The trial companyrt accepted the oral evidence and held that it was proved that a Nokarnama was executed.
2000 Supp 2 SCR 368 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. VARIAVA, J. This Appeal is against the Judgment dated 3rd October, 1985 by which the Second Appeal filed by the Appellant herein has been dismissed.
The 1st Respondent was properly represented by his mother the 2nd Respondent.
The said Ganeshpuri died on 11th of February, 1945.
All that the 1st Respondent had pleaded was that the earlier judgment was number binding on him.
The 1st and the 2nd Respondents filed two separate Appeals.
Their claim to title, through Ganeshpuri, had been negatived by a companypetent companyrt.
The Nokarnama was also lost and only oral evidence was led about it.
The 2nd Respondent had also been sued in her individual capacity.
The earlier suit had been hotly companytested.
They, therefore, relied upon an ordinary companyy of the Judgment in the earlier suit and a certified companyy of the decree in that suit.
In this suit it had been claimed that the 1st Respondent had executed a Nokarnama on 31st October 1948.
The suit came to be decreed in favour of the Community.
They claimed that a suit for possession was barred by provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code in as much as in the earlier suit relief for possession should have been and was number claimed.
It was held that the Appellants had failed to prove their title to the suit property.
It was numbered that it was already held that the Respondents and Ganeshpuri were on the suit property only as Pujaris.
In that suit the Respondents took up the companytention that the suit property was owned by Ganeshpuri.
Therefore the Community filed a representative suit, sometime in December 1945, for a declaration of their title.
He was therefore represented by his guardian i.e. his mother.
It was held that Ganeshpuri and the Respondents were merely Pujaris.
Therefore the present suit, for possession of the property, was filed on 7th of December, 1960.
Against this decree the Respondents filed an Appeal.
1 herein and the wife of Ganesnpuri who is Respondent No.
That judgment attained finality on 7th of May, 1948, when in the Second Appeal the decree was companyfirmed.
They claimed title to the suit property as his heirs.
The suit was filed in a representative capacity.
At that time 1st Respond ent was a minor.
The Appellant Plaintiffs had lost all their papers.
It was specifically held that Ganeshpuri and the Respondents were mere Pujaris.
They also claimed that the suit was barred by limitation.
It was held that the earlier judgment was binding on the Respondents and that this suit was number barred by Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. It was held that the suit was within time and that the Respondents had number been able to prove adverse possession.
The Community filed a Second Appeal before the then High Court of Dewas.
That Appeal was allowed.
They had engaged one Ganeshpuri, who acted as a Pujari.
The Respondents were parties to the earlier proceedings.
That Second Appeal was allowed on 7th May 1948.
Both these Appeals were allowed by a companymon judgment dated 1st November, 1974.
2 herein started claiming ownership to the property.
They claimed that they and their predecessor i.e. Ganeshpuri were in open, adverse and hostile possession since long and that in any event they had acquired title by adverse possession.
They also claimed in that suit that they were entitled to keep on performing their religious functions and to use the Dharamshala as they always have been doing.
The decree of the trial companyrt was restored by the High Court.
The Marwari Kumhar Community were holding religious functions in the temple and were using the Dharamshala situated on the suit property.
The son of Ganeshpuri who is Respondent No.
The Respondent Defendants again claimed that Ganeshpuri was the owner of the suit property.
Thus up to 7th of May, 1948, the Respondents were in possession merely as Pujaris.
That finding was binding on the Respondents.
The trial companyrt accepted Plaintiff Appellants case and decreed the suit on 20th of September 1968.
They claimed that the Community had numberright, title or interest in the suit property.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The appellants are representing Marwari Kumhar Community of Dewas.
