Defendants 1 to 4 have challenged the correctness of the judgment and decree passed against them by the learned District Judge, Cachar at Silchar by which he upheld the decision of the learned Assistant District Judge No. 2, Cachar. The suit was for khas possession of the land described in the schedule of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, they were the owners of the suit property over which the temple is situated. According to them, the temple was constructed more than a hundred year ago, and defendant No. 2 was initially appointed as the priest. As he indulged in corrupt practices, he was removed and one Hari Mohan discharged the duties of the priest for about 20 years. But Hari Mohan having left for Upper Assam, defendant No. 1 was requested to worship the diety. One of the service conditions was that defendant No. 1 would live in a house described in Schedule-II. After this defendant also took recourse to corrupt and immoral practices, and so he was removed from service and was asked to hand-over possession of the house on Schedule-II land. On his failure to do so, the present suit was filed by stating that defendants 5 to 11 are accomplices of defen­dants 1 to 4. These a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document