Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shankar Lal vs Ganesh Prasad & Ors. on 19 November, 2015
S.A.No.958/2005
- 1 -
Second Appeal No.958/2005
19.11.2015 Shri N.S.Ruprah, counsel for the applicants.
None for the respondents.
Heard on admission as well as I.A.No.3708/2005, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.
Shankar Lal father of the appellants had filed a civil suit No.109-A/2002, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2003 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Hoshangabad. On appeal, First Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in Civil Appeal No.54-A/2003 dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 16.2.2005. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments and decrees, the present second appeal has been filed.
During the pendency of this second appeal, the appellant Shankar Lal has expired and the appellants were brought on record as his Legal Representatives.
Shankar Lal has filed a civil suit before the trial Court that his forefathers were Malgujars till eradication of Malgujari of village Anchalkheda. They attached lands bearing survey Nos.70, 69, 56 and 52 total area measuring 15.26 acres to Thakurji temple, Anchalkheda, which was constructed by his forefathers. Initially one Gulab was appointed as S.A.No.958/2005
- 2 -
"Pujari". Thereafter, one Harnarayan was appointed as "Pujari" and after death of Harnarayan, one Onkar was appointed as "Pujari". The respondents No.1 to 3 are children of Onkar Brahman. Pujari was getting earnings from the lands and he was using such income to maintain the temple and manage "Pooja"
properly. On Deepawali, 1999 when the plaintiff sought information about the income of the land then, it was found that there was no land available in the temple and the entire land was mutated in the names of the respondents No.1, 2 and 3. Hence, a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction was filed that it be declared that aforesaid lands were the property of family of the plaintiff given to maintain the expenditure of temple and therefore, such properties be mutated in the name of temple.
The respondents No.1 to 3 in their reply denied the pleadings made by the plaintiff. According to them, no property was given to Onkar relating to worship of the temple. Onkar had expired in the year 1968 and there is no evidence as to why anyone else was appointed as "Pujari" in the temple after his death. The suit was barred by limitation. It was pleaded that temple was constructed by Harnarayan by his own income and after his death, he gave the right to worship to his nephew Onkar. The plaintiff or S.A.No.958/2005
- 3 -
his forefathers had no connection with the suit property.
The trial Court after framing 6 issues relating to ownership of the property, relief and maintainability of the suit, recorded the evidence of the parties and ultimately suit was dismissed.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, it appears that the plaintiff Shankar Lal and his successors could not prove that the suit properties were attached with a temple, so that prayer and Pooja in the temple could be properly done. It is apparent that Malgujari was eradicated. M.P. Land Revenue Code came into force in the year 1959 and therefore, it was for the plaintiff to show the revenue records after the year 1959 that the property was given to the temple and not to any particular person. No such revenue entry could be filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court for the years after the year 1959. If the suit property was the property of forefathers of the plaintiff then, still it was for him to establish that the property was given to the temple.
Learned counsel for the appellants has invited the attention of this Court that the Courts below did not follow the provision of Section 14 of the Religious Endowment Act and therefore, there is a substantial question of law involved. However, the contention of S.A.No.958/2005
- 4 -
the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted because the appellants could not file any document to show that the suit property was ever given by forefathers of the plaintiff to maintain the worship of concerned Thakurji temple. For compliance of provision under Section 14 of that Act, it was necessary to establish that the temple was constructed by forefathers of the plaintiffs and they were the Managers. If alleged Pujari Onkar has expired in the year 1968 then, being Manager, the plaintiff or his father would have appointed the next Pujari after death of Onkar. On the basis of entries in the revenue records, it appears that suit property was registered in the name of Onkar and thereafter, in the names of respondents No.1, 2 and 3. Hence, when the plaintiff could not connect the suit property relating to any religious endowment, even he did not make the deity of Thakurji temple as party in the case, according to the plaintiff who was the owner of the property then, in the second appeal it cannot be said that provision of Section 14 of the Religious Endowment Act was applicable in the present case.
Learned counsel for the appellants has also pressed upon the application filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, whereby some revenue entries are filed before this Court. If the application is allowed and such documents are S.A.No.958/2005
- 5 -
perused then, there is no document to show about any revenue entry after the year 1959. After enactment of M.P. Land Revenue Code if there is no entry in revenue record relating to religious endowment or ownership of the property that either it was of forefathers of the plaintiff or the deity of Thakurji temple then, such documents relating to revenue entries prior to the year 1959 are not at all relevant in the present case and the appellants did not get any benefit by filing of such documents because after commencement of M.P. Land Revenue Code, if no entry of endowment or ownership of deity is shown then "Bhoomiswami" right if accrued to deity would have been extinguished. Also in revenue documents filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, there is no entry in the name of temple or deity.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings given by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in the case, so that second appeal filed by the appellants may be accepted for final hearing. The plaintiff could not establish his case according to the pleadings done by him. Under such circumstances, the present second appeal filed by the appellants is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
S.A.No.958/2005- 6 -
Copy of the order be sent to the Courts below alongwith their respective records for information.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra