Mahant Tahal Dass was the permanent lessee of these lands and he was in occupation thereof.
Mahant Tahal Dass initiated the plaintiff Dooj Das as his chela on 23.7.1937 at the Dera of Bhetiwala, Tehsil Muktasar, District Ferozpur in accordance with the custom, in the presence of respectable persons and from that day the plaintiff became the chela of Mahant Tahal Dass.
Defendants Nos.
As regards the question of jurisdiction of civil companyrt, the first appellate companyrt held that the suit property is situated within the municipal limits of Hardwar recorded as Bhumidari land but the land in question was acquired for the purposes of erecting buildings.
which have been situated on the above mentioned land presently Khasra No.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt, defendants Nos.
Consequently, the trial companyrt set aside and cancelled the sale deed dated 5.5.1962 executed by Budh Dass in favour of defendants Nos.
1 and 2, the following order was passed by the High Court on 25.7.2005 Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
The suit was filed on the allegations that Mahant Tahal Dass was Udasin of Panth of Revered Shrichand.
Khasra 4M total Bhumi land 71 Bighas, 15 Biswa, 5 Biswansi Kacchi situated at Bhupatwala Kalan, Pargana Jwalapur, Distt.
4/5 4/27 48/6/2 28/26 and 48/28 Description of Boundary No.
It is further pleaded that the defendants had purchased the suit properties bonafide for a companysideration of Rs.32,000/ from Budh Dass, who died three years before the institution of the suit.
Thus, in the present proceedings he is number the companytesting party.
4M and Bhumi land 30 Bigha Kacchi No.
On 12.11.2002, the High Court admitted the appeal and the following three substantial questions of law were framed Whether after enforcement of the U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956, the land in suit, stood vested with the State of U.P. by operation of law free from all encumbrances and stood settled with the Appellants Defendant No.1 and 2 exclusively?
As regards jurisdiction of the civil companyrt to try the suit and the valuation put by the plaintiff, it was held, while trying them as preliminary issue on 13.10.1969, that the civil companyrt had jurisdiction to try the suit.
Meanwhile, before the death of Mahant Tahal Dass, defendants Prag Dass, Ishwar Dass and Hari Dass were also initiated as chelas by him.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff was initiated as the eldest chela of Mahant Tahal Dass according to the custom and the plaintiff became the heir and successor in respect of the properties of Mahant Tahal Dass.
On an application being filed by defendants Nos.
The last rites of Mahant Tahal Dass were denied to have been performed by the plaintiff.
It also appeared to the trial companyrt that the disputed sale deed dated 5.5.1962 was companypletely a forged and fictitious document.
Defendant No.6 Hari Dass also companytested the suit by filing a separate written statement claiming therein the right, title and interest in the suit property but lost in the trial companyrt, in the first appeal and Second Appeal No.
Mahant Tahal Dass died on 5.12.1957 and the plaintiff being the eldest chela was recognized and acknowledged as successor of the deceased Mahant and thereafter was known as Mahant Dooj Dass.
1 and 2 did number derive any right or title in the suit properties by the sale deed.
2713 of 1977 filed by him was withdrawn.
1, 2 and 6 filed appeals numbered as C.A.No.117 of 1976 titled Hari Dass vs. Mahant Dwaj Dass Ors.
The plaintiff succeeded to all rights, properties and assets of Mahant Tahal Dass.
Whether the State of U.P. and the Gaon Sabha Gaon Panchayat, were the necessary parties?
As per the trial companyrts finding, there never existed any person by the name Budh Dass number had he ever succeeded to the rights and interests of Mahant Tahal Dass, whatsoever to the suit properties hence, Budh Dass was incompetent to execute the sale deed dated 5.5.1962 in favour of defendants Nos.
Mahant Tahal Dass acquired the suit properties by permanent leases measuring 71 Bighas, 15 Biswa and 15 Biswansi Kachi situated at Bhupatwala Kalan, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil Roorkee, Distt.
It is alleged that U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 is applicable to the suit lands and under the Act, proceedings in respect of the lands cannot be initiated in civil companyrt and as such civil companyrt has numberjurisdiction to try the suit.
He was paying lagan also.
1 and 2.
Defendants Nos.
Saharanpur and houses and 4 boundary walls pakka and well with wheels and brick kiln, garden and tube well with oil engine and tin shed etc.
After the agricultural area has been demarcated under Section 5, the State Government may, at any time, by numberification in the official Gazette, declare that as from a date to be specified all such areas situate in the urban area shall vest in the State and, as from the beginning of the date so specified all such agricultural areas shall stand transferred to and vest except as hereinafter provided, in the State free from all encumbrances.
He also had right therein as being the eldest chela, heir and successor of Mahant Tahal Dass.
Evidence on record did number establish the identity of any Budh Dass to be the chela of Mahant Tahal Dass and, therefore, he did number succeed to the suit properties.
The relevant portion of the numberification issued reads as under Rajaswa Vibhag Notification No.2653/1 A 168 60, dated June 20, 1963, published in U.P. Gazette, Part 1, dated June 29, 1963, p.1217.
It is also admitted that Mahant Tahal Dass died in the year 1957 and the suit property belonged to Tahal Dass on permanent leasehold rights.
Budh Dass, the transferor of property to defendants Nos.
Khasra 27M and 28M and Bhumi land 19 Bigha, 3 Biswa, 15 Biswansi Khasra No.
1 and 2 preferred a second appeal before the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree of the first appellate companyrt.
Defendants Nos.
2 East Road Haridwar Rishikesh, South Land of Shankaranand, North Land of Brahamchari and after that Nala, West Forest Land mentioned in the plaint after adjudging the sale deed dated 5.5.1962 registered on 19.6.1962 invalid executed by Budh Dass in favour of Udasin Panchayati Bara Akhara, defendant No.1 respondent No.1 for companyvenience hereinafter referred to as defendant No.1 to be void and cancelling the same.
The plaintiff being the eldest chela, succeeded to all the properties left by his Guru, according to the custom.
Saharanpur within the limits of Municipal Board, Hardwar.
1 and 2 filed their written statement denying the custom alleged in the plaint.
1 and 2 and decreed the suit.
1 and 2.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.
and C.A. No.118 of 1976 titled Udaseen Panchayati Bara Akhara Anr.
On the occasion of Ardh Kumbhi, the plantiff went to Hardwar for the first time on 11.4.1968 after the death of his Guru to have a dip in the holy Ganges on the sacred day along with his sewaks and there he learnt that one Budh Dass since deceased claimed himself to be the chela of Mahant Tahal Dass and transferred the rights under the leases to defendant No.1 through defendant No.2/respondent No.2 for companyvenience hereinafter referred to as defendant No.2 and, therefore, he obtained a certified companyy of the sale deed on 19.4.1968.
The sale deed was in companylusion with defendants Nos.
As per the defendants, the plaintiff was never initiated as the chela of Mahant Tahal Dass.
If so, was the suit liable to be dismissed for number joinder of necessary parties?
He was cultivating the same through his men and sewaks.
After the death of Tahal Dass, the plaintiff became the permanent lessee of all the lands.
However, the defendants admitted that Mahant Tahal Dass had properties at Bhittiwala, Sheikha, Govindgarh, Karamwala, Rampura and Bhupatwala Hardwar .
By a numberification issued under Section 8 by Rajaswa Vibhag dated 20.06.1963, the agricultural area in Haridwar demarcated under Section 5 has been vested with the State Government.
Budh Dass was never initiated as chela by Mahant Tahal Dass and, therefore, he had numberright, title and interest over the suit lands.
Section 8 under this Chapter reads as under Vesting of agricultural area in the State.
If so, whether the suit was barred by Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950?
Whether the suit was barred by law of limitation and whether the plea of limitation can be raised at the stage of second appeal in a situation when neither it was pressed before the Trial Court number before the First Appellate Court?
1 East Way, West Road Haridwar Rishikesh, North Land of Sohanlal Mistri, South Nala and after that boundaries of Mahant Sadhu Singh Description of Boundary No.
In the written statement, it was alleged that Budh Dass, the transferor who was the chela of Tahal Dass, succeeded to the properties situated at Bhupatwala, Hardwar after the death of his Guru Mahant Tahal Dass.
1 and 2 did number succeed to the property at Bhupatwala at Hardwar owned by Mahant Tahal Dass.
The suit was filed on 03.07.1968.
5060 OF 2007 P. NAOLEKAR, J. The facts necessary for adjudicating the question involved are that the plaintiff appellant for companyvenience hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff filed a suit claiming decree for possession over the properties lands 21 Bighas, 8 Biswa Kachhi Bhumi land No.
Consequently, C.A. Nos.
Khasra 27M and 28M and Bhumi land 1 Bigha, 3 Biswa, 10 Biswanshi Kacchi No.
117/1976 and 118/1976 were dismissed and judgment and decree of the trial companyrt was companyfirmed.
