CHANDRAMOHAN AND ORS. Vs. PREM SARSWAT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 19th of November 2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 3, Bikaner (for short, 'learned trial Court') is under challenge in this revision petition at the behest of petitioners -defendants. By the order impugned, the learned trial Court has decided two applications by a common order, viz., application under Order 1 Rule 8 for deletion of relief laid by the respondents -plaintiffs and application under Order 7 Rule 10 and Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC preferred by the petitioners -defendants.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondents -plaintiffs instituted a civil suit for perpetual injunction and declaration against petitioners -defendants as well as proforma defendants in representative capacity by invoking Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. In the plaint, it is inter -alia averred that the suit property measuring 12000 sq. yards is situated outside Parkota of walled city Bikaner towards western side, popularly known as Sadaniyon ki Bagechi. The property is located nearby Bhatolai Talai and famous by the name of Gokul Circle in the city of Bikaner. The Patta of the said land was issued in Samvat 1923 in the name of Sadani Maheshdas, Lichhmandas and Dasani Jeetmal Jugal Kishore for the purpose of Bagechi, temple, Kund and Tibari. The neighbourhoods of the property were also mentioned in the plaint. It is specifically mentioned in the plaint that this open land is situated in the Abadi area and its solemn object is to maintain pollution -free atmosphere for the entire locality. A temple of Lord Mahadev is also situated on the land which is for Saints, sadhus and hermits. The public at large is also offering Jalabhishek to Lord Shiva and worshipping the deity. It is further averred in the plaint that the last descendent of Sadani family Smt. Savitri Devi wd/o Late Shri Agarchand made a solemn declaration on 3rd of January 1950 that henceforth the land shall be utilized for public purpose and nobody would alienate or otherwise change the nature of the land. The respondents -plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that by afflux of time huge escalation in the land price sowed a seed of greed among some of the land Mafias and colonizers having political patronage to grab this land of prime locality. Elaborating these facts, the respondents -plaintiffs have averred in the plaint that petitioners -defendants No. 3 to 5 projected themselves as owner of the land and started taking hectic steps for constructing a housing colony or a commercial complex on the said land. It is specifically pleaded in the plaint that despite there being serious dispute about the nature of land, the petitioners -defendants are out and out to grab the land by uprooting trees and other greenery developed on the land in question. Citing the declaration of the last descendent of the Sadani family, the respondents -defendants have asserted in the plaint that the land belongs to general public and no family can stake its claim for its ownership. For substantiating all these assertions, the respondents -defendants have also averred in the plaint that Bagechi is developed by accepting donations from various donors and adequate place is earmarked for giving shelter to live stocks and for feedings birds etc. It is specifically pleaded that the sale -deed dated 6th of June 2014 registered in the name of petitioners -defendants No. 1 & 2 is a spurious document, allegedly executed by the third petitioner -defendant by projecting him as adopted son of Late Agarchand. As a matter of fact, as per the version of the respondents -plaintiffs, he had no authority to sell, mortgage or alienate the property. With these averments, the respondents -plaintiffs have prayed for the relief of perpetual injunction not to change the nature and character of the suit property and further not to raise any construction on the same. A declaration is also sought that the suit property/Bagechi may be declared as a public property with a further declaration that the land may be used for the purpose mentioned in the Patta.

(3.) THE respondents -plaintiffs also submitted an application under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC for deleting relief No. 2 mentioned in the plaint.