SADANAND SHUKLA Vs. LAKSHMAN SINGH THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/plaintiffs have filed present appeal under Sec. 96 of C.P.C. challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 16/3/2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 5-A/1988 by which the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of the suit property mentioned in Schedule A situated at village Barliya measuring 9.57 acres and three buildings mentioned in Schedule B situated at Raigarh (hereinafter referred to as suit property).

(2.) For the sake of convenience parties would be referred to as per their status shown in the suit filed before the trial Court.

(3.) The brief facts as reflected from the plaint averments are that the deceased plaintiff Sadanand Shukla has filed civil suit mainly contending that the defendants are the office bearers of the so called trust Gopal Mandir Trust, Ganja Chowk, Raigarh. Defendant No. 1, 2 and 3 are claiming themselves as president, Secretary and treasurer respectively, remaining defendants are claiming themselves to be the members of the trust. It has been pleaded in the plaint that in the then Raigarh Princely State one Baba Kewaldas who was resident of Bihar came for publicity of religious thoughts, constructed one temple in the name of Shri Gopalji and also acquired property at various villages. He expired in year 1908 and as per the Guru parampara the property was inherited to Baba Laldas. Baba Laldas in his lifetime developed the property of the temple and expired in year 1920. Thereafter, the temple property and also other properties in Barliya village were inherited to his successor Baba Ramdas. The properties situated at Saktihabhanta and Regaon were inherited to disciples Tulsidas and Bhagwandas. Baba Ramdas has borne all the expenditure from his income and was doing agriculture work in the property situated at village Barliya measuring about 9 Acres 57 dismil and also purchased some properties out of agriculture income which has been described in Schedule A of the plaint and the property situated at Raigarh has been described in Schedule B. It is further contended that the house acquired by Baba Ramdas was his personal property and he has given the house on rent. Similarly, Baba Ramdas has done various constructions in the premises of the temple. It is further contended that the properties described in Schedule A and B have been constructed and developed by the financial assistance of Baba Ramdas, Baba Laldas and Baba Kewaldas only. No one else has provided financial assistance. Baba Ramdas has become old, therefore, to look after the property and to worship he has called plaintiff Sadanand who was his nephew and father of the plaintiff Prakashram @ Rampraqkash and Baba Ramdas also executed will in favour of the plaintiff-Sadanand. After death of Baba Ramdas in year 1929, name of the plaintiff was recorded in the revenue records of the temple and other properties. Since then the temple and other properties are in possession of the plaintiff.