MADAN MOHAN Vs. REVTI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the parties agree that both the revision applications may be heard together and as respondent No. 1 alone would be affected by the decision of these revision applications, they may be heard and disposed of without effecting service upon the remaining respondents.

(2.) IN a suit for grant of a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from executing his decree for ejectment obtained against the remaining respondents, an application for temporary injunction was moved by the plaintiff. The trial court granted a temporary injunction, which was set aside on appeal by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City by his order dated January 29, 1977. The learned Additional District Judge agreed with the trial court on the question that the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the properties in question, but he concluded that the execution of a decree lawfully obtained could not be stayed by means of a temporary injunction, and on that basis it was held that the plaintiff was unable to prove a prima facie case.

(3.) IT is not in dispute between the parties that the ownership of the property in question vested in the idol of Shri Gor-dhan Nathji. The case of the plaintiff is that the father of Revti Prasad, respondent No. 1 had appointed one Grange bux as a Pujari in the year 1913 for doing 'sewa-Pooja' in the temple and by a subsequent document of the year 1923 all rights relating to the sheibaitship of the property were surrendered by him in favour of Ganga Bux and that after the death of Ganga Bux the plaintiff, being his nephew, came into possession of the properties belonging to the deity of Shri Gordhan Nathji, including the disputed property. The plaintiff also relied upon an order passed by the Sub-Divisional officer fixing annuity in favour of Ganga Bux Madan Mohan. But the respondent no. 1 has produced a copy of the order of the Board of Revenue dated Sept. 11, 1975 by which the order regarding fixation of annuity has been set aside on the ground that it was passed without notice to Revti Prasad respondent No. 1 and the matter relating to the fixation of annuity has been remanded to the Deputy collector (Jagir) for a fresh decision. The case of the respondent No. 1 is that gangabux was appointed as a Pujari in the temple of Shri Gordhan Nathji by the grandfather of the defendant No. 1 in pursuance of the document dated february 2, 1913 but after some years Gangabux handed over the work of sewa Pooja to his son-in-law Narsinglal and that a suit was filed by the defendant No. 1 against Narsinghlal which was decreed on November 30, 1972. According to the defendant No. 1, a suit for ejectment was filed against the tenants, who are the other respondents in the case, on the basis of rent-deed alleged to have been executed on September 24, 1968 and the decree passed in that suit was sought to be executed. It was at that stage that the present plaintiff came on the scene and objected to the execution of the decree for ejectment and when his objection was rejected by the executing court, the present suit was filed.