The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing evidence to support claims and the necessity of following the procedures outlined in Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, before making changes in the revenue record.

This second appeal has been filed at the instance of defendants against the judgment and decree of reversal passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ujjain in Civil Appeal No. 24-A/2003 whereby the judgment and decree dated 20-11-2003 passed by learned Civil Judge, Class I, Mahidpur in Civil Suit No. 162-A/1995 decreeing the suit of plaintiff partly, has been dismissed.

2. Today is the auspicious day because long drawn litigation which was filed near about 33 years ago on 9-7-1980 is being decided today.

3. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this second appeal looking to the limited substantial question of law which has been framed and further the facts in detail are already mentioned in Paras 2 to 6 of the impugned judgment. For ready reference, it would be condign to state that the disputed property is a temple as well as the agricultural land of temple. According to the plaintiff, the temple is a private temple and was established by the plaintiffs ancestors. Further, it has been pleaded that the deity is the Bhumiswami and it is also so recorded in the revenue record. The State of M.P. issued notice to the plaintiff on 7-7-1980 to auction the land and hence the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff on 9-7-1980 for declaration and injunction praying the relief that the suit property be declared as a private temple and the deity is the Bhumiswami of the agricultural land, the description whereof is given in the plaint. A decree of injunction is also prayed that defendants may not interfere in the disputed property and they be not dispossessed.

4. The defendants filed written-statement and denied the plaint averments. The defendant No. 5-Manohar is the real brother of Surendra through whom the suit has been filed. The stand of the State Government in its written-statement is that the suit temple is not a private temple and is a public temple. According to the order and directions of the State Government the name of Collector as Vyavasthapak (Manager) of the suit property has been endorsed in the revenue record. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has no case and the suit be dismissed.

5. The plaintiff examined Surendra Das (P.W. 1), Ratanlal (P.W. 2), Kanhaiyalal (P.W. 3) and Vivek Dattatreya (P.W. 4). The plaintiff filed documents (Exhs. P-1 to P-33) and mostly the documents are the revenue records. The defendants, however, did not examine any witness and did not file any document.

6. The learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence placed on record dismissed the suit. The first appeal which was filed by the plaintiff has been partly allowed and suit of plaintiff has been partly decreed by passing the impugned judgment and decree.

7. In this manner, this second appeal has been filed by the defendants which was admitted by this Court on 1-2-2006 on the following substantial question of law :-

"Whether Lower Appellate Court was justified in holding that the suit land and the agricultural land appertained thereto is the private property of respondents ?"

8. The contention of Shri Guha, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State is that the disputed property is a temple and it has been so recorded in the revenue record and if that would be the position it would be deemed to be a public temple and, therefore, the name of Collector has been rightly endorsed in the revenue record as Vyavasthapak (Manager). In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed heavy reliance upon Single Bench decision of this Court in Goyaprasad and another Vs. State of M.P., ILR 2008 MP 3200, and submitted that learned First Appellate Court was not justified in holding that the agricultural land appertain to the temple is the private property of respondents.

9. On the other hand, Shri Chafekar, learned Senior Counsel argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that not even a single document has been filed and proved by the State Governm