RAM NIWAS Vs. SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI RATANGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS litigation has a very chequered history. The plaintiffs Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Ratangarh, a charitable and registered society and its Chairman Shri Mahaveer Prasad and Secretary Ghanshyam Chand Shastri filed the present suit for possession as a second innings of litigation between the same parties on 9.1.1975.

(2.) THE plaintiffs claimed that the property in question which is situated at Ratangarh and was of the ownership of one late Smt. Jamna Devi widow of Mangalchand, Dhapu Devi widow of Maluram and Sarva Shri Arun Kumar, Kailash Prasad and Nandklshore Poddhar, which was known as 'Kundwala Nohara', the boundaries of which have been detailed in para No. 1 of the pLalnt was donated to the plaintiffs vide Gift Deed dated 24.10.1966 through a registered Donation Deed. Since before the date of gift, defendant No. 1 Ramniwas was looking after the property as it caretaker on behalf of the above erstwhile owners and the house of said Ramniwas is also situated behind the Nohara in question and, therefore, for the purpose of convenience, a Gate was affixed between the house of Ramniwas and the property in question with the permission of erstwhile owners of the property in question. However, after the property became the property of donees, vide Notice dated 27.11.1967, said Ramniwas was informed that his services as caretaker are no more needed and, therefore, the opening between the two properties may be closed. However, said Ramniwas did not agree to it and therefore, that has resulted into litigation between the parties.

(3.) AGAINST the Judgment and decree dated 27.5.1971 passed by the first appellate court, the defendants preferred a second appeal before this Court, which was allowed in part and the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1971 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Churu was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the first appellate court for deciding the same afresh on oral as well as documentary evidence with respect to the points in issue in accordance with the law. This Court directed the first appellate court to determine the question firstly, whether the alleged donors of the Nohara in question owned it and secondly in case the title to Nohara was proved whether they had gifted the same to the plaintiffs and thirdly whether the defendants acquired title by adverse possession.