necessary party to the present suit. However, the present suit is a suit for permanent injunction. The allegations are against the defendant only. There is no allegation against any other person. This suit is not a suit for possession or declaration of title. Thus, it can not be said that Shri Ram Dass is a necessary party to this suit. The issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. 15
ISSUES No. 1 & 4.
The onus to prove these issues was on the plaintiff. In the entire plaint, the plaintiff has not stated how it came in the occupation of the suit property. It has merely averred that the Munirka Budh Vihar was setup mostly by the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community of the Munirka Village about four decades ago and it has been carrying on its activities on the Abadi land of the village which has now been given the Municipal Number 401/AB, Village Munirka, New Delhi. The plaintiff has avoided to give the Khasra Number of the suit property. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it is the owner of the suit property. Infact, in its replication in para 2 to the reply of preliminary objections, the plaintiff has admitted "The property in suit is a Government Land 16 but used and occupied by the plaintiff for Charitable purposes". The plaintiff has not come clean on the point as to how it came in occupation of the suit property. During his crossexamination, PW1 has stated "It is correct that as per Government record, the suit property belongs to the Government. We came into the possession of the suit property in 1967. I can not say when the property was acquired by the Government". The plaintiff summoned the MCD record only to show that the house tax was assessed in the name of plaintiff society. However, no record was summoned to show how the plaintiff is entitled to stay in occupation of the suit property. In his crossexamination, PW2 Shri Banarasi Lal has stated "The suit property is situated on common land of the village ( Gram Shamlat Land ) and meant and approved by the Government for 17 Dalits. I do not have any written documents from Government in this regard". The plaintiff has, thus, failed to bring any evidence on record to show that it is entitled to run Budh Vihar from the suit property. The orders dated 29.05.2008 & 03.06.2008 show that it was submitted by learned counsel for defendant that the Khasra Number of the suit property was 825/02/31. It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was not aware of its Khasra Number. The report of Shri C.L. Meena, Halka Girdawar is on record. As per his report, the Khasra Number of the Buddhist Society could not be verified. He further stated that the Revenue Record pertain to Khasra No. 825/1 and 825/2/31. He further reported that there is no mention of Budh Vihar Society in the revenue records and that Khasra No. 825/2/31 was a Government 18 Land. In the report, it has been categorically mentioned that the status of the suit property can be verified from DDA or LAC. The plaintiff neither challenged this report nor produced any document from the concerned department of DDA or LAC to show that the suit property has not been acquired by the Government and the title of the suit property is in the name of the plaintiff. The relief of permanent injunction is an equitable relief. Before seeking to restrain a person from interfering in its peaceful possession, the plaintiff must come clean on the point how it is entitled to stay in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff has himself admitted that the suit property is a Government Land. The plaintiff has, thus, no locusstandi qua the suit property. The plaintiff has withheld the Khasra Number of the suit property from this Court. In the plaint, 19 the plaintiff has suppressed the vital information that the suit property is a Government Land. It was only after the defendant raised the objection in his written statement that the plaintiff admitted in its replication that it is a Government property. The plaintiff has not led any evidence to show its title qua the suit property. In these circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief of permanent injunction. Both the issues are decided against the plaintiff.
RELIEF In view of the above discussion, it is held that the plaintiff has failed to show that he is entitled to the equitable relief of permanent injunction. The suit is dismissed.
9. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.
20
10. File be consigned to RecordRoom after necessary compliance.
Announced in the Open Court ( VRINDA KUMARI ) On 22nd day of February, 2010. CJ : CENTRAL03 : THC : Delhi.