RAMESH DUTT MISHRA Vs. SUBHASH THAPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the impregnability of the judgment and order dated 28.4.2003, passed by the Additional District Judge/4th F.T.C., Dehradun, is in question. An original Suit No. 602/88, Sri Ramesh Dutt Mishra and his two brothers Vs. Sri Narendra Kumar, was instituted on 23.9.1988, wherein the decree of prohibitory injunction was prayed against the defendants, who all are respondents herein this second appeal. It was sought that defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the property, in suit, in any manner either themselves or through their agents, labourers, contractors, employees, etc. because plaintiffs are owners in possession of the same, while defendants, having an evil eye upon the property described at the foot of the plaint, were threatening to take forcible illegal possession on the same. This suit was decreed on 27.7.2001 by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), whereagainst First Appeal No. 151/2001 was filed by Sri Subhash Thapa and Sri Dinesh Thapa (two defendants impleading rest of the defendants proforma). The appeal was heard by the Additional District Judge, who adjudicated the same on 28.4.2003. Appeal was accepted and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with the direction to the District Magistrate, Dehradun for making certain compliance as regards the property in question. Learned appellate court was of the view that the plaintiffs were using the property/land, in question, for their personal gains at the strength of their name recorded in the relevant municipal/revenue records, while in fact it was the property of "Harihar Baba Temple". Thus, the Court of Appeal permitted everybody having faith and belief in 'Harihar Baba' to have access in the temple for worship and to satisfy his religious sentiments and, simultaneously, district administration was directed to take care of the property and appoint some responsible person for the purpose of offering the regular worship in the temple. The direction also entailed to keep the proper accounts of the income and expenditure under the supervision of the Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area. It was also expected from the administration to record the name of 'Harihar Baba' being the real owner of the property, in question, in all relevant records. Such directions of the Additional District Judge disgruntled the plaintiffs. So, they have come up in this second appeal.

(2.) AT the outset, it would be relevant to take note of the property in question as has been adverted by the plaintiffs in their plaint as well as in the enclosed map at the time of institution of the suit. Khata No. 358 (as shown in the plaint) Plot bearing No. 39/151; 40/151 In Khasra No. 271/2M Area 0.142 Acre Mauja Jakhan Land No. 151 -Do - Area 0.231 Acre Mauja Central Doon Land No. 151 Khasra No. 497 Area 0.045 Acre Bearing grove Total 0.428 Acres Three parts of the property (as shown in the map) Area shown in red colour (Garden) Area 2065 sq. mt. Came to the plaintiffs from Swami Shayamanand Tirath through sale deed dated 25.8.1981 Area shown in green colour (7 rooms, 4 stores, 3 shops, large open yards, terrace & veranda having covered area of 287.27 sq. mt. and open area 21.50 sq. mt.) Area 604.77 sq. mt. Came to the plaintiffs from Swami Shayamanand Tirath through sale deed dated 27.2.1082 Areas shown in blue colour having covered area 599.23 sq. mt. and open area 736 sq. mt. Area 1335.23 sq. mt. Came to the plaintiffs from Swami Shayamanand Tirath through Will dated 13.8.1982 Sum Total Area 4005 sq. mt.

(3.) THIS all property had 'Harihar Baba' Temple which is still existing, but along with the temple its 5 popularity known as of now by the name of 'Baikunth Path Bhajan Ashram', as appears from the pleadings of the intervener Smt. Satendra Kaur. It would not be out of place to mention that Ms. Satendra Kaur moved the impleadment application before this Court claiming herself to be the devotee of the temple. Such application was allowed by this Court on 24.7.2013 to the extent of according permission to address the Court to protect her concern. So, this Court rendered hearing to learned Counsel of all the parties.