The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of following the prescribed procedure under Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 before making changes to the revenue record.

ORDER :

This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 13.10.2011 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in Second Appeal No.412 of 1998 which was preferred by the respondents herein. By the said judgment respondent's appeal was allowed reversing the judgment and the decree passed by the two courts below.

2. When the matter was called out nobody appeared on behalf of the appellants. Instead of dismissing the matter in default or for non-prosecution, we deemed it proper to go through the judgment and the material available on record and decide the same on merits with the assistance of learned counsel for the respondents.

3. As can be seen from the judgment of the High Court, the respondents herein had filed a suit for declaration that they have right to manage the disputed temple which is a private property and for injunction restraining the appellants herein not to interfere with the said suit property.

4. Insofar as temple in question is concerned, it is known as "Shri Narsingh Mandir" and is situated at land survey No.209 area 2.481 hectare in village chikkhalda, Tehsil Kukshi District Dhar, Madhya Pradesh.

5. The case set out in the plaint by the respondents-plaintiffs was that the aforesaid land was owned by late Amritlal and Bhai Shambhulal, both sons of Ganpatlal Mahajan. The disputed temple thereupon was constructed by them and was their private temple. It was, therefore, for quite some time the aforesaid persons were offering 'pooja' in the said temple. Family of Amritlal migrated to Khetiya in the year 1963. In order to maintain the said temple and to ensure that 'pooja' is performed there regularly, Amritlal and Bhai Shambulal, the two brothers, gave the temple to the Panchas of Ahir Community. For bearing the expenses of the temple for 'Pooja', the land was gifted to the Pujaris of the temple by executing a registered gift-deed dated 20.6.1963 with an intention that from the earnings of the agricultural produce of the land, the daily expenses of the temple would be maintained. The Panchas gifted the management of the temple to Babulal, S/o Gangadhar Patel and Narayan Brahmin, who was the father of the Sadashiv (the first plaintiff). The possession of the suit land was also given to these two persons by the gift-deed. They were given authority to appoint Panchas of the village Chikkhalda to carry out the temple affairs and to appoint pujaris. The Panchas of the village appointed plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 to carry out the affairs of the temple along with Sadashiv, the first plaintiff.

6. While the plaintiffs were carrying out the affairs of the temple and conducting 'pooja' in the said temple, they received threats from the Tehsildar and Patwari of the area stating that the Manager of the suit land was the Collector and they were also told that it was decided to auction the said land and the entire management would be taken over by the Government. Faced with these threats, a suit was filed by the respondents for declaration and injunction, as noticed above. In the written statement filed by the defendants-appellants, the defence taken was that vide order dated 12.4.1974 (Order No.745/3693/A/73), name of the Collector had been endorsed in the revenue records. It was further stated in the written statement that if plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 were claiming their right to possess the said temple and carry out the affairs of the temple, it was required by them to adopt the procedure in getting their names in the revenue records.

7. The Trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the arguments dismissed the suit holding that the temple was the public property and, therefore, the name of the Collector was endorsed in the revenue records. First appeal filed by the respondents under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge affirming the findings of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the respondents approached the High Court by way of filin