Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N. V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEE, SRI RAM MANDIR JAGTIAL KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT, A.P – APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
S. RAJYALAXMI (DEAD) & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7843 OF 2009
Decided On : 10-12-2018
(b) Property law – Title – Burden to prove ownership over the suit property – On the plaintiff – Instantly, plaintiffs failing to discharge their burden of proof by being unable to furnish necessary documentary and oral evidence to prove their claim – Impugned judgment not sustainable. (Para 20)
(2008) 11 SCC 306; (2011) 3 SCC 545 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The original plaintiff no.1 (predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos. 1 to 6) and original plaintiff no.2 (respondent no.7) preferred a suit against the defendants (appellant and respondent no.8,9 and 10) seeking a declaration that they are the owners of the suit schedule ‘A’ house. The original plaintiffs had also prayed for a declaration that the suit schedule ‘B’ properties are not in existence and the said properties do not belong to the temple. Lastly, they also sought a consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
The trial court, after perusing both oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit preferred by the respondents-plaintiffs.
The High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents-plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is nit sustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
N.V. RAMANA, J.
The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 18th November 2006, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Appeal Suit No. 1964 of 1993 wherein the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge in O.S. No.69 of 1987, thereby decreeing the suit in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs.
2. A brief reference to the facts may be necessary for the disposal of the present case. The original plaintiff no.1 (predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos. 1 to 6 herein) and original plaintiff no.2 (respondent no.7 herein) preferred a suit against the defendants (appellant and respondent no.8,9 and 10 herein) seeking a declaration that they are the owners of the suit schedule ‘A’ house bearing H. No. 5-6-69 (old), 617 (old), reassigned new nos. 6-1-81 and 6-1-81/1 situated at Brahminwadi, Jagtial. The original plaintiffs had also prayed for a declaration that the suit schedule ‘B’ properties are not in existence and the said properties do not belong to the temple. Lastly, they also sought a consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
3. The respondents-plaintiffs. claimed to be the owners of the suit schedule “A” house and further contended that they have been residing in the suit property since the time of their ancestors. Hence it is recorded in their name and they have been paying taxes to the municipality with respect to the same. A Ram Mandir, situated to the west of the suit property bearing H.Nos.5-6-70 (old) & 6-1-8 (old) corresponding to H.No.6-1-82 (new), which is shown as Endowments property by the Endowments department. Plaintiff no.1 has stated that the eastern and southern boundaries of the temple are shown to be the house of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also brought to the notice of the court, the permission dated 14.10.1977, granted in their favour by the municipality, for reroofing. The original plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff no.2 effectuated an oral partition of the suit schedule ‘A’ property on 27.6.1983.
4. The cause of action in the present suit arose when respondent no.9 (defendant no.2- Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Department) allegedly passed an ex-parte order on 24.10.1986 declaring the suit schedule ‘A’ house and movable properties shown in schedule ‘B’ and other properties belonged to the Ram Mandir, Jagtial in O.A. No.70 of 1985. Pursuant to the same, the appellant (defendant no.4-Chairman Board of Trustee Sri Ram Mandir) filed a Petition in the court of Judicial Magistrate, under Section 93(2) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the delivery of possession of suit schedule ‘A’ and the suit schedule ‘B’ properties alongside other properties of the Ram Mandir in Cr. M. P No. 173 of 1987.
5. The respondents-plaintiffs., apprehending abrupt interference in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, preferred this suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction concerning suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties in O.S. no.69 of 1987.
6. The appellant (defendant no.4) resisted the suit on multiple grounds. Although the appellant (defendant no.4) admitted that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were performing “Annasatram” at the Ram Mandir, he particularly denied that the ancestors of the plaintiffs had constructed the suit schedule ‘A’ house about 100 years back along with H. No. 6-2-21. The suit schedule ‘A’ house was constructed from the funds donated by the devotees. It was further alleged that the plaintiff no.1 had filed O.A no.2 of 1973 under Section 77 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner Endowments Department Hyderabad (defendant no.2) for declaration that the Ram Mandir is not an endowment property, but the same was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 26.12.1976. The Deputy Comm
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
