HIRALAL Vs. DEVMURTI DHWARKANATH MANDIR SAILNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also govern the disposal of S.A. No. 10 of 2006 arising out of impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Additional District Judge, Ratlam.

(2.) Plaintiff Hiralal and others filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents on the allegations that the suit property, more particularly described in the plaint, though dedicated to respondent No. 1, but by virtue of their long open and hostile possession, they had acquired rights over the suit property by adverse possession. Alternatively, they pleaded permissive possession and contended that in either case, respondents had no lawful authority to record in framed issues and recorded evidence adduced by the parties. Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence found that plaintiff had not establish their claim for declaration, but found plaintiffs were in settled possession therefore issued an order against respondents not to dispossess plaintiff without due process of law. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, both plaintiffs as well respondents No. 2 and 3 preferred separate appeals. In the first appeal at the instance of the appellants, Appellate Court affirmed the findings of trial Court with regard to their claim for declaration was concerned dismissed plaintiffs' appeal. The appeal preferred by respondent No. 2 and 3, was allowed by the Appellate Court as a result the suit in its entirety was dismissed. Now therefore, these two appeals by the unsuccessful plaintiffs.

(3.) After having heard learned counsel for the appellants in both appeals at length and going through records, this Court do not find any merit in any of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants in either of appeal in the backdrop of facts as found by Courts below. There is no substance in these appeals, nor do they give rise to any question of law much less substantial reliance on the decision reported in AIR 1989 SC 997-State of U. P. vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in the said decision, however, in a later decision reported in AIR 2004 SC 1801-Sopan Sukhddeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner, it is held as under :-