RAJ RANI Vs. HANUMAN JI MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT no.1 -Hanumanji, Mandir/Dera Hanumanji, Raghomajra, Patiala through its Mohatamim Lal Nath Chela Hardwari Nath filed suit for possession of land bearing khewat khatauni no.3656/5900, khasra no.1855 (3 -0) situated at Patiala alleging that the suit land is owned by the plaintiff as per entries in jamabandi for the year 1991 -92. Earlier Sohan Nath being Mohant/Mohatamim/manager of the Dera of Mandir was cultivating the suit land and after his death, the same was under the cultivation of Lal Nath, who was performing Pooja and managing the Dera. Sohan Nath was an illiterate person and khasra girdwari was recorded in the name of Hari Ram son of Ram Lal in an illegal manner. Hari Ram had died several years back and the entries in the khasra girdwari continued to be recorded in the name of a dead person. Defendant Raj Rani (since deceased now represented by her legal heirs), Mohan Lal and Raj Kumar (appellants) took forcible possession of the suit land in January, 1994 from Sohan Lal. The matter was reported to the competent authority but no action was taken. A panchayat was convened and the appellants were requested by the Panchayat and plaintiffs to hand over possession of the suit land, but in vain. Appellants earlier filed suit for injunction which was disposed of on a statement that they will not be dispossessed from the suit land except in due course of law.

(2.) IN written statement, appellants admitted ownership of suit property by Dera/Mandir Hanumanji, Raghomajra, Patiala but denied the status of plaintiff Lal Nath and Sohan Nath as Mohatamim/Manager of Mandir/Dera Hanumanji, Patiala or that they were performing pooja in the temple. They pleaded that Hari Ram father of defendants no.2 to 4, namely, Sham Lal, Mohan Lal and Raj Kumar and husband of defendant no.1 -Smt. Raj Rani was a tenant in the suit property and after death of Hari Ram, defendants inherited the 'tenancy rights' along with his other legal heirs. Earlier entries in khasra girdawri recorded in the name of Hari Ram were never challenged by any one. The defendants applied for the correction of the entries in Khasra Girdawari in their names, as they continued to be in possession of the suit land and had already paid the rent. The plaintiffs/respondent No.1 tried to take forcible possession of the suit land but could not succeed and filed the instant suit with the plea that the property is owned by Dera.

(3.) THE plaintiff -respondent no.1 re -asserted its case in the replication and contested and controverted the averments of the appellants that Hari Ram was tenant over the suit property. Pleadings of the parties led to the framing of issues as follows : - 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit land as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 3. Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under law?OPD 4. Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs of Rs.10,000/ -?OPD 5. Whether the defendants are in possession of the suit land by way of their tenancy rights along with other legal notice (sic heirs)?OPD 6. Relief Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Patiala decreed the suit for possession of suit land with the observations that defendants are not tenants and their possession over the suit land was illegal. Not satisfied, defendants filed appeal before Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Patiala, which was also dismissed. The plea of the appellants that they are tenant over the suit land was negated in para nos.17 and 18 of the judgment which reads as follows : -