MAHESH SHARMA Vs. J D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment of the first appellate court which has confirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction.

(2.) THE facts relevant for,deciding the appeal are that as per his case, appellant (plaintiff) has been in continuous possession of his ancestor's land presently situated in Jaipur City Chowkri Haweli Shahar (Hanuman Badri, Amer Road) which is land of Mandir Shri Kala Hanumanji duly surrounded by Pucca Boundary Walls. According to him, the suit land has been in management and continuous possession of his ancestors for more than 300 years; at the time of death of his grand father, his father Mahant Ramnarainji was minor, therefore, during minority of appellant's father, the management of the land, temple and property was managed by Mahakma Punya as mentioned in Misal No. 10 of Samvat year 1986. Further, it is his case that management of the said temple and suit land property was transferred to majority on the appellant's father on attaining his majority on the recommendation of Mahkma Punya by Kefiyat cum order No. 236 dt. 17/12/1906 i. e. dt. 27/2/47, to which acceptance was given by order dt. 18/3/1947 in favour of his father and thereupon after demise of his father, the appellant has been in possession thereof. However, upon proclamation of the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagir Act, the land in his 1952 (for short Jagir Act), the land in his possession alongwith surrounding walls were accepted as private property description of which is said to have been shown in the plaint, itself. It has also been the case of the plaintiff (appellant) that after death of his father on 26/2/76, the Deputy Collector (Jagir) 07/04/77 declared the appellant as successor of his father and since then he has been in continuous possession of his ancestral suit land and property as successor of Mahant Ramnarain.

(3.) THE appellant did also want to prove by tendering in evidence "kifayat" & orders of Mahkma Punia which have been marked as Exs. 4, 5 & 6. Ex. 4 dt 25/8/1929 was an order of the Mahakma Punya in relation to Bhograi of Mandir Kala Hanumanji having been passed in favour of appellant's father and according to Ex. 4, five bighas of land is shown as such, which has also been supported by other subsequent orders. Thus, trial Court misconstrued aforesaid exhibits and therefore, the impugned judgments are perverse.