DEVENDRA SINGH Vs. SIDH NARSINGH BADRINATH MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel for both the parties are ready to argue the writ petition finally today at the admission stage without inviting counter affidavit. Heard them and perused the record.

(2.) BY -means of this writ petition, the Petitioners have prayed for issue a writ, order or direction for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 23 -08 -2005 (Annexure No. 6 and 7) passed by the Judge S.C.C. Almora and judgment and order dated 11 -09 -2007 passed by the District Judge Almora in Civil Revision No. 5 of 2005.

(3.) THE Defendants -petitioners filed their joint written statement. They have admitted the ownership of the Plaintiff. It was asserted that Anantacharya has no right to file the suit on behalf of the temple. The Defendants, admitted to have received the notice sent by the Plaintiff. It has been stated in the additional pleas that the name of Mahant Anantacharya has been recorded in the Nagar Palika record. He has not filed any document authorizing him to file the suit on behalf of the Plaintiff. This property always remained in possession of the Defendants. It has also been stated that the Defendant No. 2 is married and she has no right in the property in dispute. She is filing her written statement as proforma Defendant. It has been denied that the Defendants are not in need of the property in dispute. It was also denied that the Defendants have constructed a new house. The Defendants have also denied that the property in dispute had been sublet to Jeewan Singh Rautela. No change had been carried in the property in dispute. It has been asserted that the Defendant No. 1 is the only earning member of the family and he is running his business in the shop in dispute. The Defendants have claimed to be in bona fide need of the property in dispute. It was also asserted that the Plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit.