Disposed¶35

Kehar Singh etc. v. Ajit Singh etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2025RSA/2603/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; RSA-2603-1993 (O&M); decided 16.05.2025 by Pankaj Jain, J.; Radha Swami Dera Baba Bagga Singh, Railway Road, Tarn Taran; Gaddi/Gaddi Nashin succession dispute; Will dated 17.05.1987; General Body approval 07.05.1988; representative suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC; permanent injunction against alienation of Dera property; locus of plaintiffs questioned; death of Baba Kehar Singh 31.12.2015; appointment of Baba Paramjit Singh; lis lost significance; decree lost sting with efflux of time; Lower Appellate Court findings not res judicata; appeal disposed off; not reportable.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; appeal disposed off with observations that the Lower Appellate Court's findings shall not operate as res judicata. ¶35

Kehar Singh etc. Vs Ajit Singh etc. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; appeal disposed off with observations that the Lower Appellate Court's findings shall not operate as res judicata.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether defendant No.1 (Kehar Singh) was duly nominated as successor to Sat Guru Partap Singh by Will dated 17.05.1987 and his nomination approved by the General Body on 07.05.1988, entitling him to succeed to the Gaddi of the Dera. +2 more

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Once a new Gaddi Nashin stands appointed and his appointment is not under challenge, the present lis has lost its significance.

¶29

Key takeaways

Since Baba Paramjit Singh has been appointed after the death of Baba Kehar Singh and his appointment has not been challenged, the decree passed in the present suit has lost its sting with efflux of time.ratio¶32
The findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court shall not operate as res judicata, as the suit was merely a suit for injunction.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal (RSA-2603-1993 O&M) by defendants Kehar Singh and another against the Lower Appellate Court's decree of permanent injunction restraining sale/alienation of properties of Radha Swami Dera Baba Bagga Singh, Railway Road, Tarn Taran, arising out of a representative suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC questioning succession to the Gaddi on the basis of Will dated 17.05.1987 and General Body approval of 07.05.1988, with plaintiffs' locus also questioned. During arguments, parties were ad idem that Baba Kehar Singh died on 31.12.2015 and Baba Paramjit Singh stood appointed as Gaddi Nashin without dispute. Held (Pankaj Jain, J.): once a new Gaddi Nashin stands appointed and his appointment is not under challenge, the lis loses its significance; the decree passed in the suit has lost its sting with efflux of time; and, the suit being merely a suit for injunction, the findings of the Lower Appellate Court shall not operate as res judicata. Appeal disposed off; pending miscellaneous applications also disposed. Speaking/reasoned: Yes; Reportable: No.

¶1

RSA-2603-1993 (O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

¶3

AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

120

¶5

RSA-2603-1993 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.05.2025

¶6

Kehar Singh and another

¶7

...... Appellants

¶8

versus

¶9

Ajit Singh and others ...... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶11

Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Brahmjot Singh Nahar, Advocate and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant No.1

¶12

Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for appellant No.2.

¶13

Mr. M.L.Sarin, Senior Advocate with Ms. Hemani Sarin, Advocate for the respondents No.9 to 12, 18, 20 to 23 & 25

¶14

Ms. Sarika Gupta, Advocate for the respondents No.31, 32, 36, 38, 43, 45, 48, 49 & 50.

¶15

Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for respondent No.56.

¶16

¶17

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

¶18

Defendants have filed the present appeal.

¶19

Representative suit was filed under Order I Rule 8 CPC seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from taking any steps to alienate the properties in the name of Radha Swami Dera Baba Bagga Singh, Railway Road, Tarn Taran and from making any alteration or interfering in the affairs of Dera and its income till a person is appointed as Gaddidar with the consent and approval of

¶20

DINESH KUMAR 2025.07.10 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

RSA-2603-1993 (O&M)

¶22

Sangat/believers of Math, Dera Baba Bagga Singh, Tarn Taran.

¶23

The plaintiffs claimed themselves to be residents of Tarn Taran and members of Sangat having faith and belief in the principles of Radha Swami Math, Dera Baba Bagga Singh. As per the pleaded case, Dera was being managed by Partap Singh son of Jodh Singh. He died on 26.04.1988 at Tarn Taran. Plaintiffs claimed that after death of Partap Singh, his son Kehar Singh defendant No.1 was trying to interfere in the estate of Dera without any approval and consent of Sangat claiming himself to be successor of Baba Partap Singh on the basis of Will. Plaintiffs claimed that there is no such Will executed by Baba Partap Singh and if there was any such will, the same is illegal, null and void. Plaintiffs further claimed that Gaddi of Dera cannot be given in inheritance by way of Will as per the customs of Dera. Defendant No.1 has no right to succeed to Gaddi.

¶24

Suit was contested by the defendants. Locus of the plaintiffs was questioned. As per defendants, defendant No.1 was duly nominated as his successor by previous head referred to as Sat Guru Partap Singh by executing Will dated 17.05.1987 as per the rules and regulations applicable to registered association of Radha Swami Dera Baba Bagga Singh. As per the defendants, nomination of defendant No.1 as successor to late Partap Singh was approved in the meeting of General Body of Association held on 07.05.1988. Defendant No.1 was duly appointed as Patron of Association as per the rules and the custom applicable to Dera. Suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Court of first instance.

¶25

DINESH KUMAR 2025.07.10 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

RSA-2603-1993 (O&M)

¶27

In appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, the findings recorded by the Court of first instance have been reversed. Appeal stands accepted and Lower Appellate Court passed decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from taking any steps to sell the property in the name of Dera.

¶28

During the course of arguments, counsel for the parties are ad idem that Baba Kehar Singh to whose appointment the dispute pertains, has died on 31.12.2015. After his death, Baba Paramjit Singh stands appointed as Gaddi Nashin of the Dera and there is no dispute regarding the appointment of Baba Paramjit Singh.

¶29

In view thereof, this Court finds that once new Gaddi Nashin stands appointed, the appointment is not under challenge, the present lis has lost its significance.

¶30

At this stage, senior counsel Mr. Chopra submits that findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court regarding the applicability of rules and regulations to the association be set aside as the same may operate as res judicata in future.

¶31

The present suit is suit for injunction, that too, till the date another person is appointed as Gaddidar as plaintiffs disputed appointment of Kehar Singh.

¶32

Once Paramjit Singh has been appointed after death of Kehar Singh and his appointment has not been challenged, the decree passed in the present suit has lost its sting with efflux of time. The findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court shall not operate as res judicata as the suit was merely a suit for injunction.

¶33

DINESH KUMAR 2025.07.10 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

RSA-2603-1993 (O&M)

¶35

With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is disposed off.

¶36

Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

¶37

(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 16.05.2025 Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No

¶38

DINESH KUMAR 2025.07.10 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kehar Singh etc. v. Ajit Singh etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kehar Singh etc. v. Ajit Singh etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bir Singh and Others Vs Sudhir Rajpal , IAS and Others

Jarnail Singh Vs Balvinder Singh etc.

Oriential Ins.Co. Vs Asha Rani etc.

Essel Towers Residents Welfare Association and Anr. Vs M/S Essel Housing Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Chand Kaur Vs Mehar Chand

Indra Wati Vs Ram Pat