SARVJEET SINGH Vs. BABA LAL KRANTI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri H. M. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Shahroze Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent No. 1.

(2.) This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.3.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Siddharth Nagar in original suit No. 234 of 1985 and also the judgment and decree dated 23.1.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Siddharth Nagar in Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2002.

(3.) The dispute is in respect of the Temple situated at Tetari Bazar named as Hanuman Garhi Temple. It is stated that the Temple was renovated in the year 1960 and this Temple was being maintained by the Ajama Akhara of Nepal. A dharamshala was also constructed along with the Temple. The construction of the Temple as well as dharamshala was from the money donated by the people of Nepal, who were members of the Ajama Akhara. The defendant claimed that one Ram Tahal Das was appointed as Sarvarakar of the Temple and after his death, one Sukh Ram Das was appointed by the Ajama Akhara in his place. Subsequently, one Vishwanath Das was appointed. The defendant claims himself to be appointed as Saravarakar of the Temple and dharamshala on the basis of a Will deed, which is said to have been executed by the previous Saravarkar Jhinku Das on 28.12.1977. A copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. The plaintiff/respondent instituted original suit No. 234 of 1985 for possession. It was pleaded that after Jhinku Das, who was appointed as pujari left the Temple, defendant Anumant Lal was temporarily asked to look after the affairs of the Temple. He illegally allowed his brother appellant/ defendant No. 2 to occupy the adjacent room without knowledge of the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the appellant is a criminal and all the goods of the Temple are kept in that room. The plaintiff was duly appointed as Vyavasthapak of Hanuman Garhi Temple by the State of U. P. in accordance with provisions of Antiquities and Art Treasure Rules 1973 on 27.3.1982. Copies of the certificates have been brought on record, which have been annexed as Annexures-3A and 3B to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. The trial court framed a number of issues. Issue No. 2 was on the question, whether the disputed Temple is a public trust and issue No. 1 was whether the plaintiff is validly appointed as Sarvarakar and Manager of the Temple and competent to dispossess the defendant Nos 1 and 2. Execution of certificates of appointment in favour of the plaintiff were not disputed by the defendant. The defendant has not even challenged validity of the two registration certificates and, therefore, the trial court placed reliance and came to a conclusion that the plaintiff is appointed on the basis of the said certificates, besides the electricity bills etc. were also produced in the name of the plaintiff/respondent. The suit was decreed for possession holding that the defendant/appellant is not a validly appointed Sarvarakar by the Ajama Akhara as claimed by him, therefore, lie is not entitled to remain in possession. The appeal filed by the defendant/appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial court was confirmed.