JAMANA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF has lost from two Courts when his suit for declaration of ownership as Bhumiswami of the land in suit came to be dismissed by the Trial Court and in appeal upheld by the First Appellate Court so far as declaration of ownership is concerned. He has now come up in second appeal under section 100 of CP. Code contending that appeal involves substantial question of law as contemplated under section 100 ibid. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of section 100 ibid. The impunged judgment and decree is dated 9.10.2002 passed by Second Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Kannod, District Dewas, in C.A. No. 18-A/2002 which in turn arise out of judgment and decree dated 21.9.1998 passed by Civil Judge Class I, Khategaon, in C.S. No. 55-A/92.

(2.) HEARD Shri Amit Agarwal, L/c for the Appellant.

(3.) THERE lies a difference between a Pujari of a temple and owner of temple. In former case a person is only there to take care of worship part of the deity having no power over the property itself. In other words, the property is never vested in the Pujari because he simply holds the office of Pujari. It goes with him. Here is a case where the dedication of the property is to a deity which is a perpetual minor and such dedication is permissible in law. The Revenue Record (Ex. P-l) filed and relied upon by the plaintiff itself records that plaintiff's predecessor-in-title was only shown as Pujari of a temple and not a Bhumiswami of the land as such. In other words, there is no document filed or/and relied on by the plaintiff to show that how and in what manner and basis his predecessor-in-title acquired rights of Bhumiswami of the land in question. Reference to certain provisions of the then revenue laws in force is of no significance unless the plaintiff is first able to show any source of acquisition of ownership rights in the suit land. It has simply created confusion when the plaintiff simply relied on the provisions of Revenue Laws to show acquisition of rights without there being any factual foundation. It is this factor which was examined by the two Courts and the plea of plaintiff was negatived.