RAJESH DASS Vs. SATBIR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiffs - Satbir son of Hukam and Harpal son of Sh.Mishri Lal, both residents of village Mandnaka, Tehsil Hathin, District Palwal had brought a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction againstdefendants i.e. Rajesh Dass son of Teekam Dass, resident of their village as well as Gram Panchayat of their village on the averments that plaintiffs are permanent residents of village Mandnaka; that Gram Panchayat of the village is owner of the agricultural land comprised in khewat No.958, khatauni No. 1090, rectangle no.29, killa no.4/4(l-l), 7/1(6-7), 14(8-0), 15(7-0), 16(7-0), 25(6-6), rectangle no.74, killa no.26(l-l), khasra no.206(3-8) gair mumkin mandir, total measuring 40 kanals 3 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Mandnaka; that the land remained as Dholidar in the name of 'Mandir Gabdu Wala' in the jamabandi for the year 1965-66; that the Mandir was being managed and controlled by Ganesh Dass Chela Suraj Dass and entries in that regard remained there in the revenue record till 1970-71, however, subsequently in the mutation No.2264, the management and control of the temple stood changed in the name of Brij Lal, Teekam, Roop Chand sons of Sarweshwar Dass son of Ganesh Dass from the side of Ganesh Dass Chela Suraj Dass Pujari Dholidar. According to the plaintiffs, the entries were changed in the name of Brij Lal etc. and mutation was sanctioned in their favour due to collusion between revenue officials and predecessors-in-interest of defendant No.l; that after mutations Nos.2841, 2842 and 3508 were entered and sanctioned; that defendant No.l or his predecessors-in-interest did not remain Dholidar of the suit land; that defendant No.l is a man of questionable habits and was adamant to destroy property of the temple; that he is residing in the property along with his family; that he want to change its nature; defendant No.2 Gram Panchayat being owner had not been taking necessary action against the defendant No.l, which was necessary to save property of the temple. Therefore, the suit in question was filed.

(2.) On notice, both the defendants appeared and filed separate written statements. In the written statement filed by defendant No.l, he had taken up preliminary objections challenging maintainability of the suit further contending that the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the suit; that no cause of action arose to them to file the suit. Such defendant No.l challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Palwal to entertain and try the suit in question. On merits, such defendant contended that ownership rights of defendant No.2 had already been ceased and he had become owner of the suit land; that he had applied for acquiring the ownership rights under the Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Mukarrardar (vesting the proprietary Rights) Act, 2010; that defendant No.l being a Dholidar of the suit land as per jamabandi for the year 2005-06. According to such defendant, the plaintiffs in collusion with defendant No.2 wanted to grab the property. Refuting the remaining allegations of the plaint, such defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) In the separate written statement brought by it, defendant No.2 had also raised preliminary objections contending that suit was not maintainable; that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to bring the suit and no cause of action arose to them to do so; that the plaintiffs had suppressed the true and material facts etc. from the Court. On merits, such defendant admitted major portion of the pleadings of the plaintiffs contending that vide resolution dtd. 28/9/2011, it had already written to Deputy Commissioner, Palwal for taking necessary action and not to declare defendant No.l as owner of the suit land; that the revenue record showing the defendant No.l as Dholidar is wrong and has been procured by him and his predecessors-in-interest.