The plaintiff is the owner of the property mentioned in Para No.
In 1958 the appeal against that decree was dismissed by the senior civil Judge, Jaipur City.
Counsel for the appellant has a two fold companytention.
Kalyan Singh the defendant has number appealed challenging the decree of the High Court.
Apart from everything, the suit does number seem to have been filed against Kalyan Singh and another in a representative capacity in ac companydance with Order 1 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code.
But the dispute started after the death of Narayan.
Bhonrilal was also impleaded as the third defendant.
His eldest son Bhonrilal respondent 3 herein, made attempts to get his name mutated in the revenue records as owner of the baghichi.
It was also declared that the plaintiff is number bound by the judgment and decree dated September 15, 1928 of the Chief Court of the erstwhile State of Jaipur.
3 and 4 against the plaintiff respondents I am number inclined to interfere with the decree of the companyrt below though I do feel that the litiga tion against Kalyan Singh and another in their individual capacity was a fruitless exercise.
He was, however, summoned and his statement was recorded on July 8, 1925, wherein he admitted that he was only the Pujari of the temples.
But Gopal Prasad has numberpersonal knowledge about the registration of the sale deed, number he has produced the register to indicate that that sale deed was registered and a companyy was kept in the record.
There was allegation that Narayan purported to have sold the Baghichi in favour of one Khawas Bala Bux.
It was alleged that the earlier suit against Bhonrilal was companylusive between the parties.
He only examined the validity of the said Sale deed and Will and held that they were proved to have been executed.
The trail companyrt dismissed the suit but on appeal the District Judge decreed it.
Even before disposal of the aforesaid second appeal, Ganga Ram the younger brother of Bhonrilal started another round of litigation.
The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal.
On December 12, 1959, he brought a declaratory suit claiming that he is owner of the property companysisting of baghichi and temples.
The de fendants approached the High Court in Second Appeal No.
135 I N of 1973.
Ganga Ram based his title to the property under a sale deed dated Baishakh Sudi 12th Samvat 1932 about 1875 A.D. and also on a will dated Asaj Sudi 12th Samvat 1973 about 1916 A.D. It was further alleged that the bagichi belonged to Bhagala and Girdhari and they sold the same to Raghunath Brahmin.
The Panchas of Darjian companymunity filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and posses sion of the baghichi.
The sale deed Ex.
The other defendants in the suit set up rival title to the property relying upon the sale deed of Samvat 1932 in the name of Raghunath.
Raghunath had only one son called Gaurilal and he was issueless.
Garuilal executed a will giving all his properties to Ganga Ram.
4 which formed the foundation of Gangarams title to the suit property.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 14.3.1973 of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.
Therefore, in spite of my having reached the companyclusion regarding the document Ex.
201/41 Before the High Court, they sought to produce addi tional evidence.
In 1951 they instituted a suit for his ejectment.
He also did number refer to the judgment in the suit against Bhonrilal.
There was numberapplication for permission to sue them in their representative capacity.
Thus the title of the Darjee companymunity in respect of the baghichi was again recog nised.
8C of 1958 in the High Court of Rajasthan and obtained stay of delivery of possession on depositing mesne profits at Rs.25 per month.
He also denied the title of Bhagala and Girdhari.
Ganga Ram also died and his wife and son were brought on record as his legal representatives.
The Darjian companymunity authorised Kalyan Singh, the appellant herein, as well as one khawas Suraj Narayan to bring an action for ejectment of Bhonrilal.
Bhonrilal preferred Second Apeal No.
3 and was upheld by the Senior Civil Judge on 6.2.
Kalyan Singh and Suraj Narayan appealed to the District Court.
Reference was made to the judgment of the Chief Court of Jaipur in the first suit against Narayan and judgments in the second suit against Bhonrilal.
Perhaps the plaintiff did number press that point.
The appellant the first defendant in the suit denied plaintiffs title to the baghichi.
It appears that Bhonrilal after the death of his father was acting as Pujari of the temples.
1958, is null and void against the claim of the plaintiff.
The trial Judge on companysidering the evidence produced by the parties decreed the suit declaring the plaintiff as owner of the suit property.
In that suit Bhonrilal admitted the Panchayats right to the baghichi but raised a number of other pleas including his title by adverse possession.
That decree was af firmed by the former Chief Court, Jaipur by judgment Ex.
They moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. to accept a certified companyy of the judgment dated September 15, 1928 of the Chief Court of the erstwhile Jaipur State and a companyy of the statement of Narayan recorded in that suit.
During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court Suraj Narain died and his name was deleted from the appeal memo.
Raghunath companystructed the temple of Sri Satyanarainji and other buildings.
The suit was decreed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In 1966 the Munsif Court West Jaipur decreed the suit in favour of the Darji companymunity.
No declara tion was given that it was number binding on the plaintiff though that relief was specifically sought for.
The suit was pri marily against the present appellant Kalyan Singh and Suraj Narayan, since deceased.
K Jain, Pramod Dayal and A.D. Sanget for the Appellant.
3 and will Ex.
But numberreference was made to the judgment and decree obtained in the suit against Bhonrilal.
N. Bachavat, Sushil Kumar Jain, Sudhanshu Atreya and C. Agarwala for the Respondents.
The principal question argued before the High Court related to the validity of sale deed Ex.
Narayan companytinued as Pujari till his death in 1950 and thereafter his eldest son Bhonrilal was acting as Pujari.
1 and 2 had obtained on 20.8.
With these allegations, Ganga Ram prayed for the following reliefs a the plaint of the plaintiff be decreed and the plaintiff be declared as the owner of the aforesaid property.
It was maintained that the baghichi was companymunity property of Darjees and Narayan was only a Pujari of the temples.
On September 15, 1960, the High Court dismissed the second appeal.
The case has a long history.
Narayan was the first defendant in that suit.
1956 against the Defend ant No.
Thereafter, for about 23 years there was numberproblem and there was numberrival claimant to the property.
The decree which the defendant Nos.
A8 dated September 15, 1928.
He did number companytest the suit.
201 of 1966.
201of 1966.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal by special leave is from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated March 14, 1973 in S.B. Civil 2nd Appeal No.
The High Court accepted the judgment of the Chief Court of Jaipur State, but rejected the Statement of Narayan.
The suit was also for declaration of the right to administer the trust of the temples and the other properties.
It is companycerned with a garden baghichi with temples of Sri Satyanarayanji, Sri Mahadeoji and other buildings at Motidungri Road in Jaipur.
