DES RAJ Vs. BIKRAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree of the Court of Shri S.S. Thakur, Addl. District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshaia dated 11 -03 -1991. By the said judgment, the judgment and decree of the Court of Shri J.L Chauhan, Sub -Judge, 1st Class, Dehra dated 10 -01 -1986 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff -respondent, was reversed and allowing the appeal a decree was passed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants -appellants permanently from interfering in any manner in the management of performing his duties as Chela to the temple (Guga) by the plaintiff comprised in the suit land and fully described in the plaint as per jamabandi for the year 1978 -79. A decree was also passed restraining the defendants permanently from interfering in performing the duties of the plaintiff as Chela and to cause any other interference over the suit land.

(2.) The suit was filed by the plaintiff -respondents for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner in the management and performing his duties as Chela (Pujari) of the temple of Guga, which is comprised in suit land, fully described in the plaint. It was pleaded that there is a temple known as "Guga Mandir" over the suit land and the plaintiff is its Pujari. He pleaded that he performs all duties of Chela to the said temple for long and he is also managing the suit land and the temple wholly and solely. The defendant No. 1 Duni Chand (who died during the pendency of the appeal before the District Judge and his name struck off from the array of defendants) was stated to be a very head strong and clever person, in order to create obstruction in the management aforesaid, purchased a portion of the land in suit in the names of defendants No. 2 to 5 who are his sons, and on the basis of the same, they started proclaiming that they are the Pujaris of the temple in question. Since they failed to desist from their illegal activities; hence this suit.

(3.) In the written statement filed by defendants No. 1 to 5, it was pleaded by way of preliminary objections that the suit is barred by Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. Objections regarding maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit, non -joinaer of necessary parties, estoppel and limitation were also taken.