AMAR SINGH Vs. MURTI RADHA MOHAN JI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25/01/2006 in Civil Appeal No. 115A/2005 confirming the judgment and decree dated 01/7/2005 in Civil Suit No. 266A/2004. Plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS filed a suit inter alia contending that the suit land falling in survey nos. 485, 486, 487, 483 and 490 admeasuring 5.422 hectare in village Khaskheda (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) was given to Murti Radhamohan Mandir on Muafi Lagan by Zamindar Mansingh. The Manager and Pujari of the temple had given the aforesaid suit land to plaintiffs' father as a Shikmi Krishak orally on the condition that he shall continue to pay Lagan in respect of the suit land and shall take care of needs of Sadhu -Saints. As such, plaintiffs' father on such condition had all around been in possession of the suit land doing cultivation and harvesting crops thereon. It is submitted that the suit land is not a Muafi Aukaf land, in fact it is a Zamindari Muafi land. Name of plaintiffs has also been recorded in revenue records. The Sub Divisional Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land and give it on Supurdagi or put the same for auction. The plaintiffs have not been dispossessed so far. Apprehending forcible dispossession, plaintiffs brought the instant suit seeking declaration of title over the suit land and permanent injunction restraining defendants not to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land and further seeking declaration that the suit land be not put to auction and that the order of SDO dated 4/6/1984 is null and void.

(3.) BASED upon the aforesaid pleadings, trial court framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Upon detailed examination of evidence on record trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate court re -appreciated the entire evidence on record. It is found that there is no evidence much less documentary evidence on record that the suit land was of Zamindar Mansingh, in fact there is no evidence to show that Mansingh was the Zamindar. In the Khasra entry of Samvat 2004 suit land is shown to be of Mandir where Mansingh's name is shown as Pujari. Hence, land being of Mandir, Pujari has no right to give the same to the plaintiffs and, therefore, plaintiffs cannot claim the status of Shikmi Krishak. The whole story asserted by the plaintiffs in the plaint is found to be concocted and maneuver to grab the suit land. It is also found that there is no evidence on record showing possession much less legal possession of plaintiffs over the suit land to justify the claim of plaintiffs of acquiring title by virtue of adverse possession. As there is no continuity of possession, no protection can be claimed by the plaintiffs with the claim of having been in settled possession for the last 35 years, as alleged. In fact in Khasra Panchshala of Samvat 2010 Mansingh's name is recorded as an encroacher. Eventually, it is held that the suit land in fact is the land of Mandir and in revenue records the same is recorded to be under the management of the Collector. Plaintiffs have no right to hold the suit land as claimed neither they have any title over it nor legal possession. Their status has been found to be that of encroachers. With the aforesaid findings, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.