Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Lakshmi Narayan on 25 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 340
Author: Vandana Kasrekar
Bench: Vandana Kasrekar
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
SINBLE BENCH : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VANDANA KASREKAR, J.
MP-606-2019
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vs
LAKSHMI NARAYAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Nilesh Jagtap, GA for the petitioner / State.
Shri A.K. Sethi learned Sr. counsel along with Shri Viraj Godha,
counsel for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
( Passed on 25/02/2020) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 11/09/2018 passed by 7th Additional District Judge, Indore in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal no. 21/2017, thereby partly allowing the application preferred by respondent / plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC 2 Respondent / plaintiff has filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Class-II, Sanwer, District - Indore for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property as mentioned in the plaint on the ground that the suit land was allotted by the then ruler / Holkar State as Inaam land to the ancestors of the respondent / plaintiff and since then, they are in peaceful possession of the said land. It is averred in the suit that the defendant / petitioners are trying to dispossess the plaintiff as the name of the Collector has been recorded in place of the plaintiff in the revenue record without appreciating the fact that the plaintiff holding personal temple alognwith the land. Written statement has been filed by the petitioners / defendants and denied the pleadings of the plaintiff especially the pleading that the land was received by the plaintiff as Inaam land. The land was given to them by the then ruler to one Haridas Guru Tulsidas only for maintaining the temple and nothing else. It is also submitted the pleadings with regard to ancestors of the plaintiff is also false as original allottee was not the ancestors of the plaintiff. During pendency of the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C has been submitted bythe plaintiff seeking temporary injunction with regard to dispossession from the suit land. It is also submitted that new appointment of priest may not be done. After considering the rival contention of the plaintiff, the trial Court has passed the order dated 08/05/2015, whereby the temporary injunction with regard to the suit land was granted to the plaintiff, but stay upon the procedure for appointment of new priest has been rejected. Being aggrieved by this order, the defendant preferred MCA before the Appellate Court. Vide order dated 11/09/2018, the appeal preferred by the defendant has been rejected and the cross-objections as filed by the plaintiff have been allowed. By the impugned order dated 11/09/2018, the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court has been affirmed, so also the appointment of pujari vide order dated 07/03/2017 has been quashed and directed to restore the earlier position of the priest. Being aggrieved by this order, present petition has been filed before this Court. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even through the document, which has been filed by the respondent before the Court below regarding his title does not show that the land was given to the ancestors of the plaintiff as Innam land. The title document, which has been filed by the plaintiff shows that the land was given to Shri Ram Mandir and name of Haridas was recorded as care taker of the temple fo the purpose of maintaining the temple and nothing else. He further submits that there was no pleadings in the plaint with regard to appointment of priest, but the Appellate Court has taken the ground like pleading and ordered to restore the earlier position of priest, therefore, in absence of the pleading in plaint, the Court cannot look into. He further submits that the Court below has further failed to show that cross-objections are not maintainable in Miscellaneous Appeal. In revenue records, the name of the plaintiff has been recorded as Bhumi Swami in the revenue record and having rin-pustika in their name and only on the basis of revenue entries, it cannot be held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. He further submits that the Court below has erred in allowing the cross-objections and directing to restore the status of priest without hearing the affected party i.e. newly appointed pujari Mr. Navin Vyas. 4 On the other hand, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/s supports the order passed by the Court below and submits that no error has been committed by the first Appellate Court in allowing the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C.
5 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6 In the present case, respondent / plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title as well as permanent injunction along with the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. The trial Court has granted injunction in favour of the respondent, so far as the possession part is concerned, however, refused to grant any injunction in respect of the appointment of priest. Being aggrieved by that, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Court and the first Appellate Court, by the impugned order, maintained the order passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioners have filed the present petition before this Court.
7 That, in the present case, so far as the appointment of priest is concerned, the petitioners have admitted that ancestors of the respondent / plaintiff have been continuing as pujari tlll 1991 and they have not been able to lead any document to show that subsequent to 1991, any other pujari was appointed by the Government or any other person is performing pooja archana. The Court below has found that the respondent / plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and on the basis of this, the Court below has found that the puja archana is performing by the plaintiff. Relying upon the judgment delivered in the case of Ghanshyamdas and others Vs. State of M.P and another reported in 1995 RN 235, it is contended by the respondent that rights of pujari are heritable and proprietary and cannot be taken away by executive instructions. If rights of performing pooja archana are infringed, the same would ultimately tantamount to hindrance in the possession of the plaintiff, which if he has a prima facie strong case, balance of convenience in his favour, needs to be protected pendente lite, otherwise, the respondent / plaintiff would be put to an irreparable loss. On this fact, the trial court has not erred in refusing the prayer made by the petitioners for appointment of new priest. Once it is found that the respondent / plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and he is performing puja archana since long time, therefore, the same should have been protected by the trial Court. Thus, the trial Court has not erred in refusing to restrain from appointment of new priest in place of respondent / plaintiff. In such circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere into the impugned order.
In light of the aforesaid discussions, present petition stands dismissed.
C c as per rules.
(Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) Judge Digitally signed by AMOL N MAHANAG Date: 2020.02.25 17:48:32 +05'30'