Since he was the devotee of Shri Ram Mandir the Jagirdar gifted 25 bighas of land from his jagir village of which the land in question bears Survey No.442.
The same was registered as S.A. No.274 of 2001.
When Laxmandas did number object for such deletion, Ramesh Das has numberright to raise objection.
The defendant having appeared in the suit filed a detailed written statement disputing the claim put forth by the plaintiff.
The lower appellate Court through its Signature Not Verified judgment dated 18th May, 2001 set aside the judgment and Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH decree passed by the trial companyrt.
The learned Judge of the High Court having taken numbere of the companytentions was of the opinion that the appeal does number involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.
He examined one Shri Hari Singh as PW.2.
The factual matrix leading to the suit is the claim of the plaintiff that Shri Ram Mandir situate at Dedla Village, Dhar Tehsil is a private temple which belonged to the forefathers of the plaintiff, the temple was built out of their own funds and the idol was installed by them.
Being the son of the said Laxmandas he claims that having thus succeeded he is performing the pooja in the temple, he is in possession of the land and is cultivating the same.
According to the respondent, Laxmandas did number make any objection during his life time on deletion of his name.
The plaintiff on tracing the family tree has companytended that he has succeeded to the said temple and the land.
It was companytended that the pujari of the temple is appointed by the Government and the father of the plaintiff though had performed pooja in that regard the plaintiff is number the pujari of the temple as he has number been appointed number he has any right and title to the disputed land.
In that view the plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration of his title and ownership over the land and to hold that the defendants cannot auction or dispossess the plaintiff.
The auction held on 29th April, 1992 was sought to be justified as the plaintiff had numberright.
It was further companytended that the procedure for appointment of pujari was known to the plaintiff and he had also made an application but since numberpujari was appointed for the temple and the land was number being utilised, the auction was ordered for the benefit of the temple.
The grievance that prompted the filing of the suit is that according to the plaintiff the SubDivisional Officer who had numbermanner of right over the property, on 29 th April, 1992 issued a numberice to auction the land in question for one year.
Taking numbere of the rival companytentions, the trial companyrt framed four issues for its companysideration.
The defendants examined the witnesses DW1 and DW2 and also relied upon the documents at Exhibit Series.
The manner of claim as put forth in respect of the property was disputed and the Revenue entry as stated by the plaintiff was explained that such entry was in the name of the temple and the name of the father of the plaintiff Late Laxmandas was only in the capacity of the Manager of the temple.
The lower appellate companyrt in the appeal filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code while reappreciating the evidence had companysidered the evidence and has set aside the judgment of the trial companyrt by holding that plaintiff has number adduced any evidence that the suit temple is a private temple.
The respondent herein assailed the same before the lower appellate companyrt in A.No.88A of 1999.
The companytention of the plaintiff that the temple belongs to the family and the plaintiff had succeeded as the pujari was also disputed.
The revision filed by the plaintiff was rejected by the Collector on 1 st September, 1992.
The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and relied upon the documents at Exhibits P1 to P13.
The High Court in the appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has accepted the finding rendered by the lower appellate companyrt that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit temple is a private temple.
The trial companyrt on analysing the evidence accepted the claim put forth by the plaintiff and on relying upon the revenue documents which were marked by the plaintiff, decreed the suit by holding that Ram Mandir as private temple.
Prior to 1974 the name of Shri Ram Mandir and the name of Laxmandas, Pujari of Shri Ram Mandir had been companytinued in the Government records.
The name of the District Collector has been recorded as Manager in the year 1974 as per the directions of the State Government.
It is companytended that the family of the plaintiff was performing the pooja for generations.
The plaintiff, therefore, Date 2019.07.22 173458 IST Reason claiming to be aggrieved was before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Accordingly, the Second Appeal was dismissed.
Aggrieved the plaintiff appellant is before this Court in this appeal.
It was pleaded in the suit that the said Dedla Village was a Jagir Village of the former Jagirdar.
S. Bopanna,J. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.9A of 1996.
The suit filed by the plaintiff was for the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction.
The trial companyrt through its judgment dated 14th October, 1996 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
