REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant seeks to impugn the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 10th February, 2004 whereby Suit No.85/03 filed by Shree Yog Mayaji Temple was decreed and Suit No.03/04/93 filed by Madan Lal Kaushik was dismissed.

2. At the outset, it must be noted that the plaintiffs in Suit No.85/03, who are arrayed as respondents in the present appeal, namely, Shree Yog Mayaji Temple and Others had filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC praying for the passing of a decree in the suit while certain preliminary issues had been framed in the case of Suit No.03/04/93 filed by the appellant herein, namely, Madan Lal Kaushik, to which I shall presently advert.

3. The facts may be recapitulated in extenso as it is these facts which are material for the purpose of deciding the present appeal. On 04.09.1993, Madan Lal Kaushik, the appellant herein, had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Shri Hari Narain and Others, being Suit No.03/04/93. It was the case of appellant in the said suit that he was in peaceful physical possession of property No.10/7, Yog Maya Mandir, Mehrauli, New Delhi since the year 1943, comprising of two rooms, one kitchen, one store, one bathroom and a partly demolished room on the ground floor and one room on the first floor. The site plan of the said premises was filed by the appellant with the plaint. It was further the case of the appellant that the possession of the aforesaid property was inherited by him from his late father Pt. Badlu Ram, who had the exclusive possession of the same for the last more than 50 years and had died on 19.12.1991. According to the plaint, the defendants No.1 to 3, namely, Shri Hari Narain, Shri Inder Narain and Shri Surinder Narain, were pandas of Shree Yog Maya Mandir and had taken over the administration of the said Mandir.

4. It was asserted in the plaint by the appellant that he and his father had been performing „puja? and „seva? in the said Mandir on honorary basis for the last 50 years in the mornings and evenings. The possession of the premises in question was given to his late father by one Smt. Ram Pyari, widow of Shri Trikha, about 50 years ago “for performing „puja? and „seva?.” After the death of his father, the defendants had been trying their best to dispossess him and his family members on one pretext or the other and wanted to take forcible and illegal possession of the premises in question. It was submitted by the appellant that the defendants in the suit had last threatened the appellant on 29th August, 1993 with dire consequences if he did not vacate the premises within a week.

5. Alternatively, the appellant submitted that he was in legal and physical possession by virtue of adverse possession continuously for more than 12 years without any interruption and the defendants had no right, title or interest to throw him out of the said premises. Hence the suit filed by him (Madan Lal) praying for a decree of declaration that he be declared the owner of the property No.10/7, Yog Maya Mandir, Mehrauli, New Delhi, “being in adverse possession for the last more than 12 years.” He also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from dispossessing him from the aforesaid premises.

6. The aforesaid suit was contested by the defendants, who stated that the appellant was a teacher in St. Xaviers School and was in illegal and unauthorized occupation of the suit property since 1991, when his father Badlu Ram died, and, that prior to the year 1991, he was living with his father in the suit property. It was submitted by the defendants, on behalf of the Yog Maya Mandir and Others, that Shri Badlu Ram was permitted to use the said accommodation as a paid employee of the Yog Maya Mandir, as Badlu Ram used to serve water to the worshippers and clean the Mandir. The said licence came to an end on the death of Shri Badlu Ram and from the date of th