Back
Allahbad High Court
M.P.MEHROTRA
Gopal Krishna - Appellant
Versus
Lal Kishan - Respondent
Decided On : 09/08/1977
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Section 92 - UTTAR PRADESH ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1951 - Section 331 - Suit for declaration of ownership of temple and land attached to it - Maintainability - Bar of jurisdiction of civil court - Declaration that old temple of idol was situated at Shahpur and not at Chauma - Whether maintainable in civil court - Whether barred by Section 92 CPC or Section 331 of the U.P. Act.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, representing an idol, filed a suit for declaration of ownership of an old temple and the land attached to it, possession of the same, and damages for use and occupation. The defendant claimed that the temple was situated at a different location and that he was the pujari and sarbarakar of that temple. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court dismissed it, holding that the suit was barred by Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (U.P. Act 1 of 1951).
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the suit was not barred by Section 92 CPC because the declaration sought was not one of the reliefs enumerated in the section. The court also held that the suit was not barred by Section 331 of the U.P. Act because the declaration sought was not related to any agricultural plots and could only be granted by a civil court. The court further held that the lower appellate court erred in not considering whether the defendant had suffered any consequent failure of justice due to the trial in the civil court, as required by the amendment to Section 331 of the U.P. Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred by Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)? 2. Whether the suit was barred by Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (U.P. Act 1 of 1951)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 92 CPC does not bar a suit for a declaration that an idol is the owner of a temple and the land attached to it, as such a declaration is not one of the reliefs enumerated in the section. 2. Section 331 of the U.P. Act does not bar a suit for a declaration that an idol is the owner of a temple and the land attached to it, as such a declaration is not related to any agricultural plots and can only be granted by a civil court. 3. A civil court has jurisdiction to try a suit for a declaration that an idol is the owner of a temple and the land attached to it, even if the defendant claims that the temple is situated at a different location, as such a dispute is a civil dispute that cannot be decided by a revenue court.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and decreed the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of ownership of the temple and the land attached to it.
2. The facts in brief are these: In the district of Agra in Tehsil Kiraoli there is village known as Chauma Shahpur. The village is in two parts- one is known as Chauma and the other is known as Shahpur. An old temple of Shri Gopal Krishna Bankey Behariji is said to exist at Shahpur and the plaintiff No. 1 is said to be the said deity installed in the said temple. Plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 reside in the said village and worship in the said temple. The deity sued through Baba Premanand who claimed to be the manager and pujari of the deity in the said temple. It was alleged that the defendant, Shri Lal Kishan, was formerly managing the said temple and was the pujari of the same. He left managing the plaintiff No. 1 and kept some idols in his own residential house situated at Chauma and began to claim that the old temple of the plaintiff No. 1 was at his residential place at Chauma and not at Shahpur. The plaintiff asserted that there was no temple at Chauma and the deity really stood installed in the old temple at Shahpur. The deity owned the land of Khata No. 64 situated in Shahpur Bandpura, detailed in Schedule A to the plaint and the defendant was formerly managing the said landed property in his capacity as the manager of the deity. Subsequently, he began to assert wrongly that the said landed property belonged to the alleged temple at Chauma. It was further claimed that the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 raised subscription from the people of the village and carried out repairs to the old temple at Shahpur as the defendant had ceased to look after the said temple. It was further alleged that the defendant, even though called upon to do so, did not agree to manage the temple at Shahpur and to spend the income out of the plots of Khata No. 64 towards the Sewa Puja of the plaintiff No. 1. The defendant refused to deliver possession of the plots to the plaintiffs. It was further alleged that the Gram Samaj also passed a resolution for expunging the name of the defendant from the revenue records and for arranging for some other person to manage the temple of the plaintiff No. 1. A case was also instituted before the S.D.O. Kiraoli for the correction of papers but the same was dismissed on the ground that the controversy needed to be settled by a civil court. Hence, the plaintiffs instituted the suit in question. The plaintiffs claimed the following main reliefs:
(A) That it be declared the old temple of Shri Gopal Krishna Bankey Behariji is situated at Shahpur also known as Bandpura, Tehsil Kiraoli, District Agra, and the plots detailed in Schedule A to the plaint are attached and belong to the said idol.
(B) That a decree for possession over the plots detailed in Schedule A to the plaint be also passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant.
(B1) That a decree for net profits or damages for use and occupation, future and pendente lite at Rs. 2500/- P.A. be also passed against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff."
3. The defendant contested the suit. He claimed that the old temple was really situated at Chauma and the alleged temple said to be situated at Shahpur was a new one. The deity was really installed in the temple at Chauma and the property in Khata No. 64 belonged to the deity installed in the temple at Chauma. The defendant claimed to be the pujari and sarbarakar of the temple at Chauma. The other allegations in the plaint were also denied.
4. The trial court framed the necessary issues end tried the suit. The same was decreed for declarations, possession and mesne profits as claimed by the plaintiffs.
5. The defendant filed an appeal in the lower appellate court and the same was allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside and the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs have now come up in the instant second appeal and in support of the same I have heard Shri G. C. Bhattac
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
