JUDGMENT

1. Appellants have preferred this First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.7.1987 passed by First Additional District Judge, Morena in Civil Suit No.3-A/78 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents.

2. The admitted facts of the case are as under:-

(i) It is undisputed that one Temple of Kali Mai (deity) is situated at village Basaiya, District Morena (M.P.).

(ii) It is also admitted that property of temple is vested in Deity of Kali Mai.

(iii) It is also admitted that earlier the aforesaid temple was under the control of the then Aukaf Department.

(iv) SLP was preferred against the judgment dated 7.5.1999 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, which has been set aside by Hon'ble The apex Court and matter has been remanded back to this Court observing as under:-

“It is common ground that the High Court while passing impugned judgment and decree dated 7.5.1999 in First Appeal No.39 of 1987 has not examined the material evidence. This itself vitiates its order.

Accordingly, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 7.5.1999 of the learned Single Judge and remit the matters back for re-consideration in accordance with law. As we have set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, the order passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal is rendered non est.”

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

The plaintiffs are the successors of Gumanilal and Ramgovind was the Karta Khandan of joint Hindu family. During the lifetime of Ramgovind, the lands situated at village Basaiya bearing Survey Nos.804/1/3II1, 804/2/3II) and 805/6)4 were received from some Zamindar. The detailed description of lands received by plaintiffs is as under:-

^^xzke clS;k ds losZ Øeakd 811@10½1 dks oknh Øekad 1 txnh'kpUæ us vdsys gh tehankjksa ls ÁkIr djds tksrk Fkk blfy, ;g Hkwfe Øekad dsoy txnh'kpUæ ds vf/kiR; esa jghA 'ks"k losZ Øekad fLFkr xzke clS;k ijxuk eqjSuk 220@AAA4] 606@1AAA½] 641@1@½4] 641@2@½2] 641@3@½4] 642@AA3] 643@AA1] 644@1@A½2] 650@1@1½2] 644@2@AA½2] 644@3@A½1] 644@4@A½1] 644@5@AA½] 644@6@AA½2] 644@7@A½3] 644@8@AA½] 644@9@½4] 645@AA½] 646@½3] 648@4@1½2 649@2@3@A½2] 649@1@A½2] 650@2@0A½1] 669@2AA3] 672@AAA4] 673@AAA4] 674@½3] 675@1A½] 677@AAA3] 682@1@4] 684@AA1] 801@½2] 802@7½] 1147@½4] 1148@A½4] 1150@A½] 1152@1½1] 1154@1A½3] 1166@A½1] 1169@2A½] 1170@½3] 1198@1½2] 1200@AAA½] 1204@A½2] 1223@1@½3] 1224@A½] 1230@AA1] 1231@AA½] 1242@1½] 1253@A½2 rFkk 1276@AAA2 oknhx.k Øekad 1] 2] 3] 4 ds firkth Jh jkexksfoUn ds Hkkx eas vkbZ o mudh e`R;q i'pkr oknhx.k Øekad 1] 2] 3] 4] leku Hkkx Hkkxhnkj :i esa vf/kiR;/kkjh gq;sA bl Hkwfe dks vc iVokjh dkxtksa esa [kkrk Øekad 229 la[;k 2031 ÁkIr gS lc losZ Øekadksa dk {ks=Qy 60AAA½4 rFkk ewvkxe 131&25 :i;s gSA mijksDRk leLr Hkwfe dks okn esa vkxs fooknxzLr Hkwfe iqdkjk tkosxkA^^

4. After death of Ramgovind, plaintiffs No.1, 2, 3, & 4 are the possession holders of equal share. The aforesaid lands are disputed lands. Various litigations took place with regard to aforesaid lands between the parties. It is also pleaded in the plaint averments that the plaintiffs are the owners and are in possession of aforesaid lands. One Kali Mai temple is situated at Village Basaiya which was under the control of Aukaf Department. A civil suit was filed for releasing the property from the Aukaf Department, which was registered as Civil Suit No.1/52. The suit was decreed and it was directed that the land of the temple be released by the State in favour of its Pujari. One Special Leave Petition was filed which was dismissed by the Hon'ble apex Court. The plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that the lands do not belong to temple Shri Kali Mai and they are exclusively owners of same. It was also pleaded by the plaintiffs that while execution, Nazir wrongly executed the decree including excessive land and the decree passed was not in relation to suit land.

5. The Court below while passing judgment and decree dated 30.7.1987 held that the lands