Delhi District Court
Pt. Agya Ram Mishra vs Sh. Sarve Dayal on 2 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. NAMRITA AGGARWAL, SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No. 56901/16
Pt. Agya Ram Mishra
S/o. Sh. Lalan Prasad Mishra
R/o. RZ A4/285A, Durga Park,
Baba Balak Nath Mandir,
Sagarpur (West)
New Delhi -110045
...... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Sarve Dayal
S/o. Sh. Bansi Ram
R/o. D-90, Gali No. 09,
Dashrath Puri,
New Delhi
2. Sh. Raj Kumar Thakur
S/o. Sh. Shankar Das
R/o. 1-D-169, Gali No. 19,
Dashrath Puri,
New Delhi
3. Sh. Rajender Singh
S/o. Sh. Rodhu Ram
R/o. 1-D-119, Gali no. 18,
Dashrath Puri
New Delhi .... Defendants
Date of institution : 15.10.2014
Date of final arguments : 18.12.2017
Date of judgment : 02.04.2018
Pt. Agya Ram Mishra Vs. Sarve Dayal & Ors .Page 1 of 14
JUDGMENT
1 A suit for permanent injunction has been filed by the plaintiff Pt. Agya Ram Mishra against the defendants Sh. Sarve Dayal, Sh. Raj Kumar Thakur and Sh. Rajender Singh to restrain the defendants from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the property bearing no. RZ-A4/ 285 A, Durga Park, Baba Balak Nath Mandir, Sagar Pur, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property).
2 The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a priest in the temple Sidh Shri Sidh Baba Balak Nath Mandir ie. the suit property since last fifteen years and is residing on the second floor of the suit property alongwith his family. That the defendant arbitrarily created one trust for the temple and are forcibly trying to dispossess the plaintiff and his family members out of the suit property. That the threats were given by defendants to dispossess the plaintiff and his family members on 05.10.2014 and 09.10.2014. A complaint dt. 09.10.2014 was lodged by the plaintiff with PS Sagar Pur but no steps were taken by the police. It is further averred by the plaintiff that the defendants are adamant to dispossess him from the suit property in order to put some other person in the said temple in place of the plaintiff so that they can Pt. Agya Ram Mishra Vs. Sarve Dayal & Ors .Page 2 of 14 perform their illegal activities in the temple and grab the property of the temple.
3 In the written statement filed on behalf of defendants, the defendants have denied all the contentions made by the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff was appointed as a pujari in Sidh Shri Baba Balak Nath Mandir since the year 2010 and he has been taking care of puja in the temple and also looking after the general maintenance, payment of bills, keeping account of donation etc of the mandir. That since the plaintiff was having power to perform duties on behalf of the trust orally, it was felt necessary to have documentation qua the same. Thus, by virtue of the document dt. 14.07.2014, the plaintiff was only authorized to perform puja and look after the general maintenance, payment of bills etc of the mandir, but he was not allowed to use any part of the mandir / suit property as his residence. That the plaintiff shifted on the second floor of the suit property despite the fact that he was residing at plot no. 284 A as tenant and refused to vacate the said second floor of the suit property. As per the defendants, the property on which the mandir is constructed is a plot of land measuring 50 sq yards out of Khasra No. 28 situated at Durga Park, New Delhi which was purchased by Sh. Karam Singh vide agreement to sell 11.01.1995 from Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma for a total sale consideration of Rs. 65000/-. Thereafter, on 19.10.2000 Pt. Agya Ram Mishra Vs. Sarve Dayal & Ors .Page 3 of 14 Sidh Baba Balak Nath Mandir Trust was formed and Sh. Karam Singh being the follower of the said Sidh Shri Baba Balak Nath allowed the trust to erect the temple in the suit property in the name of Sidh Baba Balak Nath. The mandir was constructed thereon from the contributed funds from the general public and construction including the second floor was constructed in the year 2008. The electricity meter was installed in the mandir in the year 2010 in the name of Sidh Baba Balak Nath Mandir Trust through Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma, who is one of the trustee of the trust. A registered Trust Deed dt. 19.10.2000 was executed in the name of Sidh Baba Balak Nath Mandir Trust. The said trust was reconstituted on 18.09.2014 on account of the death of one of the trustee Sh. Bhag Singh. It is further averred by the defendants that plaintiff was appointed only as a caretaker cum priest in the mandir by the aforesaid trust in February 2010 and later on he was authorized to perform limited duties vide authorization letter dt. 14.07.2014 w.e.f 01.07.2014. It is further submitted that the said mandir is owned and possessed by the Sidh Baba Balak Nath Mandir Trust and not by Dashrath Puri RWA. That the document of Dashrath Puri RWA dt. 30.09.2014 is forged and fabricated document and that no such authorization was ever given or could have been given by the said RWA.
4 Replication filed by the plaintiff denying the Pt. Agya Ram Mishra Vs. Sarve Dayal & Ors .Page 4 of 14 contentions of the defendants stating that the plot of the suit property was purchased by the funds raised by the public persons of Durga Park, Dashrath Puri, Delhi and the mandir of Sidh Shri Baba Balak Nath was subsequently built on the said plot by the residents of Durga Park. Since then, the mandir is being run by the mandir samiti which is constituted by RWA people. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the document dt. 14.07.2014 is forged and fabricated one. That the defendant no. 1 approached the plaintiff to sign on a blank paper for conversion of electricity connection and later on used the said blank paper as an agreement dt. 14.07.2014. It is further submitted that Sidh Baba Balak Nath Mandir Trust is nowhere releated to Sidh Shir Baba Balak Nath Mandir and defendants only want to grab the property on which the mandir is constructed.
5 From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dt. 27.07.2015
1. Whether plaintiff has suppressed material facts and present suit is without any cause of action? OPD
2. Whether plaintiff is only a pujari and taking care of puja in the temple since 2010 and by virtue of document dt. 14.07.2014? OPD
3. Whether plaintiff is in settled possession of the suit property? OPP Pt. Agya Ram Mishra Vs. Sarve Dayal & Ors .Page 5 of 14
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
5. Relief.
6 During evidence, plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box as PW 1 and deposed in sync with his plaint. Further, he relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of compliant dt. 09.10.2014 as Mark 1.
2. Electricity bills are Ex. PW 1/2(colly)
3. Photocopy of certificate dated 30.09.2014 as Ex. PW 1/3(OSR)
4. Photocopy of voter Identity card as Ex. PW 1/4(OSR).
7 No witness was examined as PW 2. Sh. Balbir Singh was examined as PW 3. He entered into the witness box to depose that the plaintiff was allowed to reside on the second floor of the suit property in the year 2010, since the suit property is a public property and Sidh Baba Balak Nath Mandir Trust is not the owner of the suit property. This witness was cross examined at length by Ld. counsel for defendants.
8 Defendants in their turn, examined Sh. Raj Kumar Pt. Agya Ram Mishra Vs. Sarve Dayal & Ors .Page 6 of 14 Thakur, one of the trustee of Sidh Baba Balak Nath Mandir Trust as DW 1. He deposed in sync with the written statement and relied upon the following documents:
1. Agreement to sell dt. 11.01.1995 as Ex. DW 1/1
2. Photocopy of receipt of Rs. 65,000/- dt. 11.01.1995 as Ex. DW 1/2.
3. Registered Trust Deed dt. 19.10.2000 as Ex. DW 1/3
4. Photocopy of electricity bills as Mark A to C.
5. Photocopy of the authorization letter attested before the Notary Public on 18.02.2010 as Mark D.
6. Photocopy of authorization letter for a period of 11 months from 01.07.2014 as Ex. DW 1/8
7. Photocopy of reconstituted Trust is Ex. DW 1/9
8. Photocopy of notice dt. 12.10.2014 as Ex. DW 1/10.
9 I have heard the contentions of both the parties and gone through the records. My issuewise findings are as under :
ISSUE No. 1.
Whether the plaintiff has suppressed material facts and present suit is without any cause of action? OPD Pt. Agya Ram Mishra Vs. Sarve Dayal & Ors .Page 7 of 14 10 The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. The defendants have stated that the suit property on which the mandir is constructed was purchased by Sh. Karam Singh who is one of the trustee of Sidh Baba Balak Nath Mandir Trust, in the year 1995. Later on in the year 2000 the trust was constituted and Sh. Karam Singh agreed to construct a Mandir of Baba Balak Nath on the suit property . The said mandir was constructed in the year 2008 and the electricity connection was also got installed in the suit property in the name of Baba Balak Nath Mandir through trustee Sh. Pawan Kumar. As per the the defendants, the plaintiff has vaguely averred that the suit property was purchased by the residents of Durga Park out of the funds of general public and later on a mandir was also constructed out of those funds. That no document has been filed by the plaintiff in support of this contention. On the other hand, the defendants have placed on record the agreement to sell dt. 11.01.1995 Ex. DW 1/1 and receipt of Rs. 65,000/- of the same date Ex. DW 1/2 in order to prove that the suit property on which the mandir of Sidh Sri Baba Balak Nath is constructed was purchased by Sh. Karam Singh from Mr. Vinod Kumar for a total consideration amount of Rs. 65,000/-. A registered trust deed dt. 19.10.2000 Ex. DW 1/3 and a re-constituted Trust Deed dt. 18.09.2014 Ex. DW 1/9 have also been placed on record by the defendants. These documents clearly go on to prove that it was Sh. Karam Singh who had Pt. Agya Ram Mishra Vs. Sarve Dayal & Ors .Page 8 of 14 purchase the suit property from Sh Vinod Kumar in the year 1995 on which the mandir was constructed and thereafter Sidh Baba Balak Nath Mandir Trust was constituted in the year 2000.
However, the plaintiff in his entire evidence has not placed on record even a single document to prove as to by whom the suit property was purchased and whether there is any mandir samiti duly registered in order to take care of the mandir or appoint plaintiff as pujari in the mandir. PW 3 in his evidence had stated that the suit property is a public property and in order to take care of the temple, the local public of Dashrath Puri had permitted the plaintiff to perform puja in the temple. However, during his cross examination, this witness clearly stated that the association of Dashrath Puri is not a registered association and that the said association had not purchased the land on which the temple is constructed. This witness further stated that he was not aware as to who had applied for electricity connection in the suit property and also that he was not even aware of any account in the name of Sidh Baba Balak Nath Mandir Trust. All these averements made by PW 3 during his cross examination and in the absence of any document to prove that the residents of Durga Park had purchased the suit property wherein the mandir is situated, clearly proves that that plaintiff has filed the present suit without any cause of action and by concealing the material fact that it was the defendants only who are the owner of the suit property and that Pt. Agya Ram Mishra Vs. Sarve Dayal & Ors .Page 9 of 14 the plaintiff was only authorized to perform puja and certain other duties of the mandir without any authority to reside therein. This issue is thus decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 2Whether plaintiff is only a pujari and taking care of puja in the temple since 2010 and by virtue of document dt. 14.07.2014? OPD 11 The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. The defendants have placed on record the document dt. 14.07.2017 Ex. PW 1/D3 to prove that the plaintiff was only authorized to conduct puja and perform certain activities of the mandir by Sidh Baba Balak Nath Mandir Trust. The plaintiff has not disputed his signatures on the said authorization letter Ex. PW 1/D3 but only stated that he was made to sign on a blank paper on the pretext of getting the electricity connection converted. No evidence has been placed on record by the plaintiff to show that the said document was signed as blank by the plaintiff for conversion of electricity connection. Further, the electricity bills mark A to C for the electricity connection in the suit property are also in the name of mandir through Sh. Pawan Kumar and not in the name of Durga Park Mandir Samiti. Further, the plaintiff has placed on record his voter I card dt. 18.10.2008 and Aadhar Card Pt. Agya Ram Mishra Vs. Sarve Dayal & Ors .Page 10 of 14 dt. 17.04.2013 which shows the residential address of the plaintiff to be RZ A4/284A, Gali no. A-4, Durga Park, Delhi. Both these documents clearly go on to prove that till 2012 the plaintiff was residing with his family in RZ A4/284A, Gali no. A-4, Durga Park, Delhi and not on the second floor of the suit property ie 285 A, Dashrath Puri, Delhi.
12 Further, plaintiff in his own complaint Ex. PW 1/D2 dt. 05.10.2014 has referred to a trust, though in the present suit he has denied the existence of any such trust. Thus from the documents placed on record by the plaintiff himself, it is clear that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property till 2012 and that he has recognized the Trust as the owner thereof. The defendants further failed to place on record even a single document to prove that there was a RWA mandir samiti constituted for the maintenance of mandir or that the plaintiff was authorized by the said mandir samiti to reside in the suit property. Only a certificate dt. 30.09.2014 has been placed on record by the plaintiff to prove that he was authorized by RWA mandir samiti to reside in the suit property and to perform puja therein. However, neither any document has been filed in order to prove that it was the said RWA who has constructed the mandir on the suit property nor any registration certificate of RWA has been filed on record to show that a mandir samiti was duly constituted or registered by Pt. Agya Ram Mishra Vs. Sarve Dayal & Ors .Page 11 of 14 RWA who had authorized the RWA to appoint a person to conduct puja in mandir constructed on the suit property. Thus this issue is also decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE No. 3Whether plaintiff is in settled possession of the suit property? OPP 13 The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. It is not disputed either by the plaintiff or by defendant that plaintiff alongwith this family members are in possession of the second floor of the suit property . However, plaintiff has failed to prove that he has acquired the possession of the second floor of the suit property lawfully with the permission of the owner of the suit property. Thus this issue is also decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 4Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 14 The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. It is an admitted fact that plaintiff was inducted as a priest / caretaker in the temple of Sidh Shri Baba Balak Nath Mandir. It has been proved by the defendants (as discussed above) that the Pt. Agya Ram Mishra Vs. Sarve Dayal & Ors .Page 12 of 14 plaintiff was appointed as a care taker cum priest of the mandir by the Trust from February, 2010 and thereafter an agreement dt. 14.07.2014 was executed whereby the plaintiff was allowed to perform certain functions in the mandir without giving him any authority to reside therein . It is averred by the plaintiff that he is in possession of the second floor of the suit property since long. However, he has not placed on record any document to prove the same. In Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack Ded Sequeria (dead) through LRs, (2012) 5 SCC 370 it has been held that no one acquires title to the property, if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. It was further held that a caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of their long possession and has to give possession forthwith on demand. The caretaker or agents hold property of the principal only on behalf of the principal and acquire no right or interest whatsoever for himself in such property irrespective of his/ her long stay or possession. Thus no right vests in the plaintiff to hold on the possession of the second floor of the suit property for residential purpose since he was merely permitted gratuitously to act as a priest of mandir without giving any right to reside therein. It has nowhere been stated by the plaintiff as to when he came into the possession of the second floor. It has been bleakly stated by the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit property since last 15 Pt. Agya Ram Mishra Vs. Sarve Dayal & Ors .Page 13 of 14 years and is residing on the second floor alongwith his family members without furnishing any proof thereof. Thus no ground is made out to award the relief to the plaintiff directing the defendants not to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property.
Relief 15 In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as rejected. No order as to cost.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open ( NAMRITA AGGARWAL)
court on 02.04.2018 SCJ-CUM-RC:PHC:NEW DELHI
Pt. Agya Ram Mishra Vs. Sarve Dayal & Ors .Page 14 of 14