RAMDAS (BABA) Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant's suit has been dismissed on preliminary grounds. It has been held that the suit is not maintainable, that the Plaintiff's remedy lies in instituting proceedings for correction of entries in revenue papers and that a consequential relief could be prayed without which it is barred by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.

(2.) THE Plaintiff's suit is that his Guru Baba Onkardas consecreted a temple of Shri Hanumanji on Khasra No. 175 of village Birpur Pargana Gird, in 1931 -32. In or about 1934, Baba Onkardas died. He was succeeded by his Chela Baba Ramdas who is the Plaintiff. Formerly there was a Neem tree and also a small garden. The Plaintiff developed it and planted a number of other trees as also got a well dug and made it pucca. He also put a fencing. One Mannalal constructed a verandah and dedicated it to the temple. All these properties are in the possession of the Plaintiff as the owner. In January 1957 some inhabitants of the village filed a complaint against him in the Tehsil but it was eventually dismissed. In that connection, he came to know that in the revenue papers the temple and verandah were entered as "Panchayati". The Plaintiff claims these properties as also the temple as his and challenges their being "Panchayati". He gave a notice to the Government under Section 80 of the C. P. G. and instituted this suit for the declaration of title. He did not pray for correction of entry in revenue papers in so many words but prayed for a declaration that the entires in revenue papers were wrong and they were liable to be corrected.

(3.) SINCE the Plaintiff asserts his own title and the Defendant State denies it, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the suit is competent and Civil Court has jurisdiction to try it. I say nothing at this stage whether the Plaintiff's claim is to the shebaiti or to the corpus of the property which in the case of a temple ordinarily belonged to the idol installed in it.