Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: structural changes in Mukesh Vats vs . Rajesh Sharma on 7 April, 2016Matching Fragments
( Suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction)
1. This is a suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction against the defendant.
2. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that the Shree Yogmaya Mandir is an ancient temple situated in Mehrauli, New Delhi110030 and is in existence since last many centuries. That the plaintiff and defendant are the baridars in the said temple and manage and control Mukesh Vats Vs. Rajesh Sharma the affairs of the temple as per their bari. That in the year 2005, defendant in order to establish his malafide motives formed the society by the name of "Shree Yogmaya Mandir Welfare and Management Society" and plaintiff being ignorant became a member of society. That when plaintiff came to know about the mismanagement and malfunctioning of society he raised his voice. That defendant filed a false suit bearing no. 70/2013 for mandatory and permanent injunction which was disposed off vide order dated 02.08.13. That defendant also filed suit no.239/13 to claim the possession of the room measuring about 12X12 which is being used by the baridars to keep parshad/pooja articles etc. The said room is hereinafter referred as "Suit property". That after disposal of the abovesaid suit, defendant started making structural changes in the suit property by opening another door in the suit property. That plaintiff objected the same being one of the baridars of the temple but defendant did not paid any heed. That defendant on 10.08.13 installed a gate/door in place of window from inside the room of the temple and thereafter started demolishing the wall from outside the suit property thereby making illegal constructional changes. That on 14.08.13, plaintiff and other baridars of said temple requested the defendant not to change the ancient structure of temple but all in vain. Hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking following relief:
(a) Permanent injunction with cost in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, his legal heirs etc thereby restraining the defendant and such other person or persons from having access to the ingress and outgress from the third door being installed in the suit property as shown in green color in site plan.
(b) Permanent injunction with cost in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, his legal heirs etc thereby restraining the defendant and such other person from making any structural changes in the suit Mukesh Vats Vs. Rajesh Sharma property as shown in red color in site plan.
On the other hand, Ld. counsel for plaintiff argued that temple is governed and managed by baridars and not by the society. Ld. Counsel relied upon document Ex.PW2/A & Ex.PW4/A to show that society has no control over the affairs of temple. It is further argued that defendant has failed to prove that society is in possession of suit property or that the structural changes has been brought by society not the defendant. Arguing further that defendant or society has not taken any steps to implead society as defendant if its right were affected by determination of rights in the present case. Hence, society cannot be considered as proper and necessary party to the suit.
Secondly, whether defendant can be restrained from bringing structural change in the suit property. It has already been observed above that defendant has not brought any structural change in the suit property so he cannot be restrained doing so in future. It has already been held in the previous issue in view of the admission of plaintiff himself that the society is looking after day to day affairs and management of the temple and have been carrying repairs etc. in the suit property so any such plea can be brought forward by the society only and no baridar in his individual capacity can seek such relief.