RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. MILAP CHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree Dt. 21.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge. Deedwana in Civil Regular Appeal No. 60/1999 (38/1992, 128/1992) "Ramesh Chandra v. Milap Chand & Ors." who dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant -defendant and affirmed the judgment and decree Dt. 1.9.1992 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana in Civil Original Suit No. 177/1987 "Milap Chandra & Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra" by which, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate had decreed the suit filed by the respondents -plaintiffs -Milap Chand & Ors seeking possession of property in question, which is a house, situated at Deedwana, District Nagaur belonging to the Padha Mataji Temple Trust, Deedwana. The appellant -defendant Ramesh Chandra S/o Mool Chand Brahmin (Sevak), since deceased now represented by his legal representatives namely, Mohan Lal Sevak and two others, has filed the present second appeal -being aggrieved by the concurrent decree of dispossession granted by the two Courts below in favour of the respondents -plaintiffs in respect of the house, a residential quarter, which belongs to the Diety, Padha Mataji Temple Trust and the plaintiffs Milap Chand S/o Banshi Lal Mathur, Shanker Lal S/o Mool Chand Bagaria -Agarwal and Chhagan Lal S/o Dhan Raj Sevak, claimed to be the Trustees of the said Temple and are interested persons in the Trust property filed the present Suit (No. 177/1987) for possession against the appellant -defendant Ramesh Chandra, who was allowed to live in the house in question by permissive possession given by the Trustees of the said Temple. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 10.9.1992 and the first appeal [No. 50/1999 (38/1992. 128/1992)] filed by the defendant -appellant Ramesh Chandra came to be dismissed on 21.9.2006 by the appellate Court of Additional District Judge, Deedwana.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court on issue No. 1 are quoted herein below for ready reference: - -

(3.) THE objection regarding suit falling within the ambit and scope of Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dealt with by the learned first appellate Court, while deciding issue No. 8 that Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The relevant portion of the discussion made by the learned first appellate Court is reproduced herein below for ready reference: - -