KAN SINGH, J.—This is a defendants second appeal directed against the appellate judgement of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, dated 22-1-66 affirming the decree of the learned Civil Judge, Jaipur dated 27-2-63 decreeing the plaintiff-respondents suit declaring that the Bagichi known as Shri Satya Narainji-Ki-Bagichi belongs to the plaintiff-respondent Ganga Ram.

2. The case has a history. There is a Bagichi with a temple of Satya Narainji therein and other appurtenant properties at Jaipur. According to the plaintiff, Ganga Ram, the land over which the Bagichi stands originally belonged to two persons Bhagla and Girdhari. Bhagla and Girdhari had sold this land in Samvat 1932 by a registered sale deed to one Raghunath Brahmin. It was Raghunath Brahmin who constructed the temple of Satya Narainji and had also raised Pucka as well as Kucha construction on the Bagichi. Raghunath was survived by his son Gaurilal. The plaintiff claimed that Gaurilal died issueless, but on Asoj 12 Samvat 1973 Gaurilal had executed a will in favour of the plaintiff Ganga Ram. Thereafter the plaintiff claims to have remained in possession of the Bagichi and the houses thereon and had been performing the Sewa Pooja of the Deity. The plaintiff had to file the suit because defendants Kalyan Singh and Suraj Narain had obtained a decree for possession of the suit Bagichi against defendant No. 3 Bhonrilal from the court of Additional Munsif, Jaipur City on 20.8.56 and the decree was upheld in second appeal to this court. When the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 put that decree in execution and defendant No. 3 Bhonrilal was called upon to hand over possession of the Bagichi the plaintiff Ganga Ram felt the necessity of bringing the present suit for declaration. He, therefore, prayed that the Bagichi be declared to be his property and the defendants be injuncted from executing the decree against him, as the decree was null and void against the plaintiff, he being not a party to the suit culminating in the decree. It was averred that Bhonri Lal had no right whatsoever in the suit property. It further appears that prior to the suit against Bhonrilal the members of the Darji community had brought a suit against one Khawas Balabux and Narain, father of Ganga Ram, for possession of this Bagichi. It was averred in that suit that the Bagichi belonged to the Darji community and Narain had made a sale thereof in favour of Khawas Balabux which he had no right to do. That suit resulted in a decree in favour of the Darji community and against Khawas Balabux and Narain and the decree was upheld by the Chief Court of the former Jaipur State in the year 1928. For a period of almost 23 years nothing happened and then in 1051 the suit was brought by the Darji community against Bhonrilal for possession of the Bagichi. That suit resulted in a decree in favour of the Darji community against Bhonrilal. Thus, the present is the third suit in the series.

3. The defendants contested the suit. They pleaded that the Bagichi and the appurtenant properties belonged to the Darji community which had constructed the temple of Satya Narainji and Mahadeoji. They also constructed the houses on the land of the Bagichi and further it were they who used to appoint the Pujaris and were realising the rental income of the Bagichi. It was also denied that it was Raghunath who was the owner of the property or that he had constructed the houses thereon. About the alleged will by Gaurilal in favour of the plaintiff Ganga Ram it was stated that it was a forgery as Bhonrilal had died during the life time of his father Raghunath. The defendants proceeded to say that it was the Darji community who had appointed Narain as the Pujari for performing the Sewa Pooja at the temple of Satya Narainji and after Narains death Bhonrilal being his eldest son was appointed as a Pujari. About the plaintiff Ganga Ram it was said that he was a junior member of the family and was residing in the Bagichi along with his brother

Click Here to Read the rest of this document