RAKHMAJI Vs. PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the original defendants who are facing a decree passed by the lower appellate court holding the respondent No. 1/Public Trust entitled to possession of 3206 square feet described in the plaint, from and out of Municipal House No. 176 , 220 belonging to it.

(2.) The respondent No. 1/Public Trust claimed that its property comprises of a temple and a dharmashala with open premises. The appellants and the respondent No. 2 who was also arrayed as defendant no. 5 were occupying the suit property illegally and claimed possession. The appellants filed two separate written statements. They admitted that the trust owns the temple, the dharmashala and the surrounding area but denied to have made any encroachment or being in unauthorized occupation of the suit property. They contended that they were in occupation of the suit property since their forefathers for more than 50 to 60 years. The appellants further contended that the then priest of the temple one Virbhadra Swami had permitted their forefathers to occupy the open space near the building of the dharmashala for their residence. They contended that they became owners of the suit property by adverse possession and the suit was barred by limitation.

(3.) The respondent No. 2 did not appear in the suit in spite of service of summons and it proceeded ex parte against her.