Allahabad High Court
Gulab Giri vs Bajrang Bali on 21 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 6 Reserved A.F.R. Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 145 of 2022 Petitioner :- Gulab Giri Respondent :- Bajrang Bali Counsel for Petitioner :- Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Mr. Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Desh Ratan Chaudhary, Advocate Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been preferred by the plaintiff of Original Suit No. 59 of 2019, who has lost his temporary injunction application before both the Courts below.
2. Original Suit No. 59 of 2019 was instituted by Gulab Giri, claiming to be a Chela (Disciple) of Mahant Son Giri through the holder of his power of attorney, Jawahar Giri son of Chhitaria and Chela of Gulab Giri against the defendant, Bajrang Bali before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Khair, District Aligarh for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. The relief claimed was that a permanent injunction be issued against the defendant, restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff-petitioner, otherwise than in due course of law, either himself or through his agents or anyone else, and further not to interfere with his peaceful possession and user of the suit property, as detailed at the foot of the plaint.
3. According to the plaintiff, Gulab Giri, Guru of Jawahar Giri is recorded in the Fasli Year 1425-1430 as the owner in possession of Khata No. 430, Gata Nos. 4105/0.0580, 4106/0.0120, 4107/0.0350, 4108/0.0460 and 4109/0.0350, totaling a figure of five Gatas with an area of 0.1860 hectare, situate at Mauza and Pargana Tappal, Tehsil Khair, District Aligarh.
4. The said property, according to the plaintiff Gulab Giri, was received by him from his Guru, Son Giri. The property aforesaid comprises shops of all sizes, some of them dilapidated, numbering a total of 35 shops. The property houses an Ashram and a temple, which in the past was taken care of by Gulab Giri and now looked after by Jawahar Giri.
5. It must be said at the outset that the averments in the plaint are at variance with the description of the parties in the cause title, inasmuch as the plaintiff is shown to be Gulab Giri through the holder of his power of attorney, Jawahar Giri, but the pleadings have been drafted in a fashion, which describe the attorney as the plaintiff and Gulab Giri, who is in fact shown in the cause title as the plaintiff, as the Attorney's Guru. It must be further remarked that once Gulab Giri, the Chela of Son Giri has been described as the plaintiff through the holder of his power of attorney, it is Gulab Giri, who has to be regarded as the plaintiff; not the attorney, Jawahar Giri. This incongruence in the description of the plaintiff and the pleadings has permeated the orders of the Courts below, but not to much consequence, because after all the suit has been instituted in the right of Gulab Giri, claiming to be the owner of the property, subject matter of the suit. The property, subject matter of the suit, as described hereinbefore, shall be referred to as 'the suit property'.
6. The plaintiff's case further is that Gulab Giri has advanced in age and is now about 75 years old. He does not keep good health. For the said reason, he is not in a position to take care of and manage the suit property. Therefore, Gulab Giri has executed a power of attorney on 28.06.2019 in favour of Jawahar Giri, authorizing the latter to manage the suit property, which includes the Ashram, the Mandir and the shops, belonging to the Ashram. Jawahar Giri has been authorized to make arrangement for the proper management of the suit property. It is averred that the power of attorney aforesaid was executed by Gulab Giri in presence of witnesses and is a registered document. It is averred further that under the said power, Jawahar Giri, who has described himself as the plaintiff, rather incongruously as already remarked, has been authorized by Gulab Giri to manage the Mandir, the Ashram and the shops, that are debutter and realize rents from tenants. Jawahar Giri is managing the entire property properly.
7. It is the plaintiff's case that Jawahar Giri, in accordance with the power of attorney, is regularly realizing rents from tenants occupying the shops, part of the suit property, since the year 2013 and further that the power of attorney in his favour has been duly acted upon. There is a specific averment in Paragraph No. 5 of the plaintiff to the effect that the suit property, which includes the Ashram and the shops, are owned by Gulab Giri and his name is entered in the Khatauni as the sole bhumidhar with transferable rights during the Fasli Year 1425-1430. Gulab Giri, the attorney's Guru is the bhumidhar in possession of the suit property to the exclusion of all others, and no one else has any right in the said property.
8. It is then averred that the defendant is a clever and aggressive man, who has never had any connection with the suit property, but in association with antisocial elements and upon their instigation, desires to unlawfully interfere with the management of the said property. It is the plaintiff's case that the defendant, Bajrang Bali has no right under the law to interfere with the suit property, but on the strength of muscle power, he wants to dispossess the plaintiff of his personal property, that is to say, the suit property forcibly. The defendant, Bajrang Bali is said to be a resident of Brij Ghat, Garh Mukteshwar, District Bulandshahr.
9. It is averred that on 18.06.2019, the defendant threatened to dispossess the plaintiff, regarding which on 19.06.2019, the plaintiff laid a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khair. The complaint was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Tappal. On 05.07.2019, the defendant Bajrang Bali again threatened to forcibly take possession of the suit property and to do Gulab Giri, the plaintiff and his attorney and Chela Jawahar Giri to death. A complaint about the said threat was sent through registered post by Jawahar Giri to the Chief Minister.
10. It is the plaintiff's further case that on 22.07.2019, the defendant, along with some antisocial elements, alighted at the suit property. Wielding lathis, they attempted to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff, encroach upon the suit property and take forcible possession thereof. The plaintiff resisted the trespass stiffly and raised alarm. The bystanders came to the plaintiff's rescue, whose names have been furnished in Paragraph No. 10 of the plaint. Those, that rushed to the plaintiff's rescue, stood firm by him, in consequence whereof, the defendant's evil design was thwarted. However, according to the plaintiff, in the near future, there was a potent threat of the defendant forcibly dispossessing him, of which the latter had threatened, including doing the plaintiff to death. It is on this cause of action that the suit giving rise to the present petition was instituted.
11. A written statement was filed in the suit by the defendant, Bajrang Bali, who substantially pleaded in the additional pleas. It was denied that the plaintiff Gulab Giri is the owner in possession of the suit property, as also the fact that his attorney and Chela is looking after and managing the temple, including the shops, part of the suit property. The assertion that the defendant wants to take illegal possession of the temple and evict the plaintiff forcibly from the suit property, has been denied. It is pleaded that the incident dated 18.06.2019 never happened nor any attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property ever made. It is the defendant's case that the plaintiff has cooked up a story to usurp the suit property, including the temple and the debutter. The correct facts, according to the defendant, are that the suit property is known as Madhai Mandir, Juna Akhara, Tappal, Tehsil Khair, District Aligarh, which belongs to and owned by Shri Panch Dashnam Juna Akhara, Bada Hanuman Ghat, Varanasi, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
12. The suit property comprises a Dakshinmukhi Hanuman Mandir, Shivalaya, Bagichi, Samadhi and a total of 23 shops, which are being managed and controlled by the defendant, Bajrang Bali, a Chela of the Sabhapati of Shri Panch Dashnam Juna Akhara, Sri Mahant Sohan Giri Maharaj. The Dakshinmukhi Hanuman Mandir has an idol of Sri Hanuman Ji Maharaj, that was consecrated about 100 years ago. The plaintiff Gulab Giri, a Chela of Mahant Sri Sohan Ji Maharaj, was appointed by the latter as a caretaker of the temple for the worship of Sri Hanuman Ji Maharaj and further for the management of the property of Shri Panch Dashnam Juna Akhara, Bada Hanuman Ghat, Varanasi, that is to say, the suit property.
13. The Mahant Gulab Giri was not caring for and managing the property of the temple properly. The Pooja and Aarti of Sri Hanuman Ji Maharaj was not being performed by Gulab Giri. It is pleaded that the temple was made a den of liquor consumption and gambling. Gulab Giri also had an evil eye to usurp the suit property. The suit property has become very valuable, due to the construction of the Yamuna Express Way in the vicinity and the proposed Jewar Airport. The local land mafiosi, including some tenants of the shop, have hatched a plan to usurp the suit property. To give effect to the unholy design, Jawahar Giri was held out as a Chela of Gulab Giri and a power of attorney, described in Paragraph No. 25 of the written statement as forged, fictitious and fabricated, was executed by Gulab Giri in favour of Jawahar Giri.
14. At this stage, this Court must remark that the employment of the words, "forged, fictitious and fabricated", with reference to the power of attorney, said to be executed by Gulab Giri, do not mean that Gulab Giri did not execute the said power. What the draftsman of the written statement apparently means, by dubbing the power of attorney as forged, fictitious etc., is that Gulab Giri did not have the right to execute it; not that he did not execute it.
15. The power of attorney dated 28.06.2019 executed by Gulab Giri in favour of Jawahar Giri, authorized him to transfer, alienate and dispose of the suit property and to manage the same, though the granter of the power had no such right or authority.
16. Upon all these complaints coming to the cognizance of Mahant Sri Sohan Giri, he proceeded to appoint Bajrang Giri @ Bajrang Bali, a Chela of Mahant Sri Sohan Giri, as the Mahant of the temple in question to look after the management, control and other affairs vide appointment letter dated 05.07.2019. The said appointment letter is issued by Shri Panch Dashnam Juna Akhara, Bada Hanuman Ghat, Varanasi, on the basis of a certificate dated 21.01.2017, granted by the international President, Sri Mahant Bhagwat Puri and countersigned by two Secretaries, namely, Parshuram Giri and Devanand Saraswati.
17. It is further pleaded on behalf of the defendant that rights in the revenue record standing in the name of Gulab Giri, relating to the suit property, have been expunged by the Naib Tehsildar, Khair on 25.09.2019 and in its place, the name of the defendant as the Manager/ Mahant Bajrang Giri of Shri Panch Dashnam Juna Akhara, Bada Hanuman Ghat, Varanasi, has been mutated. It is asserted by the defendant that Bajrang Giri @ Bajrang Bali is the Mahant of the temple, in exclusive possession of the debutter and control thereof. The defendant is performing the sewa, aarti, pooja of Sri Hanuman Ji Maharaj and managing the suit property. The suit property is dedicated for religious purposes, where religious ceremonies on occasions of Hanuman Jayanti, Shivratri, Guru Purnima, Navratri, Basant Panchami, Vijay Dashmi, Deepawali are held.
18. The plaintiff is said to have no concern with the suit property after his removal from the office of the Mahant and his name in the revenue records no longer finds place. He is out of possession. It is pleaded, therefore, that the plaintiff has no right to maintain the suit for injunction.
19. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also made by the plaintiff, seeking the same injunction as that in the suit, but temporary in form. The application was supported by affidavit and papers. The defendant filed objections to the temporary injunction application, also supported by documents.
20. The Trial Judge, before whom the temporary injunction application came up for hearing, proceeded to reject the same vide order dated 04.11.2020. The order was appealed by the plaintiff-petitioner to the District Judge of Aligarh under Order LXIII Rule 1(r) CPC. The aforesaid appeal preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2020 was heard and dismissed by the District Judge vide judgment and order dated 14.09.2021.
21. Aggrieved, the plaintiff-petitioner has preferred this petition.
22. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and Mr. Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Desh Ratan Chaudhary, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant-respondent.
23. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that he was appointed the trustee of Madhai Mandir, Juna Akhara Temple since October, 2013 upon the death of the previous trustee, Sri Sumer Giri @ Son Giri. It is argued that the plaintiff is in settled possession of the suit property and he can only be dispossessed from the said property in accordance with law, that is to say, by a decree of the Court of competent jurisdiction. The documents relied upon by the defendant to project himself the Mahant of the temple and the person authorized to manage the suit property are all forged and fabricated.
24. It is also argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the Sabhapati Sohan Giri has no right to remove the plaintiff from the office of the Mahant (trustee) of the temple or to deprive him of the suit property. It is only the Civil Court, which can remove him from the management of the temple and his office as Mahant for the alleged acts of mismanagement whereof Sabhapati Mahant Sohan Giri has purportedly taken cognizance and acted to remove him.
25. It is particularly argued by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that his name has been removed from the revenue records by means of an ex parte order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Khair and that he has filed a restoration application on 30.10.2019. The Courts below have, however, acted on the ex parte order of the Naib Tehsildar, expunging the plaintiff-petitioner's name and recording that of the defendant, without awaiting the result of the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities.
26. Mr. Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate, on the other hand, has drawn the attention of the Court to the averments in Paragraph No. 4 of the counter affidavit, where the stand, in accordance with the defendant's case, is that the suit property, including the temple, situate there, is Managed by Shri Panch Dashnam Juna Akhara, Bada Hanuman Ghat, Varanasi since its inception. The Mahant of the Mandir has always been appointed by Shri Panch Dashnam Juna Akhara, Varanasi, following the Guru-Shishya Parampara. However, in the year 2012 when the then Mahant Sri Santosh Giri, the Chela of Sri Rajeshwar Giri, went to his heavenly abode on 06.07.2012, the then Sabhapati of Shri Panch Dashnam Juna Akhara, Bada Hanuman Ghat, Varanasi, Sri Sohan Giri had appointed the plaintiff, Gulab Giri to look after the Mandir and ensure performance of Pooja etc.
27. The learned Senior Counsel has particularly drawn the attention of the Court to the order of the Tehsildar, Tehsil Khair, District Aligarh dated 18.10.2013, which is the basis for the entry of Gulab Giri's name in the revenue records. The said order has been passed in Case No. 2469, under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. The order recites the fact that Gulab Giri has filed in evidence a certificate of appointment in original issued by Shri Panch Dashnam Juna Akhara, Bada Hanuman Ghat, Varanasi. Witnesses, Devendra Singh son of Charan Singh, besides Vinod Kumar Sharma son of Ram Khilari, a disciple of Sohan Giri, apart from the Halqa Lekhpal Ram Khilari Sharma, were examined before the Tehsildar.
28. The order of the Tehsildar, Khair dated 18.10.2013 records the fact that the mutation proceeds on the Guru-Shishya Parampara, where the Chela takes the property of the Ashram from his Guru upon his demise. The order also records the fact that the Chela has no right to alienate the property of the Ashram and the temple. The Tehsildar has recorded the fact that the name of Gulab Giri requires to be mutated in place of Rajesh Giri and Sumer Giri as Manager of the suit property. The mutation was granted carrying a specific restriction that Gulab Giri would not be entitled to alienate or encumber the suit property.
29. An extract of the Khatauni for the Fasli Year 1425-1430 has also been filed along with the counter affidavit, which shows in column Nos. 7 to 12, the operative portion of the Tehsildar's order dated 18.10.2013, mentioning clearly that Gulab Giri's name is mutated in the suit property as Chela of Son Giri, but Gulab Giri would not have the right to sell or encumber the said property. There are then on record other documents about the removal of Gulab Giri by Shri Panch Dashnam Juna Akhara, Bada Hanuman Ghat, Varanasi and the appointment of the defendant as the Mahant.
30. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record, that comprises documents of appointment, removal and revenue records, besides others, held that a Mahant of a temple is not the owner of the property, belonging to the temple. It has also noticed that the plaintiff-petitioner's name is also not recorded in the revenue records.
31. The Court has further remarked that the institution, that had declared the plaintiff-petitioner the Mahant of the temple, has now appointed someone else. The fact, whether the documents are valid or not, must await trial. The Trial Court has concluded that on the state of evidence, the plaintiff-petitioner has not been able to establish his prima facie case or the other two ingredients necessary for the grant of a temporary injunction. In appeal, the learned District Judge, while agreeing with the Trial Court, has remarked that the plaintiff-petitioner has asserted himself to be the owner of the suit property, which he received from his Guru Son Giri with all the rights that Gulab Giri had as the Mahant. These rights Gulab Giri has authorized Jawahar Giri to exercise through the power of attorney, executed in the latter's favour. It is then observed by the learned District Judge that the Khatauni, Paper No. 45-C1 is more recent than that relied upon by the plaintiff, Paper No. 11-C1. The latter Khatauni shows that the defendant-respondent has been recorded in the revenue records.
32. There is mention of the Amin Commissioner's report, which says that the plaintiff is realizing rent from some shops, while the defendant-respondent is collecting it from the other tenants. Some photographs showing the defendant performing the Pooja etc. have also been looked into to hold that the plaintiff does not appear to have a prima facie case.
33. Both the Courts below have remarked that the plaintiff has made efforts to discredit the defendant's documents as forged, rather than establish his own case. There is an endorsing remark by the District Judge in agreement with the Trial Judge that the institution that appointed the plaintiff-petitioner as the Mahant, has now appointed the defendant in his place. The institution aforesaid is Shri Panch Dashnam Juna Akhara, Bada Hanuman Ghat, Varanasi.
34. The law regarding the rights and duties of a Mahant about the temple itself and the debutter are slightly different. The Mahant or the Shevait of a temple cannot alienate the temple, which houses the Deity in any event. However, the debutter may be alienated for an absolute necessity, which must be demonstrated. The law in this regard has been summarized in Mukundji Mahraj v. Persotam Lalji Mahraj, 1955 SCC OnLine All 420, where the following remarks are pertinent:
"40. The first and foremost duty of a Mahant or a Shebait of an idol is to preserve and maintain the idol as an institution, that is to say as an object of worship. This presumes that the temple, that is to say, the abode of the idol, is to be preserved and maintained as it was intended by the donor or founder. Property other than the temple endowed for the purposes of the idol may have to be alienated if it is absolutely necessary for the purpose of preservation of the idol and its temple. No Shebait or Mahant can, therefore, have the right of alienating the temple itself.
41. Debts may be incurred for the purposes mentioned by the Privy Council including the upkeep of the religious worship. And if the income of the idol obtained from, offerings and the profits of the endowed property is not sufficient to keep up the usual religious worship, a part of the endowed property may be alienated but there is no justification for alienating the whole of the idol's properties and in any case, none whatever for alienating the temple, because religious worship under Hindu law can be performed simply with water, leaves and flowers which involve no expense. As J.C. Ghosh observed in his Tagore Law Lectures for 1904 on Religious Endowments, Vol. II, at page 217:
"Worship can be performed simply with water and leaves and flowers and thus there can be no necessity for alienating dedicated properties for ostentatious worship. The only valid necessity which the Courts should recognise in case of land is the payment of revenue and rent and repairs of embankments, reservoirs of water and the like. But for these purposes the income of property is ordinarily sufficient. Even for such purposes absolute alienation cannot be justified for they are only necessary for protection. The Courts should therefore only under very extraordinary circumstances recognise any necessity as justifying alienation of dedicated property."
42. This view finds support from the opinion of Sir Bhashyam Ayyanger J. in Vidyapuma v. VidyanidhiILR 27 Mad 435 (B).
46. Where a Manager or a Shebait of an idol could not have permanently alienated the endowed property for a particular purpose, e.g., for daily worship, the property cannot be sold in execution of a decree obtained on the basis of a loan taken for such a purpose. The endowed property can be sold in execution of a decree only when it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the decretal amount cannot be realised from the profits of the property and that the loan was for such a necessity as would have justified or entitled the Shebait or the Manager to make a permanent alienation of the endowed property.
47. For an absolute alienation of a debuttor property, there must, it would seem be an imperative necessity constraining the manager to make it, ILR 34 Mad 535 (C), Anantakrishna Shastri v. Prayag Das, ILR 1937-1 Cal 84 (F), Himangshu v. Radha Madan Mohan43 Cal WN 943 (G), Venkataramana Ayyangar v. Kasturi Ranga, ILR 40 Mad 212 : AIR 1917 Mad 112 (FB) (H)."
35. Upon hearing learned Counsel for parties, this Court finds that both the Courts below have not accepted the plaintiff-petitioner's prima facie case, and of course, his case on the other two ingredients of irreparable loss and balance of convenience, while declining to grant a temporary injunction.
36. This Court finds that at this stage it is very difficult to pronounce upon the validity of the documents, that the parties propound. The Courts below are correct in their remarks that the genuineness of the documents, on which the parties rely, must await trial. At this stage, what has to be seen for the first requirement to entitle the plaintiff-petitioner to a temporary injunction, is the existence of a prima facie case. A prima facie case is not to be confounded with prima facie title. The case that the plaintiff has pleaded is that he was appointed Mahant of the temple and, therefore, given charge of the suit property that is debutter by his Guru, Mahant Son Giri. If that is the plaintiff's case, he holds charge of the suit property, which is obviously debutter in a fiduciary capacity and not in his personal right. Even if the plaintiff-petitioner were to dispute the fact that the Shri Panch Dashnam Juna Akhara, Bada Hanuman Ghat, Varanasi, a registered society in its mundane face and otherwise a body of saints, represented by its Sabhapati, is not his appointing authority, Gulab Giri cannot renounce his character as a Mahant and turn himself an owner. The assertion in Paragraph No. 5 of the plaint, where it is said that Gulab Giri has been recorded in the Khatauni as a bhumidhar with transferable rights, is at utter variance with his character as a Mahant of the temple, who holds charge for the management and upkeep of the temple.
37. It is to be noted that the order dated 25.09.2019, expunging Gulab Giri's name, may be ex parte and subject to his objections to set aside and determine the mutation matter afresh between him and the defendant, but the order dated 10.12.2013, by which Gulab Giri's name has been mutated in the revenue records relating to the suit property, cannot be disputed by him. Indeed, there is nothing in the pleadings or even this petition to show that Gulab Giri questions the order dated 18.10.2013, mutating his name over the suit property. The order of the Tehsildar dated 18.10.2013, does not grant mutation in favour of Gulab Giri as a bhumidhar with transferable rights, but records his name after expunging that of Sumer Giri, Chela of Rajesh Giri, as the Manager with a clear stipulation that he would have no right to transfer or encumber the suit property.
38. It is also to be noticed that in the order mutating Gulab Giri's name over the suit property, there is a clear mention about the basis of his right. And, the basis of Gulab Giri's right is a certificate issued by Shri Panch Dashnam Juna Akhara, Bada Hanuman Ghat, Varanasi in original. Prima facie, therefore, Gulab Giri was appointed by Shri Panch Dashnam Juna Akhara, Bada Hanuman Ghat, Varanasi as the Mahant to look after the temple in a fiduciary capacity and was mutated, as such, in the revenue records. Given the legal position that entries in the revenue records are not sources of title, there is no denying the fact that revenue entries can be reflections of title. They can show at least prima facie the basis of a person's right and the nature of his title. It would be true all the more so at the stage of consideration of the temporary injunction matter where for judging the prima facie case, the nature of a party's right's may be ascertained from the revenue records; the way it is described there. It is to be noticed that the power of attorney executed by Gulab Giri in favour Jawahar Giri dated 28.06.2019, a photostat copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. CA-5, carries at least one recital, which reads:
"और यदि कोई आवश्यकता पड़े तो उक्त सम्पत्ति को रहन अथवा विक्रीत करे, किराये पर दे, ऋण ले, द्वितीय पक्ष द्वारा किया गया कार्य एवं हस्ताक्षर मुझ प्रथम पक्ष द्वारा किया गया कार्य व हस्ताक्षर लिखे, पढ़े व समझे जायें।"
39. The law about the right of a Mahant to alienate property that is debutter has been noticed hereinabove. It is only in extreme, compelling or absolute necessity that the Mahant may alienate the property of the temple. The power of attorney executed by Gulab Giri in favour of Jawahar Giri, authorizing him to alienate or encumber the property that is debutter, seems to be prima facie a transgression of his fiduciary character as the Mahant. It might also require examination at the trial, quite apart from the issue whether Gulab Giri has any further authority after another person has been appointed in his stead, if at all a Mahant can appoint an attorney to deal with the property of the temple i.e. debutter; or still more, if at all any power of attorney can be executed by a Mahant, that purports to transfer the duties of his office to an agent. Moreover, the express restriction placed on the rights of Gulab Giri as a Mahant in the matter of alienating or encumbering the property of the temple, that is recorded in the revenue record reflecting Gulab Giri's rights on appointment as the Mahant, would also have to be examined at the trial in order to judge whether at all Gulab Giri had power of disposition regarding the debutter.
40. Prima facie also, Gulab Giri cannot dispute the fact, looking to the evidence that he produced before the Tehsildar in the year 2013 that he was appointed to the position of Mahant by Shri Panch Dashnam Juna Akhara, Bada Hanuman Ghat, Varanasi. Now, the defendant has produced documents to show that he has been appointed to that position. This Court is not so much concerned about what rights the defendant has. The plaintiff-petitioner had to prove his case by evidence prima facie in order to entitle him to a temporary injunction. He had then to go on and prove the other two ingredients, necessary to the grant of a temporary injunction. However, in this case, the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove a prima facie case. Rather, it appears that the plaintiff has come to Court with a stand that is not fair and candid.
41. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find the plaintiff-petitioner entitled to any relief, either by himself or through the holder of his power of attorney, Jawahar Giri. Thus, for these added reasons, this Court is in agreement with the conclusions reached by the two Courts below.
42. It is, however, clarified that all remarks in this judgment and the orders passed by the Courts below are tentative in nature and limited to the temporary injunction matter. None of these remarks would affect the parties' case either way at the trial.
43. The petition fails and is dismissed. Costs easy.
Order Date :- 21.11.2022 Anoop (J.J. Munir, J.)