JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. The instant appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatapara, in Civil Suit No. 6-A/2013 whereby the suit filed by late Geeta Devi Sharma wife of late Dashrathlal Sharma, now represented through her son Sanjay Sharma, was dismissed.

2. The facts of this case are that Smt. Geeta Devi Sharma filed a suit for declaration and injunction that the suit property which is situated at Bhatapara at Sheet No. 12-B, plot no. 145 admeasuring 794 square meters, wherein a Shiv Manidr was constructed by the father of plaintiff Geeta Devi namely Kundanlal Sharma. The averments are that the said land was obtained by Kundanlal Sharma from Indian Railways and thereafter the property was recorded in the name of Kundanlal Sharma in revenue records. Kundanlal Sharma died on 01.01.1990 and thereafter the name of plaintiff was recorded in revenue records. It is further stated that during the life time of Kundanlal Sharma, he used to manage the affairs of the temple and after his death, as per his wish and will, the entire property situated at Bhatapara devolved on his daughter Geeta and as of now after death of Geeta, on her son Sanjay by succession. The plaintiff further stated that as per the will, son namely Sanjay along with plaintiff Geeta Devi Sharma took over the management of the said temple and was managing the affairs.

3. The plaintiff states that in the year 2004, on the basis of a forged will of Kundan Lal Sharma the then defendants Ram Gopal Sharma (D-1) Ganpat Lal Sharma (D-2), Ramesh Tiwari (D-3) and Bhojraj Purohit (D-4) filed an application for mutation of their names and got their names mutated on the basis of Will dated 24.10.1983 in revenue records. The plaintiff having known the fact challenged the same before the Revenue authorities. The plaintiff further stated that the will dated 24.10.1983 is suspicious and when the Will was executed, Kundan Lal Sharma was not in a sound state of mind and the Will dated 24.10.1983 wherein the propounder Goand Brahmin Mahasabha in whose favour the alleged will was executed was not in existence. It was further stated that the congregation of people did not have any registration in the Trust under the Public Trust Act or no trustees were existing.

4. The plaintiff also states that in the year 1976, Kundanlal Sharma has bequeathed the entire property to his grandson Sanjay Sharma and till 2004, despite 14 years have passed the Will dated 24.10.1983 never came to fore. With respect to mutation, the proceeding before the revenue authorities and the appellate authorities are pending wherein the Board of Revenue eventually remitted the case back to the Najul Officer. The plaintiff also pleaded that taking advantage of absence of plaintiff, the defendant tried to take-over the possession of suit property and has placed the sign-board in the name of Goand Brahman Samaj. Thereafter, defendants are obstructing entry of the plaintiff and her son to perform daily worship (Pooja) and offer “Bhog” in the Shiv Mandir. Therefore, the relief for declaration and injunction was sought for to the effect that the defendants be restrained to do so.

5. The defendants pleaded that the property was not owned by late Kundan Lal Sharma and he was only holding the property as a Manager of Mandir and his name was recorded as Manager in revenue records. Therefore, in the capacity of Manager, the Will dated 24.10.1983 was executed in favour of defendants to manage the temple and by virtue of such will, the defendants started to perform worship (Pooja) and other rituals as per the tradition which are required in the temple. The defendants further stated that they are members of Goand Brahman Mahasabha and the plaintiff has never managed the affairs of temple at any point of time as she was residing at Bilaspur for the last 50 years at the time of filing suit. The defendant further asserted that they are in possession and were performing the