The necessity of material pleadings and evidence to establish prima facie the legal right of the plaintiff in a suit property, and the limitation of courts to grant relief only within the scope of the pleadings.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

This appeal is filed by the defendants against the final judgment and order dated 17.04.2007 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in First Appeal No.51 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/X F.T.C., Dehradun in O.S. No. 318 of 1996.

2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts infra.

3. Appellant No.1 is defendant No.1-State of Uttarakhand (earlier part of State of UP) and appellant No. 2 is defendant No.2 - Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.

4. The respondent (plaintiff) is one-Bharat Bhushan Bharati. He has described himself as "Mahant" and "Manager" of one temple known as "Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj" situated in the midst of thick forest near one village named "Harawala" Pargana, Pachwa District, Dehradun (Uttarakhand).

5. On 27.05.1996, the respondent filed a civil suit (O.S.No.318/1996) in the name of "Temple Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj" describing himself in the cause title of the plaint as "Mahant" and "Manager" of the temple.

6. In Paras 1 and 2 of the plaint, the respondent averred that the temple in question is located in the thick forest near Harawala. It is an ancient temple wherein the deity of Lord Shiva is installed from time immoral (5-6 thousand years). It has shrines of some saintly persons, who attained Godhood and also has one "Kund" where there exists continuous fire.

7. In Para 3, it is averred that there was one person by name Basant Bharatji who was earlier "Mahant" of the temple. He died in 1982. During his lifetime, he had nominated the respondent (plaintiff) as "Mahant" as his successor. This is how the respondent became "Mahant" and "Manager" of the temple in question for managing the affairs of the temple.

8. In Paras 4 and 5, it is averred that thousand of devotees visit the temple every year and perform puja and other religious ceremonies of the deity and the shrines.

9. In Paras 6 and 7, it is averred that the temple along with Dharmshala for the benefit of devotees and "Kund" is surrounded by 5 acres of land. Since the Dharamshala is quite old (200 years or so) and required extensive repairs, the respondent (plaintiff) started to carry out some repair work but the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) - defendant No.2 of the concerned area, on 05.04.1996, objected the respondent from carrying out the repairs in the Dharamshala saying that the respondent cannot do any kind of repair work and hence the respondent became aggrieved and filed the civil suit seeking for a declaration that, (1) the plaintiff (respondent) - temple is the owner of the land specified in Schedule to the plaint; and (2) permanent injunction restraining the State and its authorities not to interfere in the respondent-plaintiff's possession over the lands and the constructions made thereon.

10. In Para 8, it was averred that due to urgency, the respondent (plaintiff) seeks exemption from serving notice to the State under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code". The suit was valued at Rs. 20,00,000/- on payment of fixed court fees and was filed in the Court of Civil Judge (senior division), Dehradun.

11. Appellant No.1 (State) as defendant No.1 along with DFO (defendant No.2)-respondent No.2 herein filed their written statement and denied all averments of the plaint set out above.

12. The Trial Court framed 7 issues, which read as under:

"1) Is the temple Sri Laxman Sidh Ji Maharaj is in actual physical possession of the piece of land admeasuring 5 acres situated at Village Harrawala, District Dehradun without any let or hindrance for the last thousands of years?

2) Has the plaintiff got right to raise the construction on the disputed land?

3) Can the permission for raisin