RAGHUNATH RAI Vs. RAM JANKI JUGAL SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants in this appeal. It arises out of a suit instituted, in forma pauper ris, by a deity named Shri Ram Janki Jugal Sarkar, through Its Mutwali named Mohant Harisaran Das alias Ramanand Das. The suit was for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of an area of 17 kathas 10 1/2 dhurs of land to plots 894, 895, 896 and 898 mentioned in schedule 5 of the plaint. The plaintiff also claimed Rs. 3257/- as the price of certain articles, including ornaments, said to have been removed by the defendants. Mesne profits were also claimed by the plaintiff from the 8th of Bhado 1365 Fasli, on which date the deity was said to have been dispossessed by the defendants. The suit has been substantially decreed and the plaintiff has succeeded, except with respect to the price of articles said to have been removed by the defendants. It may be mentioned that a cross-objection had been filed by the plaintiff-respondent which now stands dismissed.

(2.) The respective cases of the parties are as follows: -- The plaintiff alleged that Dulhin Laljhari Kuer, widow of one Babu Ram Prasad, got a temple built in mouza Paiga in 1917 in which the "plaintiff deity had been duly installed. Subsequently on the 15th of September 194G, Laljhari Kuer dedicated some properties to the deity, mentioned in schedule 1 of the plaint. The plaintiff was put in possession of those properties and Harisaran Das was appointed Mutwali. Since this deed of dedication, Harisaran Das was doing the worship of the deity and was managing its properties. It was mentioned in the plaint that before the deed of dedication of the year 1946, Laljhari Kuer had executed another wakfnama, in February 1924, in favour of the same deity, but the same had never been acted upon. That deed of dedication of the year 1924 had remained ineffective and inoperative and Laljnari Kuer had continued to remain in possession and occupation of the properties mentioned in that wakfnama until 1946. ' The deity had never entered into possession and occupation of any of the properties mentioned in the wakfnama of the year 1924. men, it was alleged that the Mutwali of the plaintiff had SCIG 6 kathas of land from plots 896 and 825, specified in scne-dule 2 of the plaint to Hakim Mahmad Hamt. After the vesting of the zamindary interest of the plaintiff in the State, the plaintiff was in possession of the properties mentioned in schedule 3 of the plaint. Out of the properties mentioned in schedule 3, Laljhari Kuer had built a bungalow on behalf of the deity on 1J kathas of land in plot No. 896. The plaintiff's Mutwali had, however, allowed one Keshwar Sart to live therein for some time. Later, on, Keshwar Sah refused to vacate the Bungalow and the Mutwali had been compelled to institute Title suit No. 157 of 1955 which was decreed by the trial court and the decree was upheld in the court of appeal. The plaintiff was, however, in possession of the moveable and immoveable properties mentioned in schedule 5 of the plaint. It was alleged that the defendants were friends and helpers of Koshwar Sah. They held out threats to the plaintiff, during the pendency of the title suit mentioned above, and the mutwali had filed a petition in the court of the Sub-divisional Officer at Chapra. A wrong and collusive report was, however, filed by the local police and the mutwali's petition was ultimately filed. After the adjudication of the appeal arising out of Title Suit No. 157 of 1955, defendant No, 1 had asked the plaintiffs mutwali to compromise with Keshwar Sah. As the Mutwait had not agreed, the defendants were very much annoyed. They dispossessed the plaintiff, by expelling the Mutwali from the temple, on the 8th of Bhado 1365 Fasli. It was alleged that the defendants took possession of the moveable and immoveable properties mentioned in schedule 5 of the plaint. Hence this suit.

(3.) A joint written statement was filed by defendants 1 to 5. The substance of the defendants' case was to the effect that the plaintiff deity had not been properly represented in the suit, because Harisaran Das was not Mitwali of the deity. It was contended that one Kamcharan Das was the prevdes Matwali of the deity, and he had remained the Mutwali and Pujari of the deity as long as he was alive. Harisaran Das was said to be a servant or Ramacharan Das, while Ramcharan Das was living in Sita-marhi Math, from where he had come, to the temple of the plaintiff deity. It was alleged that after Ramcharan's death, Gauri Shanker Tewari (D. W.3), who was Laljharj Kuer Purohit, became the plaintiff's Pujarj, and he was still continuing in the same capacity. Harisaran Das used to come occasionally to the temple of the plaintiff deity. In course of time he had picked up acquaintance with Laljhari Kuer, and at the time of the execution of we deed of dedication of 1946, Harisaran Das had come there by chance. By practising fraud on Laljhari Kuer and on deceiving her, Harisaran Das got his name entered in the deed or dedication as Mutwali, in place of Laljhari Kuer. me latter had no knowledge of this at that time, one was then aged about 80 years and she was hard of hearing and her eye-sight had also dimmed. Taking advantage of this Harisaran Das colluded with the scribe and, without taljhari's knowledge, got his name entered as Mutwali. me deed of dedication was not read over and explained to ialjhari. Thereafter, Harisaran Das never pertormed Puja in the temple, and as a matter of fact, Gauri Shanker Tewari was the Pujari. The plaintiffs case about the execution of a sale deed in favour of Matimad Hanif was controverted as false. With respect to the facts in connection with Title Suit No. 157 of 1955, it was alleged that the defendants were not parties to that suit and they were not concerned with the result thereof. The defendants contended that a bun-galow of Laljhari Kuer stood on an area of 1 khata 10 dhurs of plot no. 896, and as the remaining area of 6 kathas 11 dhurs remained vacant, Wat was settled by Laljhari Kuer with defendant No. 1. Laljhari Kuer further settled with him 9 Kathas 2 1/2 dhurs out of plots 529, 825 and 726. She also settled 7 Kathas 10 3/4 dhurs out of plot No. 120 with defendant No. 1. Similarly, 8 katrias 1 1/2 dhurs was settled out of plot N0. 295 also. Six kathas out of plot No. 895 was also settled with him. Thus, a total area of 1 bigha 10 kathas 14 1/2 dhurs was settled with defendant No. 1 on nazrana of Rs. 75/-. Actually this amount was not paid in cash, but it was ad-justed, as Rs. 75/- was found due from Laljhari Kuer, on account of milk, curd etc. The defendants further took Sikmi batai settlement of 2 bights 15 kathas 8 dhurs of kasht land in plots 894, 896 and 898. After this settlement, at the request of detendant No. 1, Laljhari Kuer had granted a hukumnama on the 5th of June, 1940. Defendant No. 1 had, however, been put in possession at the time of the actual settlement, which is now said to be in 1346 Hasli. It was alleged that on the 24th May 1956, Harisaran Das had got a false information lodged through Rampati Rai reporting an apprehension of breach of peace and the police had made an enquiry and had found the defendants to be in possession a report to that effect had been submitted. The case was dismissed by the Subdivisional Officer, and when Harisaran filed a show cause on 'the 29th May 1956, his petition was rejected. It was contended that the plaintiff's case or dispossession in Bhado 1365 Fasli was false. Substantially upon these allegations, the defendants contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.