ADUR Vs. KANIYA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the defendants/appellants herein are as under:-

(2.) Original plaintiff-Kaniya, son of Gurda, filed a suit for permanent injunction stating inter-alia that in Civil Suit No.5-A/67 (Gurda v. Jarre and others) decree was granted by the trial Court on 14.1.69 holding that Gurda along with defendant No.1-Jarre and defendant No.-2-Dori therein is jointly Gayta and priest of two temples namely Shitla Mandir and Thakur Dai Mandir and they are entitled for joint possession of the suit land, but the defendants are interfering with their possession, as such, he is entitled for decree for permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendants set-up a plea that compromise decree was passed and the plaintiff is not Gayta and priest of the said temples and for the said purpose, Durg Sai has been appointed by the villagers, as such, the suit deserves to be dismissed.