MEGH RAJ GUPTA Vs. K K GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed this suit for a declaration, partition, rendition of accounts, mandatory and permanent injunction. The suit is in respect of two properties; one being house No. 2460, Chhipiwara, Delhi and the other being nine shops known as Tata Ram shops, Muradnagar, Uttar Pradesh. The allegations made in the plaint are :

(2.) That the Chhipiwara property was purchased from the common savings of the Tata Ram, Ganga Sahai and Bhairon Prasad in which they all lived together being joint in mess. However, the property was purchased in the individual name of Bhairon Prasad; that it was the desire of the said Tata Ram, Ganga Sahai and Bhairon Prasad that the Chhipiwara properties should never be sold and should remain the ancestral house of the family and it was with this intention that Bhairon Prasad dedicated the house at Chhipiwara to the private deity of the family. The dedication is alleged to have been made in the name of Shri Radha Kishanji Maharaj where idol of Radha Kishanji was installed. It is stated to be a private temple for the use of the family and in existence since about 1929. The allegations are that since the Chhipiwara property is dedicated to a private temple, the same cannot be transferred or alienated by any party and the ownership thereof vests only in the deity and not in any living person. Atma Ram was the father of defendant No. 1 and was the natural son of Tata Ram, he is alleged to have been adopted by Shri Bhairon Prasad. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 in the night of 13th August, 1994 removed the idols of Shri Radha Kishanji from the Chhipiwara house and intended to sell the said house. It is alleged that the Chhipiwara house having been dedicated to the temple, Shri Radha Kishanji Mahara). no person, including defendant No. 1, had any right to dispose of the same and an injunction was, therefore, claimed against defendant No. 1 from interfering with the rights of the plaintiff and his family members from worshipping and offering prayers at the private temple in Chhipiwara and restrain the defendant No. 1 from transferring, selling, alienating or parting with possession in any manner of the said Chhipiwara property.

(3.) The allegations about the Muradnagar property are that Shri Tata Ram, father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and grand-father of defendant No. 1, out of his own funds had purchased the land at Muradnagar, District Meerut, Dttar Pradesh and had constructed nine shops thereon which were popularly known as Tata Ram shops. The said shops were let out to the tenants and Shri Tota Ram d uring his life time was realising rent from them. One of the said shops is alleged to have been sold by defendant No. 2, the plaintiff and late Shri Atma Ram; that after the death ofShri Tota Ram, Muradnagar property was being managed by his eldest son Shri Atma Ram, in whom the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 had full trust and faith. After the death of Atma Ram in 1975, his widow started realising rent from the shops to which also the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 did not raise any objection; that defendant No. I in the month of July, 1994 had attempted to sell eight shops at Muradnagar in which the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 also had one-third share each and on coming to know of the alleged illegal act of defendant No. 1, they had requested him to desist from taking any such action; that out of the eight shops, four were stated to be lying vacant and the plaintiff had on 1st August, 1994, when he visited Muradnagar, placed his lock on the said four shops. It is alleged that defendant No. I had been realising rent from the tenants at Muradnagar and was giving the same to his mother and now after the death of his mother in 1993, the rent realised from the four shops was being appropriated by him to himself. It is, therefore, alleged that defendant No. 1 had no right to either sell, transfer, alienate or part with possession of any of the said shops at Muradnagar or to take the rent being realised by him from the tenants and appropriate for his own benefit.