BABULAL Vs. MANDIR SHITLA MATA, LOCAL LEGISLATIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal, under Sec. 100 of CPC, has been filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 12/12/2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Chachoda, District Guna (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No.32A/2002 as well as judgment and decree dtd. 10/10/2002 passed by Civil Judge Class I, Chachoda, District Guna (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.807A/1996.

(2.) Appellants are the plaintiffs who have lost their case from both the courts below.

(3.) Facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that the appellants filed a suit for declaration of title and possession. It is their case that one Sheetla Mata Mandir is situated in village Kumbhraj. Harishankar and plaintiff No.1 were Pujaris and were offering prayers in the temple. Before abolition of Zamindari rights the erstwhile Zamindar had given Survey No.507 area 3.993 hectares of land to the plaintiffs for cultivation purposes. Plaintiff No.1 and Harishankar remained in cultivating possession and were offering prayers. After the abolition of Zamindari rights, the State Government became the owner of the land in dispute but Harishankar and plaintiff No.1 continued to cultivate the land without payment of any land revenue. Thereafter, a land revenue to the tune of Rs.17.75 was fixed which was regularly paid by the plaintiffs. In Samvat 2007 & 2008 the names of Harishankar and plaintiff No.1 were recorded as agriculturists. In Samvat 2010, their names were recorded as Pakka Krishak. Thereafter, in Samvat 2012, the name of Ramlal was recorded. The name of Ramlal continued in revenue records till Samvat 2022. Thereafter, Ramlal again alienated the property to Puniyabai who is the mother of plaintiffs and accordingly in the year 1967, the mutation in the name of Puniyabai was accepted and she was recorded as Bhumiswami. It was pleaded that although in Samvat 2012, the name of Ramlal was recorded as Pakka Krishak but the possession remained with the mother of plaintiffs. The mother of the plaintiffs was widow and plaintiff No.1 and Harishankar were minor and therefore Ramlal could not have acquired any rights of Krishak. Thus, it was claimed that Puniyabai who is the mother of plaintiffs was the real owner. In the settlement proceedings which took place in Samvat 2014, the disputed property was renumbered as Khasra No.507. It was pleaded that the intention of defendant No.3 was dishonest and right from the very beginning was making an effort to snatch the property from Puniyabai and accordingly an application was filed before the Registrar, Public Trusts Act, by projecting that the property in dispute is the property of public trust. Accordingly, defendant No.2 registered the temple as a public trust and now the temple as well as the land is in possession of the trustees. It was pleaded that plaintiff No.1 is the Peon and while deciding the question of registration of trust defendant No.2 had no right to decide the rights of the plaintiffs. The suit property was never the property of temple and it was wrongly included in the property of the public trust. The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have equal share in the property. Defendants No.3 to 10 have been impleaded being the trustees. Till the suit property was registered as public trust, the property in dispute remained in possession of Puniyabai and after her death, the plaintiffs had remained in possession. After the registration of property as public trust, the defendants have taken possession of the property without any authority of law. The decision taken by defendant No.2 to declare the property as a public trust was without jurisdiction having no adverse effect on the rights and title of the plaintiffs. It was claimed that now the defendants are out and out to alienate the property and accordingly they have sought permission from Collector by making application on 21/3/1983. It was pleaded that in case if the property is alienated, then it would cause further complication. The cause of action arose on 18/5/1982 when the plaintiffs came to know about the registration of the property as public trust and accordingly, the suit was filed for declaration of title and possession.