(1.) Both the appeals are interconnected, filed against the same judgment, are accordingly being decided together.
(2.) Sri Prem Singh plaintiff filed suit No. 76 of 1979 in the Court of Munsif Kashipur against defendants Tejpal Singh praying for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly dispossessing him from the disposed house, and not to make any sort of demolition of the disputed house.
(3.) The plaintiff filed the suit mainly against Tejpal Singh, Suresh Kumar, Vidya Sagar, Meghnath and Baba Ramdas. During the pendency of the suit Sri Ramesh Chandra alias Ramesh Das made a prayer in the suit that he is a necessary party as defendant in the above suit. The prayer of Ramesh Chandra was allowed and accordingly Ramesh Chandra was impleaded as defendant No. 6. Mainly the plaintiff had prayed for permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 5 and in para 1 of the plaint had alleged that the plaintiff has been in possession of the disputed house as tenant of Ramesh Chandra son of Sri Phul Das. The said suit was contested by defendants 1 to 5 and also Bihari Singh. On account of death of Bihari Singh his name was removed from the array of the parties to the suit. The defendants 1 to 5 alleged in the written statement that the house in suit belongs to Thakurji Mandir (Temple) and the management of the same has been with Bairagi sect of saints and the present manager of the said property is Baba Ramdas. The said house had been given by Ramdas defendant 5 for residence 1, 11/2 months before, however, the plaintiff is not vacating the same and is in unauthorised possession. The defendants 1 to 4 denied to have made any attempt to dispossess the plaintiff. The defendant No. 5 filed a separate written statement and alleged that the disputed property is the property of the temple and the defendant No. 5 is managing the said portion. Rameshchandra, had no right to let out the premises. Sri Ramesh Chandra has no right over the disputed property.