STATE OF M P Vs. KESHAR BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8.1.1991 passed by the learned Third Additional District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Appeal No. 26- A/88 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Civil Judge Class-II, Ujjain in Civil Suit No. 661 - A/79 dismissing the suit has been reversed and set aside and the suit of plaintiffs has been decreed, the State of Madhya Pradesh has come up in this second appeal knocking the doors of this Court under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) KARANSINGH S/o Sardarsingh and Madansingh S/o Narayansingh were the plaintiffs. They filed a suit for declaration of Bhoomiswami right and injunction arraying State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector Ujjain, Murti Shri Ram Mandir Pujari Sitabai - Manager, Collector Ujjain and Ambaram as defendants. According to the plaint averments in village Mohanpura, there is a temple known as "Shri Ram Mandir" and this temple is the Bhoomiswami of the agricultural land the description whereof has been mentioned in para 1 of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, the Pujari of said temple is Smt. Sitabai widow of Ramchandra. For last two years from the date of filing of the suit (suit filed on 26.6.1979), all of a sudden the name of Collector, Ujjain has been endorsed as "Vyavsthapak" (Manager) in Column No. 3 of the Khasra.

(3.) IT is the further case of the plaintiffs that defendant No. 2 Murti Shri Ram Mandir through Pujari Smt. Sitabai filed an application under section 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (here-in-after referred to as "the Code") and in those proceedings it was submitted by the plaintiffs that they are the lessee on the suit agricultural land and if their lease is to be terminated, it can be terminated in accordance with the procedure as contemplated under sub-section (4) of section 168 of the Code. Till the lease is determined, proceedings under section 248 of the Code cannot be commenced. According to plaintiffs Tahsildar dismissed the application of defendant No. 2 and directed that till the lease is determined, the plaintiffs cannot be said to be a trespasser and they cannot be evicted from the suit property under the purview of section 248 of the Code. It is pleaded by plaintiffs that the said decision of Tahsildar became final.