DEEN DAYAL PIPRAIYA Vs. RAM SHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Sec. 96, C.P.C. has been preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 205 of 2016, Deen Dayal Pipraiya (deceased) through LRs. v. Ram Sharan against the judgment and decree dtd. 10/11/2017 passed by the Court of Sri Radhey Mohan Srivastava, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhansi whereby the plaintiff's suit for the relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11(d), C.P.C. on the ground that it is barred by res judicata under Sec. 11, C.P.C.

(2.) Factual matrix is that the plaintiff-appellant filed O.S. No. 205 of 2016 in the lower court with the averments that Sri Thakur Maithli Raman Jee Maharaj, Virajman Mandir Kunj i.e., plaintiff No. 2 is a private temple, of which the plaintiff No. 1, Deen Dayal Pipraiya was the Manager. The immovable property of the temple is situated in Chak No. 40 in Village Nunar, Tehsil Garautha, District Jhansi, whose khata numbers along with total area were specified in the plaint.

(3.) It was further averred that previously the owner of temple-plaintiff No. 2 was Smt. Janki Bai widow of Rajaram, who inherited the property from her father-in-law, Mathura Prasad through registered gift dtd. 13/9/1938, which was registered at Book No. 1, Jeeld 102, pages 322-324 at Sr. No. 296 on 14/9/1938 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Mauranipur, in which it was specifi- cally mentioned that the right of appointing Manager, for managing the property of the temple vested solely in Smt. Janki Bai, and in accordance with that right, one person, namely Ram Sharan was appointed as manager of the temple. The plaintiff further averred that since Ram Sharan did not honestly managed the affairs of the temple and committed irregularities in the accounting, as such, Smt. Janki Bai removed him, and thereafter, appointed plaintiff No. 1 as the Manager of plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiff further averred that Smt. Janki Bai died on 18/2/1983, her father-in-law, Mathura Prasad also died in the 1940, but his registered gift deed has not been cancelled by any com- petent court till date. It was further averred by the plaintiff that the defen- dant is a fraudulent person with malafide intention, who intends to illegally occupy the property of the temple plaintiff No. 2, and to transfer it to some other person. The defendant also illegally harvested the crops standing on the property of plaintiff No. 2. The defendant also managed to sell the property of plaintiff No. 2, who is in the company of anti-social elements, who was having influence in political circles. It was also submitted that defendant had no con- cern with the property of the temple plaintiff No. 2.