Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Prasad vs Smt. Dariao Bai on 13 May, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12542
1 SA-154-2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
SECOND APPEAL No. 154 of 2003
RAJENDRA PRASAD
Versus
SMT. DARIAO BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Garg- Senior Advocate along with Shri
Jitendra Shukla - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal along with Shri Somesh Gobhuj -
Advocate for the respondents.
Reserved on : 15.01.2025
Prounounced on : 13.05.2025
..............................................................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the defendant No.3/appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No.140-A/ 2001 by the IVt h Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dhar affirming the judgment and decree dated 07.04.1998 passed in Civil Suit No. 120- A/1996 by the 1s t Civil Judge, Class-II, Dhar whereby the claim of plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 for declaration of title and permanent injunction had been decreed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 14-05-2025 10:09:41NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12542 2 SA-154-2003
2. As per the plaintiffs, in Dhar Nagar, Laad Gali is a house of defendant No.3 Rajendra Prasad and his father in which in one room is their deity, Bhagwan Pandharinath. The same is their private temple and private deity. The suit lands bearing survey No.345, 348 and 356 Gram Jaipura were given to defendant No.3 and his predecessor as private religious land, which is their own land. The temple is also not a government temple or a public trust. The same has already been decided by judgment and decree dated 31.07.1974 in Civil Suit No.74-A/1972 instituted by father of defendant No.3, namely Dashrath Prasad against State Government and another. The said judgment has attained finality. The plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit lands since the time of their ancestors for a period of about hundred years. Earlier plaintiffs' predecessor used to cultivate the suit lands and give the produce to predecessor of defendant No. 3. Upon coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue Code 1959, by virtue of their continuous possession, plaintiffs have become Bhumiswami of the suit lands. Dashrath Prasad had earlier filed an application under Section 189 of the Code, 1959 for possession of the suit lands from Kanhaiyalal, predecessor of plaintiffs, which was dismissed by order dated 12.11.1983. Thereafter, Dashrath Prasad executed a gift deed in favour of his son defendant No.3 in the year 1960 and got him recorded over the suit lands. However, since the land is Muafi land and is in possession of the plaintiffs since fifty years prior to 02.10.1959 they have acquired Bhumiswami rights over the same.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 14-05-2025 10:09:41NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12542 3 SA-154-2003 Defendant No.3 has however filed an application under Section 248 of the Code, 1959 for obtaining possession of the suit lands in which notice has been issued to the plaintiffs.
3. On such contentions, the plaintiffs instituted an action for declaration that the suit lands are individual lands of defendant No.3 and his predecessor and they have acquired Bhumiswami rights over the same, for declaration that the proceedings instituted before the revenue Court are illegal and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit lands.
4. Defendants 1 and 2 and defendant No.3 contested the plaintiffs' claim by filing their written statement submitting that the suit lands are of public temple Pandharinath with Collector, Dhar being its manager. The same is not private temple of defendant No.3. The earlier suit was in respect of some house of Vitthal temple and not in respect of agricultural lands. Defendant No.3 is also only a Pujari of a public temple. The plaintiffs have never been in possession of the suit lands hence have not acquired any title to the same. The gift deed executed by Dashrath Prasad in favour of defendant No.3 does not confer any title upon him. The suit lands had been given to Mohan, husband of plaintiff No.1 for cultivation only for a period of one year but were not so given thereafter.
5. The Courts below have decreed the plaintiffs' claim holding that father of defendant No.3 had given the suit lands on patta to their Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 14-05-2025 10:09:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12542 4 SA-154-2003 predecessor. The plaintiffs and their predecessors have been in possession of the suit lands for past 50-60 years and have been cultivating the same and giving the share to defendant No.3 and his predecessor. Possession of plaintiffs and their predecessors over the suit lands has been by way of Shikmi. In the revenue records, there is no mention of the suit lands belonging to Pandharinath temple and its deity. They were given to Pujari of Pandharinath temple as Dharmada land. There is no evidence that the suit lands are owned by the temple or the deity. In earlier civil suit Pandharinath temple and its house was declared to be private temple and house of Dashrath Prasad, father of defendant No.1. Since it has been so held in the earlier suit it cannot be accepted that the suit lands are lands of a public trust or are government lands and plaintiffs have acquired title to the same by virtue of the provisions of the Code, 1959.
6. By order dated 06.08.2003, the appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
"1) Whether lower appellate Courtwas justified in confirming the decree passed by the trial Court which had decreed plaintiff's suit?
2) Whether Courts below were justified in conferring/recognising the title of the plaintiff in relation to the suit land qua defendant on the strength on patta granted by the defendant- Poojari of Idol in favour of the plaintiff in relation to the suit land?
3) In view of the admitted fact that land in suit is owned by Deity, whether Courts below were justified in upholding that plaintiff acquired Bhumiswami right on the strength of patta alleged to have executed by Poojari of the temple in favour of the plaintiff?Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 14-05-2025 10:09:41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12542 5 SA-154-2003
4) Can a person acquire Bhumiswami rights in respect of the suit land owned by a Deity - a perpetual minor under the Revenue Law?"
7. Learned senior counsel for the defendant No.3 has submitted that the suit lands belong to the deity who is a perpetual minor hence title over them cannot be acquired by any third person on the basis of having been granted a patta or having been given the same for cultivation. Since the suit lands were of a public temple of the trust and were government land, defendant No.3 and his predecessor had no right to give the same on patta in favour of any third person. The suit lands are owned by the deity hence the finding of the Courts below that plaintiffs have acquired title on strength of their patta is illegal. Even under the Code, 1959 no person can acquire title over land held by a minor. It is hence submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below be set aside. Reliance has been placed by him on the decision of the Apex Court in State of MP and others versus Pujari Udthanavam Kalyan Samiti and another 2021 (10) SCC 222.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the Courts below have recorded a categoric finding that the suit lands were private land of defendant No. 3 and his predecessor and are not lands of any public temple or a private trust nor are government lands hence plaintiffs having been in possession have acquired title thereto by virtue of provisions of the Code, 1959. The suit lands were personal land of Dashrath Prashad Sharma hence it cannot be said that the same belonged to the deity. In the earlier civil suit, it has already been held Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 14-05-2025 10:09:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12542
6 SA-154-2003 that the suit lands attached with the temple are personal/private property of Dashrath Prashad Sharma. It has not even been the case of defendant No.3 that the suit lands belong to idol or deity. It is hence submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
9. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
10. The substantial questions of law as have been framed by this Court are on the presumption that it is an admitted fact that the suit lands are owned by the deity. It hence firstly has to be examined whether the suit lands are so owned by the deity. In this regard, the evidence of the parties may be appreciated. The defendants have not led any evidence in support of their contentions and the only evidence led is by the plaintiffs in the form of Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-39 and examination of five witnesses. The documents which have been filed include the proceeding taken before the Revenue Authorities under the Code, 1959 also. From the evidence, it is evident that plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit lands since the time of their predecessors for 50-60 years at least. Their possession has been on the basis of being Shikmi over the suit lands. There is no document on record to demonstrate that the temple situated in the house of defendant No.3 is a public temple or a private trust or is a government temple. In the records, there is no entry of the suit lands belonging to Shri Pandharinath temple or its deity. The only inference that can hence be drawn is that the suit lands had been given to Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 14-05-2025 10:09:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12542 7 SA-154-2003 the Pujari of Pandharinath temple as Muafi land. It was for the defendants to prove that the suit lands belong to the deity but the same has not been proved by them. Merely by recording father of defendant No.3 as Pujari in the revenue records along with the temple the suit lands would not become the land of the temple or of the deity. In the list of public temples produced by the plaintiffs, the name of Pandharinath temple has not been mentioned.
11. The most important document is the judgment and decree Exhibit P-21 and Exhibit P-22 passed in the earlier suit which was instituted by Darshad Prasad, father of defendant No.3 himself against the State Government and others in respect of the house in which the deity is installed and the temple claiming declaration that the same is his private property. By judgment and decree dated 31.07.1974, it was held that the suit property i.e. house and the temple is personal property of Darshad Prasad and the orders passed by the revenue authorities to the contrary are not binding upon him. It was categorically held that the temple which is now known by the name of Pandharinath temple and the house in which the deity is installed is the private house of Darshad Prasad and the contention of the defendants in the suit to the contrary of the same being public temple was negatived. It was specifically held that the suit lands were granted in Muafi to the ancestors of Darshad Prasad for worshipping for welfare of the royal family. They were granted in Muafi rights for maintenance of the temple but it would not mean that it Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 14-05-2025 10:09:41 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12542 8 SA-154-2003 is a government property. It was nowhere held that the suit lands had been given to the idol who is hence the owner of the same. The aforesaid judgment and decree has attained finality. Since the temple was held to be a private temple, the contention that the suit lands are either of public temple or public trust or are held by the deity cannot be accepted.
12. It is hence evident that the suit lands are not owned by the deity and were in fact owned by defendant No.3 and on the basis of having obtained the same from him on Shikmi, plaintiffs have acquired Bhumiswami rights therein by virtue of provisions of the Code, 1959. All the substantial questions of law framed by this Court are on the presumption that the suit lands are owned by the deity hence in view of the discussion and finding as aforesaid are answered against defendant No.3 and in favour of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the judgment in the case of Pujari Uthanaevam Kalyan Samiti (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for defendant No.3 does not help him in any manner.
13. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are hereby affirmed, as a result of which the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE jyoti Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 14-05-2025 10:09:41