SURESHCHANDRA Vs. GIRIRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the CPC has been preferred by defendants 1 to 3/appellants against the order dtd. 15/9/2021 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.4/2016 and 17/2017 by the First Additional District Judge, Sardarpur, District Dhar whereby setting aside the judgment and decree dtd. 18/1/2016 passed in Civil Suit No.68-A/2017 by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Sardarpur, District Dhar, the matter has been remanded back to it for decision afresh as per directions contained therein.

(2.) The facts necessary for decision of this appeal are that plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 instituted an action before the trial Court for declaration that the temples in dispute are situated over their private suit lands hence are their private temples and suit lands are lands of temples and defendant No.1 is only a Pujari therein, for handing over possession of the suit lands and temples to a committee constituted by plaintiffs for their management, for removal of defendant No.1 as a Pujari and directing him to submit accounts of income from the temples before the Court and for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from interfering with worship of plaintiffs and their family members of the temple.

(3.) The plaintiffs submitted inter alia that their private temples Shri Radha Krishna Mandir and Shri Hanuman Mandir are situated at Gram Mangot the same having been constructed over private lands of their ancestor Hanjabai who had renovated the temples, that Hanjabai had only one daughter Laadkunwarbai, who expired in 1961 whose husband was Jaswant Singh, that Laadkunwarbai and Jaswant Singh were issueless hence Jaswant Singh had married Kunwarbai from whom he had six sons, that Laadkunwar had adopted Madhavsingh and plaintiff No.1 is his only son, that Hanjabai died in 1972 and Madhavsingh died in 2000 and that plaintiffs are legal heirs of Hanjabai.