Allahabad High Court
Sri Ram Janki And Hanuman Ji Mandir And ... vs Janardan Mishra And Another on 21 October, 2020
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 60723 of 2013 Petitioner :- Sri Ram Janki And Hanuman Ji Mandir And Another Respondent :- Janardan Mishra And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shatrughan Singh,Ambrish Singh,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastav,Kamla Narain Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Harindra Prasad,B.Malik,S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition arises out of injunction proceedings in Original Suit No. 400 of 2011 (Sri Ram Janki & Hanuman Ji Mandir & Another Vs. Jnardan Mishra & Others).
Plaintiff -petitioner has instituted Original Suit No. 400 of 2011 with the allegations that various plots mentioned in para 1 to 3 of the plaint is the property of plaintiff no.1 and that father of plaintiff no.2 was its Sarvarakar. In January, 2011, father of plaintiff no.2 died whereafter the residents of village have authorised plaintiff no.2 to function as sarvarakar and, therefore, he is entitled to manage the temple and other suit property. Permanent injunction has been claimed in the suit along with which an application for grant of temporary injunction is also filed.
A written statement has been filed by the defendant disputing the plaint's averments. It has been contended that the defendant- respondent no.1 was appointed as Pujari of the temple on 11.2.1990 and he was also given the right to manage the temple property by the father of the plaintiff no.2. Reliance has been placed in the written statement upon an earlier suit instituted by the defendant, being Original Suit No. 204 of 1999, in which ultimately a compromise was arrived at between the defendant of the present suit and father of plaintiff no. 2. It has been contended that since 1990 defendant is working as the Pujari and is also looking after of property belonging to the temple. It has thus been urged that plaintiff is neither in possession nor has any right to manage the temple or its property.
It would be worth noticing, at this stage, that the plaintiff has also instituted another suit being Original Suit No. 628 of 2011 for a declaration that decree passed by the Civil Court in Original Suit No. 204 of 1999 is fraudulently obtained and, therefore, be cancelled.
After exchange of pleadings in the interim injunction matter the trial court proceeded to allow temporary injunction application. This order, however, has been reversed in Misc. Appeal by the then District Judge, Mau vide order dated 5.10.2013. It is this order of the District Judge dated 5.10.2013, which is challenged in the present petition. Appeal by one of the other defendants Prem Chandra has also been decided by the same impugned order.
Sri K.N. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the trust was created by one Ramanand Bharti vide registered deed which is Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. In this deed Ramanand Bharti specified that he shall be the mutawalli/ sarvarakar so long he is alive whereafter Madan Singh, father of plaintiff no.2 shall act as the sarvarakar. After death of Madan Singh the property had to be managed by the mutawalli to be appointed by the villagers. Reliance is also placed upon an affidavit dated 28.4.2011 in which certain villagers have authorised plaintiff no. 2 to function as sarvarakar of the property. It is on the basis of this authorization that plaintiff no. 2 has come forward with a claim of injunction in his favour. It is urged that the defendant- respondent no.1 was merely authorised to act as Pujari, as per his own admitted case and, therefore, he does not get any right to manage temple property. It is stated that the trial court had rightly granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff and the lower appellate court has clearly erred in rejecting the injunction application.
Sri V. K. Ojha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel has appeared for respondent no. 1 and has opposed the prayer made in this petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. Relevant facts in the context of which the present dispute has arisen has already been noticed above. The lower appellate court has essentially relied upon the compromise decree passed in Original Suit No. 204 of 1999 to observe that defendant- respondent was managing the affairs of the suit property since 1999 and no objection was raised by the father of plaintiff no.2 during his life time to such continuance. As per the registered trust deed Ramanand Bharti was the sarvarakarr and after his death Madan Singh was to function as the sarvarakar. Defendant no.1 claims that he continued as Pujari and also managed the property with due authorization from the then sarvarakar, Madan Singh. The filing of Original Suit No. 204 of 1999, as well as the compromise decree passed therein has been relied upon by the lower appellate court to return a finding of possession of defendant no.1 over the suit property. It has also been noticed that a suit has been instituted for cancellation of the compromise decree passed in the Original Suit of 1999.
Admittedly Madan Singh was a defendant in the earlier suit of 1999. The question as to whether the compromise decree had been fraudulently obtained or not is yet to be examined in the suit instituted by the plaintiff for cancellation of such compromise decree. The lower appellate court has also observed that though status of defendant no.1 as sarvarakar is not admitted yet his possession is found over the property in question on account of facts noticed in the order. Although various arguments are advanced but it is undisputed that as of now the compromise decree passed in Original Suit No. 204 of 1999 continues to subsist. The finding of the lower appellate court of possession being with the defendant no.1 is, therefore, based upon materials on record, which cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. For the purpose of grant of injunction the courts below were only required to examine the prima facie case balance of convenience and aspect of irreparable injury. On the aforesaid aspects the lower appellate court has found that defendant no.1 is not only Pujari but has also been managing the property of the temple with the express permission of the father of plaintiff no.2 since 1990 and such possession is not liable to interfered with as of now. Dispute has also been raised upon the plea of authorization of villagers in favour of the plaintiff no.2 to act as sarvarakar. These findings of the lower appellate court are merely for the purposes of denial of injunction and cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of adjudication of suit, on merits, after evidence is lead by the parties. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, this Court finds that the District Judge, Mau has not erred in the eyes of law in dismissing the interim injunction applicant of plaintiff and no inference in his order is called for. A period of seven years have expired since filing of this petition and interim protection is available to the petitioner. The possession of defendant/ respondent is thus not liable to be interfered with, at this stage, even otherwise. However, this Court is of the view that certain additional directions would be necessary to protect the interest of the parties. This petition, therefore, stands disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) Defendant- respondent no.1 shall continue to function as Pujari and also manage the property but such continuance will remain subject to the ultimate determination to be made in the suit.
(ii) Defendant- respondent shall neither transfer the suit property nor shall create any charge in respect of the suit property.
(iii) Yearly statement of account would also be submitted by the defendant in respect of the income generated out of temple property, which shall be subject to the ultimate determination to be made in the suit.
(iv) Original Suit No. 400 of 2011 and Original Suit No. 628 of 2011 shall be clubbed together and for such purposes the District Judge, Mau shall pass a specific order, within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. Hearing of both the suits would be expedited by the Court concerned and fortnightly dates would be fixed without any unnecessary adjournment granted to either of the parties. In the event any adjournment becomes inevitable the Court concerned shall record specific reasons and such adjournment would not be allowed except on payment of cost which would not be less than Rs.1000/- for a day. All endevours would be made to conclude the proceedings of both the suits, at the earliest.
The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of computerized copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall act accordingly without waiting for submission of the certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 21.10.2020 Abhishek Singh