PURSHOTAM Vs. MULTAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiff -respondent has been decreed restraining the defendant -appellant from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff -respondent in the suit land in any manner. A decree for possession has also been passed for the suit land or a portion thereof by way of demolition of the plinth raised by the defendant -appellant on the same. The judgment and decree of the trial Court is that of Shri C.L. Kochhar, Sub -Judge -lst Class (II), Palampur and that of appellate Court is that of Shri M.R. Chaudhary, District Judge, Kangra Division at Dharamshala dated 16.9.1991.

(2.) The plaintiff -respondent filed a suit on the pleadings that he has been authorised by the Managing Committee of Mandir Baba Balak Rupi to file the suit on behalf of the said Committee vide Resolution No. 2 dated 25.7.1988. It was pleaded that the Managing Committee of Mandir Baba Balak Rupi is the owner and in possession of the land fully described in the plaint and as per the details given in the judgments of the Courts below. According to him, the plaintiff -respondent has no right, title or interest in the suit land. It was further pleaded that the defendant is nephew of Kishan Dutt who was one of the members of the Managing Committee and he used to grow flowers plants in the portion of the suit land for the use of the temple. After the death of said Kishan Dutt, the defendant has started interfering in the suit land and has been threatening to construct a pucca structure by claiming that he is owner of the suit land. The Managing Committee requested him not to do so but to no avail; hence the suit.

(3.) In the written statement, the defendant appellant took up the preliminary objections that the plaintiff has no locus stand! nor cause of action to file the present suit; that the same is not maintainable in the present form, that the plaintiff Multan Singh cannot be the plaintiff, as the plaintiff can be the Mandir Balakrupi, hence has no locus standi to sue; that the plaintiff is estopped due to his act and conduct from filing the suit; that the suit is not properly valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction and that the suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties.