ARUN Vs. PANCHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) situated in Mohal Khajjan, Mauja Aund, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. against the defendants alleging therein that plaintiff No.1 was Brahmin by cast and was one of the worshipers of the Mandir Thakran Kalyan Rai Khajjan and being worshiper was concerned with the property of plaintiff No.2. The suit land was owned by plaintiff No.2, where there was an idol of Lord Krishna. Temple was constructed by Raja Jagat Singh of Nurpur for worship by public at large. The suit land was originally owned and possessed by Chhangu, Sohnu, Kunju etc. Kunju was maternal grand father of plaintiff No.1. The owners of the suit land donated the same to Mandir Thakran Kalyan Rai Khajjan and a mutation No. 585, dated 9.5.1917, was attested to this effect. Kunju was Mohatmim and he was succeeded by his son, defendant No.3, who was an old person and not of sound and disposing mind since the year 1975. It was further averred that defendant No.3 was only authorized to look after temple and property and he was not authorized to induct tenant on the suit land.

(2.) The powers of Mohatmim were limited to look after the interests of the idol who was perpetual minor. It was further averred that defendants No. 1 and 2 were in unauthorized possession of the suit land. Defendant No.3 was not legally competent to alienate the suit land without legal necessity and as such alienation of the suit land by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.1 was illegal, null and void. The judgment and decree, dated 28.10.1987 passed in Civil Suit No. 12/86, 10/87 was result of collusion between defendants No. 1 and 3 and the same was not binding upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also challenged sale of a part of the suit land by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. Defendants No. 1 and 2 were requested many times by the plaintiffs to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land, but since defendants failed to do so, hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing written statement inter alia taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, estoppel, res judicata, cause of action etc. On merits, he denied the claim of the plaintiffs and contended that he being owner of the suit land had sold a part of the same to defendant No.2. The defendant No.3 being Mohatmim of the temple had contested the earlier litigation. The controversy regarding the suit land already stood adjudicated by the competent court of law and the same could not be re-agitated on the basis of a concocted story. Defendant No.3 had engaged a counsel and filed a Civil Suit against defendant No.1 and as, such, it could not be said that the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.12/86, 19/87 was result of collusion bewteen defendants No. 1 and 3. The judgment and decree dated 4 to 28.10.1987 had attained finality.