GOVIND Vs. KISHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Defendants' appeal. The suit which has given rise to it was instituted by one Srimati Kishni. With the plaint she filed a map showing the area in dispute. It is marked red in that map and it forms one-half share of a bigger area. It is known as a Bagichi. Within this area is a temple of Hanumanji which was constructed by her husband but it was not her case that any portion of this Bagichi, except the temple, was dedicated to the deity. According to her the Bagichi was owned by her husband Minna Lal Chaubey. After her husband's death, she claimed tide to it by right of inheritance and in the alternative under a Will executed by her husband. As a third alternative, she alleged that she had been in peaceful possession thereof and had a possessory title thereto. The grievance she made was that the Appellants wanted to visit the Bagichi, take bhang there and use the land as Akhara. She sought an injunction restraining them from putting the Bagichi in question to such uses. Further she prayed that in case her possession was not found proved, a decree for possession might also be awarded to her.

(2.) In order to make the suit a representative one, she took steps under Order 1, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure, so that all persons interested in asserting a right to use the disputed land for akhara and allied purposes might be represented.

(3.) The Appellants resisted the suit. Their contention was that the entire Bagichi was dedicated to and was owned by Hanumanji. Further, they contended that they had a right to use this land for akhara and for taking bhang and holding parties. They raised the plea of limitation also.