( 1 ) THIS appeal is by defendants.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS/respondents had filed a civil suit claiming therein that a temple delineated by red line with the plaint map be declared as public property and perpetual injunction be issued against the defendants restraining them from damaging the temple. It is pleaded that there is a public temple adjacent to the stores of Public Works department at Anand Nagar in Thatipur bajaria. The temple consist of statue of Shiv, hanuman and Santoshi Maa from past 42 years. Adjacent to the temple a boundary wall has been constructed and in the compound there are fruit bearing trees such as mangos, Jamun, grapes and other trees of neem, sheesham and peepal. The residents worship in the temple. A notice was affixed by defendant No. 2 in the name of plaintiff no. 2 R. C. Chakotia to remove the encroachment within seven days otherwise he will be dispossessed. Thus, cause of action for bringing the suit was from the date of notice by defendant No. 2 to remove the encroachment.

( 3 ) IT is contended by the plaintiffs that the neighbours have spent money in construction of the temple and planting of trees is within the knowledge of Public Works department and Municipal Corporation gwalior. Plaintiff has claimed adverse possession against the State Government. It is further contended by the plaintiffs that they have served notice under Section 80 C. P. C. upon the defendants. Plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs. 1,00,200/- and for the purpose of injunction suit was valued at rs. 200/ -.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS denied the claim and submitted that plaintiff has unlawfully encroached upon the land adjacent to the temple, therefore notice was served upon them. Plaintiff has no right to file the suit in respect of the temple. The boundaries of temple itself disclose that temple is constructed over the land of public Works Department and the land belongs to the Government and is a part of Government bungalow No. 16. Respondents/plaintiffs were noticed by defendant No. 2 and restrained from encroaching upon the Government land. It is submitted that in the garb of temple plaintiffs are trying to encroach upon the Government land. Defendant has denied the valuation and submitted, that proper court-fees has not been paid.

( 5 ) ISSUES were framed and after recording the evidence trial Court has decreed the suit.

( 6 ) COUNSEL for the appellant submitted that from bare reading of plaint, suit is in the representative capacity and this suit is not maintainable as it has been filed without the leave of the Court. No suit in the representative capacity under Order 1, rule 8 CPC can be filed without prior permission of the Court. It is further contended by counsel for the appellant that once plaintiffs have come forward with a case regarding the public temple then also suit was not maintainable in the absence of registration of said public temple under the M. P. Public Trust act. Section 32 of the M. P. Public Trust Act prohibits filing of a suit by an unregistered public trust. He submitted that from the evidence on record, there is no proof that plaintiff has any right, title or interest over the suit land. Plaintiffs had admitted in their deposition that they do not know who is the owner of the land and on the contrary they admitted that the land belongs to the Government and it is also admitted by them that the place where they live is also a Govt. land. They could not produce any document pertaining to title of the land.

( 7 ) COUNSEL for the appellant invited attention of the Court to the deposition of witness p. W. 1 Harishankar. He has stated that he knows plaintiff Jeevanlal and Dr. R. C. Chakotia. He has further stated that jeevanlal is the manager of the temple. In para 2 of his deposition he has stated that on the northern side of the temple there is an open land, on the southern side there is a road, on the eastern side there is an open side and 011 the western side exists a bungalow of the Dy. Commissioner. In the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document