BHANWARLAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is at the instance of plaintiffs who have lost in both the Courts below.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit was instituted on the averments that Resp. 2 to 4 under agreement of sale, had delivered the possessions of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 2168 area 2.871 hectares to the father of the plaintiffs late Shri Nandaji on 1.2.1967. In the alternative it claimed that suit land (supra) was sold and possession was given to the plaintiffs and since then they are in possession. According to the plaintiffs they had acquired title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. In support of this plaintiffs relied upon the entries made in the remarks column of Khasra Panch Sala 1974-75 to 1983-84 wherein possession of Nandaji was recorded. Further, case of plaintiffs is that when they had obtained certified copies of the Khasra entries on 4.2.1987 pertaining to year 1974-75, plaintiffs became aware that name of the Collector of the District has been recorded as Manager of the land which has been shown to the lands of temple Shri Ram Mandir, Ram Mohalla, Kanjarda, Tahsil Manasa. Upon learning this fact, plaintiffs served the notice on the respondents; therefore, they filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendant No. 1 State of M.P. denied the plaint allegations and submitted that suit land belonging to the temple, therefore, Defendants 2 to 4 had no right, title, interest to sell the suit land. The name of the Collector has been recorded as Manager of the suit land belonging to the temple. It was also denied that the plaintiffs had acquired title either by sale deed or by the adverse possession. Resp. 2 to 4 also filed their written statement denying plaint allegation. It was denied that the plaintiffs were ever in possession of the suit land or acquired title by way of adverse possession. On the basis of material pleading made by the parties trial Court struck various issues. Issue No. 4 was raised to consider whether appellants had acquired title by way of adverse possession. Analysing the evidence led by the parties learned trial Court found that plaintiff could not prove that they had acquired adverse possession over the suit land. It was also held that Resp. 2 to 4 had no legal right, title, and interest to alienate the suit property in any manner whatsoever.

(3.) SHRI V.M. Rege, learned counsel appearing for appellants assailed the judgment and decree on various grounds. However, at the outset he submitted that he is not pressing the sale deed into the service to claim title over the suit land. His contention was that on account of the hostile possession over the suit land for more than 12 years appellants for extinguishing the right, title, interest of the deity over the suit land and appellants have perfected their title over the suit land. In support of this contention heavy reliance was placed on the entries made in remark column of Ex. P-7 and Ex. P-8. Shri Rege submitted that pursuant to the Agreement of Sale which was duly recorded in Bahikhatas of appellants, copies of which have been produced as Ex. P-10 and Ex. P-20. The possession of the suit land was handed over to father of plaintiff late Nandaji. To advance his contention Shri Rege also relied upon decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1966 SC 1603 {Sarangadeva Periya Matam & another v. Ramswami Gaounder (dead) by LRs.). With the help of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court Shri Rege submitted that if the immovable property vests in an Idol, then either the Pujari, Manager or shebait, must take appropriate steps in time to protect the interest of the Idol against trespassers otherwise the Idol may lose property by adverse possession. It was further contended that if there is a legally appointed mathadhipati, he may institute the suit on behalf of math, if not de facto mathadhipati may do so and where necessary a disciple or other beneficiary of the math may take steps for vindicating math's legal rights by institution of suit in its name by a next friend appointed by the Court. Shri Rege learned counsel for the appellants further invited attention of this Court to para 10 of Chapter X of Krishana Swami 's 'Law of Adverse Possession 8th Edition'. The hearing of Chapter X is Trusts, Religious Endowments & Service Inams. Para 10 deals with 'Idols' and their capacity as 'Juristic entity' to receive gifts or to hold property.