which would have been conclusive as regards the aims and objectives of the said Sabha. However, such relevant piece of evidence was withheld from the court. As regards the user of the disputed property is concerned, the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 is consistent to the fact that one room had been constructed on the suit property and a Nishan Sahib had also been installed there. They were worshippers of the said Gurudwara and the other residents of the mohalla also used to worship at such place. PW-2 Amar Dass has stated that when the Gurudwara Sahib was constructed the grant had been issued by the B.D.O., Mukerian. The testimony is also to the fact that the President of the Sabha as also its Members had demolished the Mandir/Gurudwara during the pendency of the suit. PW-2 is the President of the Sabha and he entered the witness box and admitted that as per khasra girdawari of the suit property, which is coming in the name of Gurudwara/Mandir. The courts below upon appreciation of evidence have reached a conclusion that the suit property, even though, in the ownership of the Sabha but the same is being used for the religious purposes since long and as such the defendants-appellants, who are the President and Members of the Sabha had no right or title to the disputed property in their personal capacity and could not have raised the same for their own benefit/personal purposes.
