RAMESH DAS Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.9-A of 1996. The suit filed by the plaintiff was for the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction. The trial court through its judgment dated 14th October, 1996 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The respondent herein assailed the same before the lower appellate court in C.A.No.88-A of 1999. The lower appellate Court through its judgment dated 18th May, 2001 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The plaintiff, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved was before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The same was registered as S.A. No.274 of 2001. The learned Judge of the High Court having taken note of the contentions was of the opinion that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly, the Second Appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved the plaintiff/appellant is before this Court in this appeal.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the suit is the claim of the plaintiff that Shri Ram Mandir situate at Dedla Village, Dhar Tehsil is a private temple which belonged to the forefathers of the plaintiff, the temple was built out of their own funds and the idol was installed by them. It is contended that the family of the plaintiff was performing the pooja for generations. It was pleaded in the suit that the said Dedla Village was a Jagir Village of the former Jagirdar. Since he was the devotee of Shri Ram Mandir the Jagirdar gifted 25 bighas of land from his jagir village of which the land in question bears Survey No.442. Prior to 1974 the name of Shri Ram Mandir and the name of Laxmandas, Pujari of Shri Ram Mandir had been continued in the Government records. The plaintiff on tracing the family tree has contended that he has succeeded to the said temple and the land. Being the son of the said Laxmandas he claims that having thus succeeded he is performing the pooja in the temple, he is in possession of the land and is cultivating the same. The grievance that prompted the filing of the suit is that according to the plaintiff the Sub-Divisional Officer who had no manner of right over the property, on 29th April, 1992 issued a notice to auction the land in question for one year. The revision filed by the plaintiff was rejected by the Collector on 1st September, 1992. In that view the plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration of his title and ownership over the land and to hold that the defendants cannot auction or dispossess the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendant having appeared in the suit filed a detailed written statement disputing the claim put forth by the plaintiff. The contention of the plaintiff that the temple belongs to the family and the plaintiff had succeeded as the pujari was also disputed. It was contended that the pujari of the temple is appointed by the Government and the father of the plaintiff though had performed pooja in that regard the plaintiff is not the pujari of the temple as he has not been appointed nor he has any right and title to the disputed land. The manner of claim as put forth in respect of the property was disputed and the Revenue entry as stated by the plaintiff was explained that such entry was in the name of the temple and the name of the father of the plaintiff Late Laxmandas was only in the capacity of the Manager of the temple. The name of the District Collector has been recorded as Manager in the year 1974 as per the directions of the State Government. According to the respondent, Laxmandas did not make any objection during his life time on deletion of his name. When Laxmandas did not object for such deletion, Ramesh Das has no right to raise objection. The auction held on 29th April, 1992 was sought to be justified as the plaintiff had no right. It was further contended that the procedure for appointment of pujari was known to the plaintiff and he had also made an application but since no pujari was appointed for the temple and the land was not being utilised, the auction was ordered for the benefit of the temple. In that view, the defendants had sought for dismissal of the suit.