DAULAT RAM AND ORS Vs. KHUB RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC, is directed against the judgment dated 16.6.2005, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P., in Civil appeal No. 10 of 2004, reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2003, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.), Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. in CS No. 12/2002, whereby the suit for damages amounting to Rs. 35,000/- having been filed by the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- against the appellantsdefendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants), averring therein that there is a Deity known as "Shiv Shankar Dev Garal" with its Abode at village Sarachi, P.O. Kalhani-dhar, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi. Plaintiff further averred that the aforesaid Deity is worshiped by the villagers and is also invited on religious functions organized at the houses of the villagers. By way of aforesaid suit, the plaintiff claimed that defendants No. 1 and 2 are the alleged priests whereas defendant No. 3 is Kardar of the above Deity. As per the plaintiff, defendants used to send the Deity to the houses of the villagers, whosoever invites the Deity on the occasion of religious functions. Plaintiff specifically averred in the plaint that marriage of son of the plaintiff was fixed for 23rd and 24th Magher, 2058 BK and accordingly, he invited the above Deity to his house on that occasion. Plaintiff further claimed that he had paid invitation charges by way of booking vide receipt No. 442, and the defendants had committed to send the Deity to the house of the plaintiff on the 23rd Magher, 2058 BK. Plaintiff claimed in the suit that he had made arrangements for the entertainment of the Deity as also the party accompanying the Deity for both the dates. The deity was to stay at the house of the plaintiff for the night of 23rd Magher and was to be sent back on 24th Magher before 11:00am as the Deity was to go to some other place. As per the plaintiff, he had deputed about 35- 40 persons to bring the Deity to his house, but defendants refused to entrust the Deity to the said persons and stated that Deity is closed for the plaintiff. On account of aforesaid refusal having been made by the defendants, plaintiff suffered financial loss as he had collected material for feeding the party accompanying the Deity. Plaintiff further claimed that since he had to solemnize the marriage of his son without the presence of his Deity, he suffered humiliation and was defamed. Plaintiff claimed himself to be respectable person of the area and alleged that due to the absence of the Deity, his image was lowered in public at large.

(3.) In the aforesaid background, the plaintiff preferred suit for damages against the defendants. The defendants, by way of written statement refuted the claim of the plaintiff and resisted the claim of the plaintiff on the ground of maintainability, jurisdiction and cause of action. Though, the defendants admitted in para-1 of the plaint that there is a Deity known as "Shiv Shankar Dev Garal" with its Abode at village Sarachi, P.O. Kalhani-dhar, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, who is usually invited on the occasions of religious functions organized at the houses of the villagers. However, defendants claimed that deity is controlled by the Management Committee duly constituted by the public. Similarly, perusal of written statement suggests that factum of marriage of the son of the plaintiff at his residence, was also admitted by the defendants. Defendants specifically denied that the plaintiff had approached them for inviting the Deity as they were not competent for accepting invitation, if any, on the part the Deity. The defendants further claimed that it was only the Management Committee, which manages the affairs of the Deity and defendants have no independent status to deal with functions of the Deity. With the aforesaid submission, defendants sought dismissal of the suit having been filed by the plaintiff. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, learned trial Court framed following Issues:-