Delhi District Court
Mahent Dayal Muni (Deceased) vs Shri Deepak Kumar Khanna on 15 April, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : RENT
CONTROLLER: KARKARDOOMA COURTS (EAST)
Suit No. 262/12
Old Suit No. 120/99
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0491222004
Mahent Dayal Muni (deceased)
Through Smt. Rukmani Bai
r/o I55m Mohan Garden,
New Delhi.
........... Plaintiff.
VERSUS
1. Shri Deepak Kumar Khanna
s/o Shri Shyam Gopal Khanna
r/o Khanna Building, Khanna Chowk,
Banaras, UP.
2. Shri Lalit Sharma
s/o Late Shri Satya Prakash Sharma
r/o WA150, Sharma Confectionery,
Shakarpur (Ganesh Nagar), Delhi.
......... Defendant.
Date of institution of the suit : 16.04.1999
Date on which order was reserved: 03.04.2013
Date of decision : 15.04.2013
SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND PERPETUAL INJUNCTION.
JUDGMENT
The facts in brief, necessary for the disposal of the present suit filed by the plaintiff as disclosed by the plaintiff in the amended plaint filed on 11.04.2002, are that the plaintiff is filing the present suit for declaration and possession of the suit premises measuring 66.50 sq. yards situated in portion of plot no.23 khasra no. 305/212/2 at village Shakarpur, Delhi. It has been further stated that the suit premises is also bearing the new number i.e. WA140, Ganesh Nagar, Delhi and the same have been shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint. It has been further stated that one Shri Jai Bhagwan Sharma s/o Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, the erstwhile real owner of the suit property, had purchased it from Shri Anand Prakash Adlakha vide registered sale deed dated 28.02.1972. It has been further stated that the said Shri Jai Bhagwan was the owner of a plot measuring 200 sq. yards. It has been further stated that in the year 1972, the said Shri Jai Bhagwan dedicated his share of the said property for religious purposes to late Shri Mahent Shri Paras Raj Ji. It has been further stated that the said property was dedicated for the purposes of building temple on the same which was put under the control and supervision of the said late Shri Mahent Paras Raj Ji. It has been further stated that as per the desire of Shri Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Mahent Paras Raj acquired and took the possession of the said property measuring 66.50 sq. yards who relinquished his share therein in favour of Mahent Paras Raj. It has been further stated that since then, the said property remained in possession of Mahent Paras Raj to the exclusion of others including Shri Jai Bhagwan Sharma. It has been further stated that in the year 1974, Mahent Paras Raj raised the construction of a temple on the said property by raising the donations and funds from the public and his sources. It has been further stated that the idol of lord Krishna was installed after performing due religious function. It has been further stated that a superstructure was constructed on the said property by Mahent Paras Raj which was dedicated solely for the religious purposes, functions and prayers. It has been further stated that Mahent Paras Raj was entrusted with the control and management of the affairs of the Mandir, which was popularly called "Datt Mandir" till his death. It has been further stated that the electricity bills were also in the name of Mahent Paras Raj and after the death of Mahent Paras Raj, in the name of the plaintiff. It has been further stated that Shri Jai Bhagwan Sharma on 14.03.1978, executed a GPA in respect of the suit property in favour of Mahent Paras Raj. It has been further stated that Mahent Paras Raj belonged to religious fraternity of Jai Krishan Panth and the temple in the suit property was being used for the purposes of worship by the followers of the said Panth as well as by the general public and the premises was also being used for providing accommodation to Sadhus, for the purposes of holding Satsang / Katha and religious congregations from time to time. It has been further stated that on 25.09.1993, Mahent Paras Raj expired but before his death, he executed a Will dated 25.01.1988 wherein he expressed his desire that the affairs of the temple will be look after by Chiranjivi Janardan Muni who was looking after him as well as helping him in the affairs of the temple. It has been further stated that late Shri Mahent Paras Raj also vested Janardan Muni with the authority to further transfer the said property in faovur of any other Sewadar/chela as desired by Mahent Paras Raj. It has been further stated that Mahent Paras Raj in the presence of other disciples on 06.11.1990, executed a document bestowing upon the plaintiff the Mahentship and possession of the temple i.e. the suit premises. It has been further stated that by way of the said Assignment deed the plaintiff was appointed as Mahent after performing the due rituals. It has been further stated that Shri Janardan Muni on 06.01.1994 also executed a GPA in favour of the plaintiff to look after the matters relating to the Dutt Mandir and bestowed the rights in the property and the temple on the plaintiff. It has been further stated that thus, the plaintiff became the successor of Mahent Paras Raj in the matters of ownership, control and management of the affairs of the temple. It has been further stated that the plaintiff stepped into the shoes of Mahent Paras Raj and Janardan Muni. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has been lookingafter the GADDI i.e. the sacred seat bestowed upon the plaintiff in accordance with the customs of Jai Krishan Panth. It has been further stated that Mahent Paras Raj, the founder of Jai Krishan Panth had himself not laid down any rule of succession for Mahentship of the religious institution and the succession was regulated by customs or usages of Jai Krishan Panth. It has been further stated that the plaintiff is accepted by all the disciples and followers of the Panth as the head of the Panth. It has been further stated that in the year 1982, defendant no.1 alongwith his wife Prem Lata pretending themselves as staunch devotee of Lord Krishna and wanted to be the disciples of Mahent Paras Raj requested the Mahent to permit them to stay in the temple in any corner for a short period till defendant no.1 was able to make alternate arrangement. It has been alleged that the said defendant and his wife taking advantage of the old age, weak body and helplessness of Paras Raj developed malafide intentions and started having an evil eye on the suit property. It has been further stated that defendant no.1 admitted the title and possession of Paras Raj and he agreed to remit the rent to him. It has been further stated that in this regard, defendant no.1 executed a document dated 23.02.1991. It has been further stated that Mahent Paras Raj did not realize the mischievous acts and conspiracy hatched by defendant no.1. It has been further stated that the suit was filed by defendant no.1 for permanent injunction against Janardan Muni and others including the plaintiff claiming adverse possession over the suit property, a decree for declaration and permanent injunction. It has been further stated that the said suit was dismissed in default on 24.01.1996 and prior to the said date, defendant no.1 herein had made a statement alleging certain compromise in between the parties. It has been further alleged that defendant no.1 wanted to grab the property of the temple and as such, he started misbehaving and creating disturbance in the religious ceremonies. It has been further stated that defendant no.1 and his wife attempted on several occasions to dispossess the lawful occupant and to implicate him in false cases. It has been further stated that defendant no.1 with the help of defendant no.2, and certain other gunda elements, succeeded in their action and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit premises. It has been further alleged that after taking possession from the plaintiff, defendant no.2 demolished the temple premises and he retained the unauthorized occupants of the suit property. It has been further stated that after dispossession, the plaintiff on 22.02.1994 made several complaints to all the authorities but no action was taken. It has been further stated that defendant no.2 in the written statement has alleged that consequent to an alleged collaboration agreement, certain portions in the property i.e. the first and second floor of the building are to be with defendant no.3 in terms of the said agreement. It has been further stated that the documents relied upon by the defendant no.2 are bogus, forged and manipulated. It has been further stated that the occupation, possession of the first and second floor of the property construction in the plot in question with Shri Rakesh Anand is totally illegal. It has been further stated that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has an apprehension that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants sell off the suit property and the defendant can create any third party interest and hence the present suit.
2. On the basis of the abovesaid allegations as contained in the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of declaration to the effect that the suit premises were in legal and lawful possession of the plaintiff who acquired the right, title and interest therein from Mahent Paras Raj as the owner of the property. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of possession of the suit property as has been shown in the red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint. The plaintiff has further prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents etc. from creating any construction or from creating any third party interest in the suit property. The plaintiff has also prayed for the costs of the suit as well.
3. Written statement to the amended plaint has been filed on record by the defendant no.2 stating therein that the the plaintiff is neither the owner nor he is having any right, title or interest in the suit property. It has been further stated that plaintiff is a stranger to the suit property and the contention of the plaintiff that he was dispossessed somewhere in the year 1994 is baseless and false. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this court; the suit has not been valued properly for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction; the suit is without any cause of action. It has been further stated that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has asserted his right in the suit property as attorney of Janardan Muni who, as per the plaintiff, was the beneficiary of the suit property by virtue of the Will executed by Mahent Paras Raj prior to his death. It has been further stated that as per the said Will, the beneficiary was supposed to be Mahent Janardan Muni and it is not the case of the plaintiff that the said Will was revoked /cancelled by Mahent Paras Raj during his lifetime, the contention of the plaintiff that he was bestowed the Mahentship and the right, title and interest in the suit property during the lifetime of Mahent Paras Raj is false and illegal. It has been further stated that the story put forward by the plaintiff is an afterthought and a concocted story. On merits, the defendant no.2 has reiterated the stand as taken by the defendant no.2 in the preliminary objections. Defendant no.2 has admitted the contents of para no.2 of the plaint wherein it has been alleged that Shri Jai Bhagwan purchased the property in question from Shri Anand Prakash Adlakha vide registered Sale Deed dated 28.02.1972. Defendant no.2 has denied that in the year 1972, Shri Jai Bhagwan Sharma dedicated a share of the suit property for religious purposes to late Mahent Paras Raj. It has been further denied that the suit property was dedicated for the purposes of building a temple under the control and supervision of late Mahent Paras Raj. Defendant no.2 has taken the stand that the suit property was in possession of Mahent Paras Raj but the same was being used by him for his residential purposes and Shri Jai Bhagwan had executed a GPA in favour of Mahent Paras Raj. Defendant no.2 has denied that in the year 1974, Mahent Paras Raj raised the construction of a temple over the suit property and installed the idol of Lord Krishna. Defendant no.2 has further stated that Mahent Paras Raj constructed two small rooms and WC for his residential purposes. Defendants no.2 has denied that the alleged temple constructed by Mahent Paras Raj was called as "Dutt Mandir". Defendant no.2 has stated that Mahent Paras Raj was using the property exclusively for his residential purposes and was having his ration card in his individual name. It has been further stated that the electricity connection was also in his name but in none of the records of the local authorities, the name of the Mandir was existed over the suit property. Defendant no.2 has admitted that Shri Jai Bhagwan executed a GPA in respect of he suit property appointing Mahent Paras Raj as his lawful attorney. It has been denied that the suit premises was being used for religious purposes. It has been admitted that Shri Paras Raj expired on 25.02.1994. The execution of the Will dated 25.01.1988 in favour of Shri Janardan Muni by Mahent Paras Raj has been denied and it has been stated that the said Will is forged and fabricated. It has been further stated that by defendant no.2 that Mahent Paras Raj on 26.08.1988 sold the suit property to Shri Deepak Kumar Khanna for a consideration of Rs.52,000/ on execution of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will and Receipt, all dated 26.08.1988. The execution of the GPA dated 06.01.1994 allegedly executed by Shri Janardan Muni in favour of the plaintiff has been denied. Defendant no.2 has taken the stand that Shri Janardan Muni was not competent to execute any GPA during the lifetime of Shri Mahent Paras Raj because he was a stranger to the suit property. The possession of Shri Janardan Muni or the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property has been denied. It has been further stated that even if the execution of the Will dated 25.01.1988, is admitted, then also, the Will can be effective only after 25.02.1994 i.e. after the death of Mahent Paras Raj and therefore, the alleged GPA dated 06.01.1994 executed by Shri Janardan Muni in favour of the plaintiff is null and void. The execution of the document dated 06.11.1990 as alleged by the plaintiff is denied. It has been further stated that the suit property was never a temple and the idol of Lord Krishna was never installed in the said temple as alleged. It has been further stated that defendant no. l came to the suit property as tenant of Mahent Paras Raj and thereafter on 26.08.1988 Mahent Paras Raj sold the suit property to defendant no.1. It has been further stated that defendant no.1 allowed him being an old man to stay in the suit property and Mahent Paras Raj stayed with the family of defendant no.1 in the suit property till his death. It has been further stated that defendant no.1 purchased the suit property from Mahent Paras Raj on 26.08.1988 and thereafter, on 29.01.1996, he transferred the suit property to the defendant no.2 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1 lakh on execution of GPA, Agreement to Sell and Receipt. It has been further stated that defendants no.1 handed over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the defendant no.2 on 29.01.1996. It has been further stated that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property and as such, the question of his forcible dispossession does not arise. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has not mentioned the date of his forcible dispossession from the suit property. It has been further stated that after taking possession of the suit property on 29.01.1996, from defendant no.1, defendant no.2 entered into a collaboration Agreement on 27.11.1998 with Shri Rakesh Anand, a builder and in pursuance of the said collaboration agreement, the structure constructed on the suit property was completely demolished and a three storey building was raised by the said builder. It has been further stated that the defendant no.2 has only two shops at the ground floor and top floor with roof rights to his share and the remaining structure is vesting with the builder as per the corroboration agreement. It has been further stated that the defendant no.2 had to take loan from the builder and as such, he had to depart with the property in his possession and as on date, the defendant no.2 is in possession of only one shop situated at the ground floor in the said property. It has been further stated that the collaboration agreement was entered into in between the defendant no.2 and the builder on 27.11.1998 and the entire construction over the suit property has been completed much before the filing of the present suit. The defendant no.2 has admitted that he was in JC on the basis of the FIR registered by the police on the complaint of the plaintiff. Rest of the contents of the plaint have been denied and it has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
4. Defendant no.1 was proceeded exparty vide orders dated 20.09.1999, by my Ld. Predecessor and as such, no written statement has been filed on record by defendant no.
1.
5. Defendant no.3 Shri Rakesh Anand was added as defendant no.3 by my Ld. Predecessor. Vide orders dated 30.05.2000, defendant no.3 was also proceeded exparte.
6. Replication has been filed on record by the plaintiff reiterating and reaffirming the stand as taken by the plaintiff in the plaint and denying the contents of the written statement of the defendant no.2.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide orders dated 16.09.2002.
1) Whether the plaintiff is the Mahent of the suit property situated in plot no.23, Khasra no. 305/212/02 village Shakarpur/ WA114, Ganesh Nagar, Delhi as alleged in para no.
1, 4 and 7 of the plaint ? OPP
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession and declaration ? OPP
3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction ? OPD
4) Relief.
EVIDENCE
8. The plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the plaintiff in the plaint. He has filed on record the site plan as Ex. PW1/1, Sale deed as Ex. PW1/2, copies of the bills such as the electricity bills as Ex. PW1/3, copy of the GPA executed by Shri Jai Bhagwan Sharma in favour of Mahent Paras Raj as Ex. PW1/4, copy of the Will as Ex. PW1/5, copy of the Assignment Deed dated 06.11.1990 as Ex. PW1/6, copy of the GPA dated 06.01.1994 as Ex. PW1/7, copy of the death certificate of Mahent Paras Raj as Ex. PW1/8, copy of the document dated 23.02.1991 as Ex. PW1/9, copy of the complaint to the DCP as Ex. PW1/10.
9. In the cross examination, PW1 has admitted it to be correct that he has not filed any documents on the file to support his contention in para no.4 of his affidavit that in the year 1972, Shri Jai Bhagwan had dedicated the suit property to Mahent Paras Raj for religious purposes. PW1 further states that the document filed on record, on the basis of which he has contended that Shri Paras Raj acquired absolute right, title and interest in the suit property and that Shri Jai Bhagwan had relinquished all his rights in the suit property, is Ex. PW1/4 and except for that, he has not filed any other document. PW1 has admitted it to be correct that electricity bills pertaining to the suit property were in the individual name of Mahent Paras Raj. PW1 has denied that the status of Mahent Paras Raj was only as the attorney of Shri Jai Bhagwan vide Ex. PW1/4. PW1 further states that the property was gifted to Mahent Paras Raj by Shri Jai Bhagwan. PW1 further states that he has not placed on record nay document to show that the suit property was gifted to Shri Paras Raj. PW1 further states that he knew about the document dated 06.11.1990 Ex. PW1/6 at the time when the suit was instituted. PW1 was confronted with the suit filed on 07.04.1999, where it was not so recorded. PW1 admits it to be correct that for the first time, he mentioned about the document Ex. PW1/6 in his application for amendment of the present suit. PW1 admits it to be correct that the abovesaid document Ex. PW1/6 was in his power and possession and he had knowledge of the same even at the time of institution of the present suit. PW1 has denied the suggestion that the said document Ex. PW1/6 is forged and fabricated. PW1 admits it to be correct that when he had instituted the present suit, he had filed the same in the capacity as attorney by Shri Janardan Muni which is Ex. PW1/7. PW1 admits it to be correct that Shri Janardan Muni had expired. PW1 admits it to be correct that he has not placed on record the originals of Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/9. Ld. Counsel for the defendant raised the objection with respect to the mode of proof and the objection has been kept opened by my Ld. Predecessor. PW1 has denied the suggestion that Ex. PW1/9 is forged and fabricated. PW1 further states that Shri Janardan Muni had become the owner of the suit property even during the lifetime of Shri Paras Raj on the basis of the registered Will Ex. PW1/5 which was executed by Shri Paras Raj. PW1 has denied the suggestion that Shri Paras Raj was only the attorney of Shri Jai Bhagwan with the limited powers as spelled out in the attorney Ex. PW1/4. PW1 has denied the suggestion that Mahent Paras Raj was given the suit property for the purposes of his residence and being a Mahent he had kept idols of God for worship and that he had not constructed any temple in 1974. PW1 has denied the suggestion that Mahent Paras sold the property and transferred his right, title and interest in favour of Shri Deepak Khanna i.e. defendant no.1 on 26.08.1988 and only because of the fact that he was closed to Shri Deepak, he was allowed to stay in the suit property till his death. PW1 has denied the suggestion that defendant no.2 lawfully purchased the suit property from Shri Deepak Khanna for valuable consideration on 29.01.1996 and is in legal possession of the same. PW1 further states that the fact that he was dispossessed from the suit property on 22.02.1994 as deposed by him in para no. 18 of his affidavit and the fact that he was dispossessed on 31.12.1993 from the suit property as stated by him in Ex. PW1/10 are not contradictory and those are correct. PW1 further states that except of the complaint made to the police, which is Ex. PW1/10 and Ex. PW1/7, he has not placed on record any document to show that he was in the possession of the suit property at any point of time. PW1 further states that it is only on the basis of Ex. PW1/10 and Ex. PW1/7, that he has substantiated his contention of being in possession of the suit property prior to his dispossession. PW1 has denied the suggestion that he was never in possession of the suit property. PW1 further states that he has not placed any document on record to prove his ownership. PW1 further states that the Will of which he is referring is the Will dated 06.11.1990 Ex. PW1/6. PW1 admits it to be correct that he has not prayed for cancellation of the documents of title purported to have been executed by Mahent Paras Raj in favour of Deepak Khanna dated 26.08.1988 and title document 29.01.1996 by defendant no.2 which alleged to have purchased the suit property from Deepak Khanna.
10. Defendant no.2 Shri Lalit Sharma has examined himself as DW1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the defendant no.2 in the written statement. He has filed on record his affidavit as Ex. DW1/A, copies of the sale and purchase documents executed in his favour by Shri Deepak Khanna i.e. the GPA dated 29.01.1996 as mark A, the Agreement to Sell as mark B, photocopy of the Receipt as mark C, copy of the Agreement to Sell dated 26.08.1988 as mark E, copy of the GPA as mark F, photocopy of the collaboration agreement as mark G, photocopy of the ration card as mark H, original licence as mark I.
11. Defendant no.2 has not been cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
12. The defendant no.2 has further examined Shri Chander Shekhar Bhatt Asst. Ahmad from the court of Shri R.B. Singh, Ld. M.M. Shahdara court, Delhi as DW2 and this witness has brought the summoned record i.e. the case file of FIR No. 502/99 P.S. Shakarpur. This witness has compared the documents with the originals and mark A was exhibited as Ex. DW2/1, mark B was exhibited as Ex. DW2/2, the Receipt dated 29.01.1996 mark C was exhibited as Ex. DW2/3, mark E was exhibited as Ex. DW2/4, mark F was Ex. DW2/5 and Receipt dated 26.08.1988 was exhibited as Ex. DW2/6.
13. This witness has also not been cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
14. I have carefully gone through the entire material on record and heard the rival submissions of Ld. counsels for both the parties. The plaintiff and the defendant no.2 as well, have also filed on record their written final arguments. I have also carefully gone through the written final arguments filed on record by the plaintiff and defendant no.2.
15. My issuewise findings on the abovesaid issues are as under:
Issues No. 1 and 2.
16. Both these issues are taken up together as the same are connected interse and overlap each other. The onus to prove both the abovesaid issues is upon the plaintiff.
17. The factual controversy and the evidence led by the parties, has already been narrated herein above. In the written final arguments filed on record by the plaintiff, it has been argued that the plaintiff has been to able to prove the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/10 and thus, the plaintiff has been able to prove his case. It has been further argued by the plaintiff in the written final arguments that a criminal case was registered vide FIR No. 502/1999 u/s 448/380/295/451/420/468/471 of the IPC at P.S. Shakarpur against defendant no.2 who had forged the documents in his favour to grab the property in question which prima facie shows that defendant no.2 has no right, title or interest in the suit property. It has been prayed that suit of the plaintiff be decreed as prayed for by the plaintiff in the plaint.
18. In the written final arguments filed by the defendant no.2, it has been argued that it is true that later on, defendant no.2 was also proceeded exparte, and defendant no.2 was not cross examined but the question which has to be decided by the court is as to whether the plaintiff has been able to stand upon his own legs and has been able to prove his case by way of independent and cogent testimony. It has been argued that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove his case and as such, it has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
19. Plaintiff i.e. Mahent Dayal Muni is the sole witness examined by the plaintiff. He has placed on record and claimed his relief on the basis of the documents Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/10. All the abovesaid documents are merely the photocopies. The question is as to whether the plaintiff has been able to prove the abovesaid documents on record in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act or not. To my mind, the answer is in the negative. The plaintiff has placed on record Ex. PW1/4 which is merely a photocopy. This documents is admittedly unregistered and is a GPA. The settled law is that merely GPA alone cannot confer any right, title or interest in an immovable property. It has to be seen that defendant no.2 Shri Jai Bhagwan was the owner of the suit property by virtue of Ex. PW1/2 i.e. the Sale Deed but the document in favour of Mahent Paras Raj is merely the GPA Ex. PW1/4. Ex. PW1/6 placed on record by the plaintiff is merely a memorandum of Administration. The said document is also a photocopy. No original has been produced on record by the plaintiff. Ex. PW1/3 which is the electricity bill is also a photocopy and the said bill is in the individual name of Mahent Paras Raj. The said electricity bill is not in the name of any temple called as "Dutt Mandir". Ex. PW1/5 i.e. the Will dated 25.01.1988 has not been proved at all by the plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. The settled law is that the Will has to be proved by way of examination of the attesting witnesses to the Will. The plaintiff failed to examine any attesting witness to the abovesaid Will and as such, the only irresistible conclusion which can be drawn is that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove the Will Ex. PW1/5. It has to be further seen that PW1 admitted in his cross examination that when he instituted the present suit, he did so in the capacity of attorney of Janardan Muni Ex. PW1/7. It has to be further seen that the plaintiff has also utterly failed to prove on record Ex. PW1/9. The original of this document has also not been filed on record by the plaintiff. No effort has been made by the plaintiff to prove the abovesaid documents by way of secondary evidence and no permission has been sought for by the plaintiff to prove the said documents by secondary evidence in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. It has to be further seen that no date of the alleged forcible dispossession has been mentioned by the plaintiff in the plaint. PW1 in the cross categorically admits that except the complaint Ex. PW1/7 and Ex. PW1/10 he has not placed on record any document to show that he was in possession of the suit property at any point of time. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the authority cited as Cited as 2011 (4) Civil Court Cases 558 (S.C.) titled as Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. has held that ownership in an immovable property can be conferred only by way of registered Sale Deed.
20. In the light of the abovesaid discussion I have no hesitation to hold that no document of any nature, whatsoever has been placed on record by the plaintiff to show that the suit property was a temple meant for worship by the public. I am of the opinion that Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2 in the written arguments filed on record has rightly pointed out that no evidence has been placed on record by the plaintiff to show that Mahent Paras Raj after allegedly acquiring the ownership rights in the suit property, had dedicated the same to the public atlarge or to Jai Krishna Panth. I have no hesitation to hold that cross examination of the plaintiff (the material aspects of which has been reproduced herein above) is sufficient in itself to demolish the entire case of the plaintiff. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove issues no.1 and 2 in his favour and as such, both the abovesaid issues i.e. issues no. 1 and 2 are hereby decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 3.
21. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs.2,50,400/. It has already come on record that no evidence has been led by the defendant no.2 to prove that the suit has not been valued properly for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. As such, I am of the opinion that the defendant no.2 has failed to prove this issue. Accordingly, issue no.3 is decided against the defendant no.2.
Relief.
In the light of my findings upon the issues no.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed but with no orders as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court ( RAJ KUMAR)
on this 15th day of April 2013. SCJ/RC (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.