The trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's suit based on res judicata without considering evidence appropriately, reaffirming that this issue requires detailed examination beyond mere plaint averments.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. has been preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 205 of 2016, Deen Dayal Pipraiya (Deceased) through LRs. vs. Ram Sharan against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2017 passed by the Court of Sri Radhey Mohan Srivastava, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhansi whereby the plaintiff’s suit for the relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. on the ground that it is barred by res judicata under Section 11 C.P.C.

2. Factual matrix is that the plaintiff-appellant filed O.S. No.205 of 2016 in the lower court with the averments that Sri Thakur Maithli Raman Jee Maharaj, Virajman Mandir Kunj i.e. plaintiff no.2 is a private temple, of which the plaintiff no.1, Deen Dayal Pipraiya was the Manager. The immovable property of the temple is situated in Chak no.40 in Village Nunar, Tehsil Garautha, District Jhansi, whose khata numbers alongwith total area were specified in the plaint.

3. It was further averred that previously the owner of temple-plaintiff no.2 was Smt. Janki Bai widow of Rajaram, who inherited the property from her father-in-law, Mathura Prasad through registered gift dated 13.09.1938, which was registered at Book No.1, Jeeld 102, pages 322-324 at Sr. No.296 on 14.09.1938 in the office of Sub Registrar, Mauranipur, in which it was specifically mentioned that the right of appointing Manager, for managing the property of the temple vested solely in Smt. Janki Bai, and in accordance with that right, one person, namely Ram Sharan was appointed as manager of the temple. The plaintiff further averred that since Ram Sharan did not honestly managed the affairs of the temple and committed irregularities in the accounting, as such, Smt. Janki Bai removed him, and thereafter, appointed plaintiff no.1 as the Manager of plaintiff no.2. The plaintiff further averred that Smt. Janki Bai died on 18.02.1983, her father-in-law, Mathura Prasad also died in the 1940, but his registered gift deed has not been cancelled by any competent court till date. It was further averred by the plaintiff that the defendant is a fraudulent person with malafide intention, who intends to illegally occupy the property of the temple plaintiff no.2, and to transfer it to some other person. The defendant also illegally harvested the crops standing on the property of plaintiff no.2. The defendant also managed to sell the property of plaintiff no.2, who is in the company of anti-social elements, who was having influence in political circles. It was also submitted that defendant had no concern with the property of the temple plaintiff no.2.

4. With these submissions, it was prayed that the defendant be restrained from selling, transferring the property of the plaintiff temple, from harvesting the crops standing on the temple property, by decree of permanent injunction granted by the court in favour of the plaintiffs.

5. During pendency of the suit, the defendant filed his written statement in which he accepted that on 13.09.1938, a registered gift deed by Mathura Prasad was executed in favour of Smt. Janki Bai, widow of Rajaram and he also accepted that a temple is situated on the disputed property. He also accepted that Janki Bai died on 18.02.1983 and also her father-in-law died in the year 1940, and also accepted that the registered gift deed has not been cancelled by any competent court till date, but he denied that plaintiff no.1 is the Manager of the temple plaintiff no.2, as suc