2025:HHC:19419 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.104/2024 Date of Decision: 23rd June, 2025. Surinder Kumar .....Appellant Versus Duni Chand & Anr. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: M/s B.L. Soni, Nitin Soni and Mr. Sunil Gautam, Advocates. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The appellant, by filing this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2023, passed by the Learned District Judge, District Kullu, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.22/2022 affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2022, passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), District Kullu, HP, in Civil Suit No.339 of 2017. 2. It is averred that the plaintiff is a permanent resident of village Dhauni, Post Office Jalugran, Tehsil Bhunter, District Kullu, H.P., and he is the Pujari of his Kul Devi Bhagwati Mata of Village Dhauni. He has been performing this role since the time of his forefathers, from time immemorial and all inhabitants of Village Dhauni consider Kul Devi Mata Bhagwati, as their deity and offer worship. There is a longstanding tradition in the area 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 2025:HHC:19419 that the Saptmukhi Ghandi of Bhagwati Mata is taken from the house of the plaintiff, for the purpose of Holy bath (Sangam Nahun) to Jia, Tehsil Bhunter, District Kullu, H.P., along with the Rath of Mata Chongasan and Ghandis of other Devtas. 3. After the Holy bath, the Ghandi, along with the Rath of Mata Bhagwati, is traditionally taken back to its original place, i.e., the house of the plaintiff in village Dhauni. The defendants No.1 to 3, are the residents of different villages and hold the posts of Sarbrah Kardar, Kardar, and Pradhan of the Committee of Mata Chongasan, respectively. On the occasion of the Holy bath, the plaintiff handed over the Saptmukhi Ghandi of Mata Bhagwati to the Pujari of Mata Chongasan at Jia for the purpose of the Holy bath. After the completion of the traditional Holy bath, it was to be taken to the temple of Mata Chongasan at Village Chong, from where it was to be returned to its original place in the house of the plaintiff at Village Dhauni. However, the defendants failed to return the Saptmukhi Ghandi to the plaintiff or take it back to its original place. 4. The defendants, acting in connivance with each other, have unlawfully retained possession of the Saptmukhi Ghandi of Mata Bhagwati without any authority or consent of the plaintiff or the worshippers of Mata Bhagwati. This act of the defendants is arbitrary, illegal, and unwarranted. The defendants have no right to retain possession of the Saptmukhi Ghandi of Mata Bhagwati, as it never remains outside its original place after the 3 2025:HHC:19419 performance of the traditional Holy bath, nor can anyone else keep it in their possession except for the purposes of the functions of Mata Bhagwati. Despite repeated requests by the plaintiff to return the Saptmukhi Ghandi to its original place in his house, the defendants have refused to comply, and since the second week of December 2017, they have outrightly denied the plaintiff’s claim. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit. 5. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement, challenging its maintainability, cause of action, suppression of material facts, non-joinder of necessary parties, and mis-joinder of party. On merits, they claimed that the worshiping bell/Saptmukhi Ghandi traditionally remained in an old house at village Dhauni, and every Haryan would take it as per requirement. However, due to the collapse of the old house, the plaintiff took the Ghandi to his own house, despite having no right to do so, leading to a dispute. As per the directions of Mata, the Ghandi was subsequently taken and kept in the Bhandar of Mata. 6. The defendants denied that the Ghandi was traditionally taken from the plaintiff’s house for the Holy bath and asserted that it was always kept in the old house at Dhauni, accessible to all Haryans. They further stated that due to the collapse of the old house, the Ghandi was to be kept in a small temple under a tree for public use, but the plaintiff wrongfully retained it in his 4 2025:HHC:19419 new house, contrary to tradition. The defendants denied that the plaintiff handed over the Ghandi for the Holy bath and asserted that the Ghandi is a public property owned by Devi Bhagwati Mata, not the plaintiff. They also denied any ill-will or connivance, stating that the dispute arose solely due to the plaintiff’s actions. A new Ghandi was purchased by the committee, Kardar, and Sarvrah Kardar, with the consent of the Haryans, and kept in the public temple of Mata for religious functions, which is now used by all, including the plaintiff. 7. In his replication, the plaintiff reiterated his claims and denied the defendants’ contentions. He maintained that the Ghandi of Mata Bhagwati was always kept in his house and used by him, and the defendants took it unlawfully without any right. 8. The parties were put to trial on the following issues framed on 02.09.2019: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the custody and possession of the worshiping bell (Saptmukhi Ghandi) of Mata Bhagwati to its original place in the house of the plaintiff and to keep it open for worship to the Haryans of Mata Bhagwati of Dhauni, as prayed for? (OPP) 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form, as alleged? (OPD) 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? (OPD) 4. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed material facts from the Court, as alleged? (OPD) 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? (OPD) 6. Relief. 5 2025:HHC:19419 9. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself and PW-2 Smt. Nima Devi. In rebuttal, the defendants examined defendant No. 1 in support of their case. 10. The trial court dismissed the suit, ruling that the worshiping bell (Sapatmukhi Ghandi) was not the personal property of the plaintiff. Instead, it belonged to the local deity (Mata Bhagwati, also known as Mata Chongasan) and was considered public property for all devotees (Harhans/worshipers). While the plaintiff and other worshipers had the right to use the bell for religious purposes, it could not be restored to the plaintiff's possession as he sought to claim individual ownership. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the requested relief of mandatory injunction. For these reasons, Issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiff and answered in the negative. A first Appeal was thereafter preferred by the Plaintiffs which was also dismissed therefore the present second appeal. 11. Heard the parties perused the impugned judgements. 12. The plaintiff, claiming hereditary rights as the Pujari of Kul Devi Bhagwati Mata, alleged that the sacred Saptmukhi Ghandi (worship bell) was traditionally kept in his house and wrongfully retained by temple officials after a ritual bath. He testified (PW-1) that the Ghandi "used to remain in my house since my forefathers' time" and was only temporarily taken for ceremonies. His sister (PW-2) supported this, stating it was 6 2025:HHC:19419 "always returned to our house after holy baths." However, under cross-examination, PW-1 admitted the Ghandi was originally kept in a communal village house and only moved to his private residence after its collapse, contradicting his claim of exclusive custody. 13. The defendants, temple committee members, countered that the Ghandi was always communal property. Defendant No. 1 (DW-1) testified it was "kept in the old house for villagers' convenience," and after disputes arose over the plaintiff's unauthorized retention, the deity's committee decided to house it in the temple Bhandar. DW-1 clarified that "the Ghandi belongs to Mata Chongasan [another name for the deity] and is used by all Haryans [devotees]," noting the plaintiff had no exclusive rights. This was corroborated by PW-1's own admission in cross-examination that villagers from Chhani Khod used the Ghandi with his "permission," undermining his claim of sole ownership. 14. The court found the plaintiff's evidence unreliable due to inconsistencies—he alternately claimed the Ghandi was taken from his house for rituals (plaint) and that defendants "snatched it unlawfully" (replication). Meanwhile, DW-1's testimony aligned with documentary evidence of the Ghandi's communal history. The plaintiff's claim is further undermined by the issue of limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year period for filing suits for mandatory 7 2025:HHC:19419 injunction from the date the right to sue accrues. This statutory limitation assumes significance in light of PW-2's testimony during cross-examination, where she admitted that the Ghandi "has been kept by the Kardar in the Bhandar of Mata Chongasan and it was taken there 10-12 years ago." This admission establishes that the suit in the case at hand has been filed well beyond the permissible limitation period, rendering the suit time-barred. The plaintiff's attempt to explain this delay by vaguely stating that the Ghandi was taken when "the case was instituted" lacks specificity and fails to account for the substantial lapse of time. This fatal delay, coupled with the plaintiff's inconsistent versions about the Ghandi's custody, reinforces the conclusion that the suit is not only devoid of merit but also barred by law. The defendants' consistent position that the Ghandi was moved to the temple Bhandar a decade ago with the deity's approval remains uncontroverted on this crucial aspect of limitation. 15. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 23rd June, 2025 (T.B/Gaurav Rawat)