RAGHUNANDAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants / plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal under Sec. 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as 'C.P.C.') being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 13/7/2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sardarpur, District Dhar (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No.67-A/1998, thereby reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 25/4/1998 passed by the Civil Judge, Class I, Sardarpur, District Dhar (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.72-A/97, whereby suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction filed by the appellants has been partly decreed.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that Shri Ram temple (hereinafter referred as the 'disputed temple') was the personal temple owned by Jagirdar Bhopawar and the appellants / plaintiffs' ancestors received the disputed land / Muafi land (land exempted from payment of revenue) through the Jagirdar and the appellants' ancestors are the Muafidar. After abolition of Jagirdari of appellants' ancestors, they became the Pakka tenant and Bhumiswami of the disputed land and temple and also confers Bhumiswami rights. Respondents and their employees without providing any opportunity of hearing illegally mutated the disputed Muafi land in the name of Collector and plaintiffs' name as a Pujari were illegally removed from the Khasra and revenue records. They had continuously threatened the plaintiffs for dispossessing them from the disputed land and temple. Hence, he prays that plaintiffs be declared Bhumiswami or Sabayatdar and permanent injunction be issued against the defendants to restrain them for committing any interference in the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land and the temple.

(3.) Respondent No.1 filed written statements and denied the plaint allegation with the contention that appellants / plaintiffs have no title over the suit land or temple. The suit land was not the Muafi land and after abolition of Jagirdari, plaintiffs did not obtain any title over the suit land. The suit was neither properly valued nor requisite court fees was paid, therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed.