( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been preferred by the defendants feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dismissing their appeal by First Appellate court.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs who are respondents in this appeal filed suit for injunction praying that a decree of perpetual injunction be issued against defendants-appellants from interfering in their possession with a further relief of injunction that they be restrained from auctioning the agricultural lands in question.

( 3 ) IN brief the suit of plaintiffs is that shri Ram Mandir is entered in the revenue record as Bhumiswami and in the revenue record Laxman Das S/o Sukhram Das bairagi is entered as Pujari and Manager. However, since beginning the possession on the suit land is of plaintiffs. Earlier their predecessors were possessing the suit land. The plaintiffs father passed away 20 years earlier to the date of filing of the suit (suit filed on 6-8-1979 ). After the death of their father, they are possessing the suit land and the partition has also be'en taken place between them. The land situated on the southern side' is being possessed by plaintiff No. 2 Ganesh alias Ganpat and the land located at the northern side is of plaintiff No. 1 ramchandra. In the revenue record, Collector ratlam (defendant No. 1) has been entered as Manager of which no intimation was given to the plaintiffs and no opportunity of hearing was provided to them. According to the plaintiffs, the said entry is void.

( 4 ) AN alter native plea is also taken by the plaintiffs that if it is held that the suit land is of temple Ramchandra Ji, then it would be a trust property and plaintiffs are managing the temple as Pujari Since, they are possessing the disputed land, the same has been vested in them and defendant no. 1 - Collector, Ratlam is having'no authority to interfere in the possession of plaintiffs. It has also been pleaded that Collector is not having any right to obtain possession from the plaintiffs even them defendant no, 2 - Tahsildar, Ratlam had issued notice to lease out the suit land for one year and has put the land to auction. Hence after sending notice under Section 80 CPC, a suit for perpetual injunction has been filed.

( 5 ) THE defendants-appellants by filing written statement resisted the suit. According to the defendants, plaintiffs are not the owner of the disputed land nor their possession, as owner is on the said land. According to them, temple Ramchandra Ji is the Government temple and therefore the collector is its Manager. In the written statement, it has been denied that Laxmandas was the Pujari or he was managing the temple. The entry in that regard according to the defendants is incorrect. It has also been pleaded that by the said entry plaintiffs' right are not affected. The defendants further denied that plaintiffs are possessing the suit land. It has alsp been setforth in the written statement that since the temple is a Government temple, it is imperative to rebord the name of Collector as the manager of the temple. It is not necessary to give any information in that regard to plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, though were in the knowledge about the said entry, but, they did not raise any objection.

( 6 ) IN the special pleas, it has been pleaded toy the defendants that plaintiffs are not the Bhumiswami of the disputed land and even if their possession is proved, their status is of trespasser as such they are not entitled to bring any suit. The defendants prayed that suit be dismissed.

( 7 ) THE trial Court on the basis of averments made in the plaint and the denial in the written statement, framed necessary issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The Trial Court while deciding issue Nos. 1 and 2 came to hold that, plaintiffs are the owner of the lands in question is not proved, nor it is proved that there was inter se partition between the plaintiffs. However, the trial Court held that plaintiffs are in possession and since it is not proved that Ram mandir is a Governmen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document