SANATAN DHARAM MAHA MANDAL Vs. GULLO DEVI AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's revision against the order dated February 28, 1975 allowing the appeal of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 after setting aside the order of the trial Court.

(2.) THE facts leading to this application in revision are not disputed may be narrated as follows: Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 filed an application under Section 145, Cr.P.C. alleging that there was dispute between the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 on one hand and the plaintiff on the other regarding the building known as Saraswati Bhawan and there was an apprehension of breach of peace between the parties. Plaintiff No. 1 Sanatan Dharam Maha Mandal was a Registered Society while plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 were its President and Secretary respectively. The learned Magistrate before whom the application under Section 145, Cr.P.C. was filed sent for police report and the police also reported that there was an apprehension of breach of peace. The learned Magistrate passed temporary order to attach the disputed building. Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 were the first party and the plaintiffs were the second party were required to file their respective statement. The Criminal Court then referred the question of possession to the civil court for determination under Sction 145, Cr.P.C. Defendant No. 7 was appointed Sapurdar of the disputed building during the attachment proceedings. Before any finding was received from the civil court the plaintiffs filed a civil suit, No. 71 of 1972 giving rise to this application for a declaration that they were the owners of the disputed building and they were entitled to take possession of the disputed property. The suit as already noted was filed against defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and defendant No. 7 who was the Supurdar during the attachment proceedings.

(3.) THE defence of defendant No. 1 was that his father had constructed the building in suit and the plaintiff No. 1 was not the owner of the disputed building. The defence of defendants Nos. 2 and 6 was that they were residing in the building in dispute on behalf of the defendant No. 1. The trial court after hearing the parties and assessing the documents as well as affidavits before it came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have prima facie title to the case and therefore it made the injunction order absolute and restrained the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 from taking possession of the property in dispute from defendant No. 7.