MAHANT RAMDAS Vs. RAMBHAROSI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2012 passed by the Trial Court by which suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit inter-alia on the ground that plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the property situated adjacent to Ram Janki Mandir, Gol Pada, Gwalior. It was averred that owner of the temple and its adjoining properties was one Mahant Ramdas and on his death, the aforesaid properties devolved on plaintiff. It was pleaded that plaintiff's ancestors had authorized one Bramha Swaroop Saxena to receive the rent from the tenants and to manage the affairs of the temple. It was further averred that the aforesaid Bramha Swaroop Saxena has occupied two rooms situated on ground floor of the temple as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.4/- per month. It was also averred that after his death, his son and wife were in occupation of the accommodation in question as tenant. However, in the year 2006, the defendants No.2 to 5 asserted their title in respect of suit property and defendant No.2 in collusion with defendants No.3 & 4 sold the suit property vide sale deed dated 18.07.2006 to defendant No.1. The plaintiff therefore filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration of title as well as declaration that the sale deed dated 18.07.2006 executed in favour of defendant No.1 by defendants No.2 to 4 is null and void. The plaintiff also sought the relief of permanent injunction as well as possession and mesne profit and damages.

(3.) The defendants No.2 to 4 were proceeded exparte in the suit. The defendant No.1 filed the written statement in which inter-alia the fact that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and his ancestors was denied. It was pleaded that one Gopal Swaroop and Vinay Kumar were owners of the suit property and on the death of Gopal Swaroop, the suit property devolved on the defendants No.2 and 3, namely, his widow Kripawati and Vinay Kumar Saxena. It was averred that names of the aforesaid persons were mutated in the revenue record. The defendants No.2 to 4 executed the registered sale deed on 18.07.2006 in favour of defendant No.1 and handed over the possession of the property to him. Thereafter, the name of defendant No.1 was mutated in the record of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. An objection with regard to valuation of the reliefs claimed in the suit and with regard to payment of court fees was also taken. The defendant No.5 also denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that the suit filed by the plaintiff is devoid of any substance. The Trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed the issues and recorded the evidence.