MAHANTH RAMESHWAR DAS TYAGI Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, Bank of India and the intervenor respondent.

(2.) IN the instant application, the petitioner prays for directing the respondent Bank of India to honour the agreement and to pay the rent of the premises of the Ram Janki Mandir which is in the district of Siwan to him. He has also prayed for quashing of Annexurre -8 whereby the Senior Branch Manager, Bank of India, refused to accept the demand of the petitioner to make payment of monthly rent to it and in such circumstance he is depositing the rent in its Esc. Account. Late Raja Ram Kishore Prasad Narayan Singh of Maksudpur Quila had properties in the different districts of State of Bihar including Gaya and Siwan. He constructed a Ram Janki Temple in Village - Chainpur in the district of Siwan on Plot No. 1370 pertaining to Khata No. 862. Subsequently he donated the entire land of the aforesaid plot in favour of Ram Janki Mandir. In the revisional survey khatiyan the aforesaid land stands in favour of Ram Janki Mandir and its Pujari, Saklu Das @ Narayan Das claims to be chela who had declared him as his successor in his life itself. The petitioner states that though the land was donated in favour of Ram Janki Mandir some of the heirs of late Raja Ram Kishore Prasad Narayan Singh started alienating the land to different persons. He states that a Title Suit bearing T.S. No. 202/84 was filed by one of the purchasers of the land from late J.K.P.N. Singh who happened to be the son of one of the daughters of late Raja Ram Kishore Prasad Narayan Singh. The petitioner states that the injunction petition filed by the plaintiffs in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 202/84 was rejected. A copy of the order of Munsif -2, Siwan in T.S. No. 202/ 84 is annexed as Annexure -2.

(3.) LEARNED counsel submits that while rejecting the injunction petition the trial court held that the petitioner was in possession. He further submits that another title suit bearing T.S. No. 368/90 was filed by one Pasupati Singh who is also a purchaser from late J.K.P.N. Singh. In the aforesaid T.S. No. 368/90 the Bank of India was also a party and the plaintiffs had sought injunction restraining the bank from entering into the agreement with the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the injunction petition was rejected. He submits that the Bank pursuant to the agreement entered into in the year 1990 had paid rent itself. He submits that on application of intervenor respondent the Bank had stopped making payment by the impugned communication dated 21.3.2007 contained in Annexure -8.