DEITY MANDIR NANDI KESHWAR MAHADEV Vs. GRAM SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the plaintiffs the Deity Temple Nandi Keshwar Mahadev and others, and they have called in question the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kangra. whereby the injunction prayed for by them has been refused and appeal preferred by the defendants against the order of the Senior Sub-Judge Kangra, granting such injunction. has been allowed.

(2.) The facts of the case are. that the plaintiff Deity along with others filed the suit relating inter alia, to Khasra No. 123 Min. and the allegations were that the defendants Gram Sabha as well as Deity Chamunda Devi and others, were Interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed land. The defendants have started digging up the land and are throwing mud while overturning "Samadhis" of Sadhu etc. who had died in plaintiffs' temple and have been buried therein. The plaintiffs claimed possession over the disputed land since times immemorial which, according to them, the land is the burial ground of Sadhus etc. who come, stay and die in the temple of the plaintiffs. According to them, the defendants were raising certain constructions and as such desecrating the sanctity of 'samadhis'. Accordingly the plaintiffs prayed for declaration as to their title for the land and also for perpetual injunction calling upon the defendants not to proceed with their constructions so as to outrage the spiritual sanctity of the disputed land. The learned Senior Sub-Judge before whom the suit was instituted went for spot inspection on 2-8-1970 and finding some samadhis already desecrated, granted the interim injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs. The intention of the learned Senior Sub-Judge was to maintain the status quo. The defendants came in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge who reversed the order of the learned Senior Sub-Judge and set aside the injunction already granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have felt aggrieved of the decision and have come up in revision.

(3.) A perusal of the order of the learned Addl. District Judge indicates that a request was made to him for spot Inspection, but this request was not acceded to, because he considered that nothing substantial would come out after spot inspection. Besides this, the learned Addl. District Judge held, that the inspection note already written by the trial Judge almost clinched the issue and that no samadhis were found in existence over the land in dispute. He further observed that no actual measurements were made at the spot and so it was difficult to demarcate the exact area in order to find out the respective possession of the parties. The learned Judge thereafter proceeded to observe that injunction of the nature restraining the defendants from taking possession over the property for constructing a house could not be granted within the meaning of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil P. C. With these observations, he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Senior Sub-Judge.