It is not open to the State Government to have either dispossessed or to have dislodged the plaintiff-appellants from their lawful possession over the property in dispute as the mere strength of some administrative order as referred to above.

Headnote:
APPEAL - SUIT FOR POSSESSION, DECLARATION, INJUNCTION AND RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS - TEMPLE AND SHOPS - DISMISSAL BY TRIAL COURT - APPEAL - ISSUES - FINDINGS - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION - MAIN LEGAL POINT
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs, legal heirs of Shri Banshidhar Sharma, filed a suit for possession, declaration, injunction, and rendition of accounts relating to a temple and its properties. The defendants-respondents were the State Government and others. The trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. It held that the plaintiffs were entitled to retain, protect, and continue with the possession of the property in question, i.e., the temple as well as 24 shops and houses, of which they were unlawfully dispossessed by the State without observing the process of law or an order of eviction against Late Shri Banshidhar or the present appellants from the court of competent jurisdiction.
Issues: (A) Whether once the lawful possession of the properties in dispute has been admitted by the State earlier with regard to the original plaintiff and subsequently by his legal heirs, i.e. the present appellants, it was not open to the state-respondent to either dispossess the original plaintiff and subsequently the present appellants whose possession as regards the suit property i.e. the temple and 24 shops etc. has been continuous and accordingly who could not have been dispossessed without observing the due process of law? (B) Once the possession of the original plaintiff and thereafter of his legal heirs i.e. the appellants over the suit property has not been disputed by the state, and the possessory right has been continuous, whether it was open to the respondent-state Government to adopt coercive measures and distress steps by unlawfully depriving the plaintiff and the present appellants as regards their possession of the suit property without obtaining the proper orders from the court of law of competent jurisdiction by getting the decree lawfully executed and on the mere strength of administrative orders passed by the state-respondent it was not open to the state Government to have dispossessed the original plaintiff and thereafter the present appellants from the property in dispute. (C) In a suit for possession, declaration, injunction and rendition of accounts which was filed in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur by the original plaintiff against the state-respondent as the defendants in the original suit as on 15.7.1961 in respect of the properties as referred to above whether it was open to the respondents to have unlawfully dispossessed them in a manner as has been done in the instant case without having resort to the due process of law? (D) Whether it was not obligatory for the respondents to have got the decree of eviction lawfully executed against the plaintiff-appellants in accordance with law from the competent court?
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that it was not open to the State Government to have either dispossessed or to have dislodged the plaintiff-appellants from their lawful possession over the property in dispute as the mere strength of some administrative order as referred to above. The administrative order of Devasthan Department on the strength of which the respondent-State had threatened to take possession of the temple and the properties in dispute obviously based on administrative decision of an appropriate authority which was not in consonance with the spirit of the statute which does not permit the possession to be taken of the property in dispute by an appropriate authority without getting the degree executed lawfully and in compliance of due process of law.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed - Judgment and decree under appeal set aside.

JUDGMENT

1. - This appeal preferred by the appellants arises out of the impugned order, dated 26.11.1977 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the said court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants filed against the defendant-respondents.

2. The facts which are relevant for deciding the present appeal briefly stated are that the present appellants who are the legal heirs of Shri Banshidhar Sharma (since deceased) had filed a suit for possession, declaration, injunction and rendition of accounts in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur against the defendant-respondents on 15.7.1961 relating to the following u properties which are more fully described in paras 1 to 5 of the plaint as specified herein below

(a) Temple of "Baiji ka Mandir" which comprised of temples of:

(i) Mahadevji

(ii) Thakur Laxmi Narainji.

(b) Residential accommodation.

(d) Bagichi or Garden.

3. The aforesaid temples were worshiped and maintained as their own temples by the ancestors of the appellants. This fact is also borne out and D established from the relevant documents which the appellants have placed on the record.

4. It will be pertinent to mention the brief background for the purpose of deciding the controversy between the parties to the suit which has been discussed by the trial court vide impugned order & decree dated 26.11.1977 against which the present appeal has been preferred and which is now being decided finally by this judgment on merits.

5. During the life time of the appellants' ancestor Pt. Jairamji the temple of Mahadevji was rebuilt and rejuvenated by Shri Jamana Ji Manas of Niradanu in 1708 AD (samvat 1765) with full recognition of the sole rights of the plaintiffs" 0 common ancestor Pt. Jairamji and his descendants with regard to the determination of the rights of Mahantship and Shibaiatship as well as rights of the management of the said temple. During the life time of Pt. Jagannathji, Ctiela of Swami Sanwal Dassji, the construction of the said temple was further extended by virtue of addition of several apartments which arc presently existing at the site 5 as per the records. These were consecrated for the idol of Thakur Shri Laxrni Narainji, which was installed in the said temple with full religious ceremonies by Sint. Vichitra Kumariji in the presence of Maharaja Sawai Jai Singhji of Jaipur State in 1737 AD (samvat 1794).

6. Apart from above an absolute, complete and irrevocable gift of the said temple and its properties was made to the plaintiffs' common ancestor Pt. Jagannathji vide Ex.25 of the summoned record. In 1753 AD (samvat 1810) shops under the temple were dedicated by Vichitra Kumariji for the maintenance, welfare and upkeep of the temple of Thakur Laxmi Narainji vide Ex. 31 on the record. In 1788 AD (samvat 1845) after the demise of Swami Ramasi Kinkar, Mahant Ram Sevak's right to perform seva pooja of the deity installed in the aforesaid temple achieved its recognition vide Ex. 24 on the record through common ancestors of the appellant. It is thus manifestly clear to this court that since the establishment of the said temple and the properties forming part of the periphery of the temple, i.e., shops, gardens etc. appurtinent to it remained in absolute control and in continuous management and shibaiatship of the plaintiffs' ancestors by devolution in accordance with their personal law. In order to substantiate his contentions in this regard during the course of hearing learned counsel for the appellants had invited the attention of this court to the pedigree of the appellants' ancestors which is also available on the summoned record of the trial court at page C/23/5 and is further established and has been verified by the appellants from the certified copy of the said pedigree issued by the office of Chairman, Nagar Palika, Soru (Eta) and also from another certified copy of the said document issued by the office of Tehsildar, Amber which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1997 Supreme(Raj) 1462

It is not open to the State Government to have either dispossessed or to have dislodged the plaintiff-appellants from their lawful possession over the property in dispute as the mere strength of some administrative order as referred to above.

Cases Referred (3)

Judicial Analysis