STATE OF M P Vs. VIJAYA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal who has lost from two Courts below as suit of plaintiffs has been decreed and first appeal filed by defendant has been dismissed. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in narrow compass. Long back more than 28 years ago on 22.4.1983, a suit for declaration of bhumiswami right and injunction has been filed by the plaintiffs against defendant-State Government on the averments that suit property was given to their forefather by the-then Holkar State in Inam since they were offering the prayer of the deity Shri Ramji of Ram Mandir. Earlier their forefather was cultivating the agricultural lands in question and was also offering the Pooja to the deity Shri Ramji of the said Mandir. On coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short "Code") by operation of law, the plaintiffs' forefather became bhumiswami and after their death they have become the bhumiswami. The Tehsildar without issuing any notice to the plaintiffs in contravention to the law has mentioned the name of Collector Dewas as Manager of Shri Ramji Mandir and in the year 1982-83 has put the lands in question for auction to give Patta. The notice of auction is dated 24.5.1982 which plaintiffs received on 4.6.1982 and hence after serving notice under Section 80 of CPC on 25.6.1982 which was received in the office of Collector Dewas on 26.6.1982 the present suit has been filed for declaration of bhumiswami right as well as for injunction.

(2.) The defendant-State Government refused the plaint averments by filing written statement. In the written statement the factum of giving lands in question to forefather of plaintiffs in Inam has been denied. But, the factum of offering Pooja by the plaintiffs has not been denied. According to defendant, the plaintiffs are Pujaris and in order to maintain the Mandir the land was given and they are not the bhumiswami. The procedure of inserting the name of Collector Dewas as Manager of the temple of suit property in the revenue record has been pleaded to be validly adopted. It has been prayed by the defendant that suit be dismissed.

(3.) Learned Trial Court framed necessary issues. The plaintiffs thereafter examined themselves and proved the revenue record. However, the evidence of plaintiffs has not been rebutted by defendant by examining any witness.