ORDER

1. Appellants / plaintiffs have preferred this second apppeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as “CPC”) being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 8.12.2000 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Mandsaur in First Appeal No.25-A/2000, affirming the judgment and decree dated 3.11.1998 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II Narayangarh in Civil Suit No.401-A/1997, whereby the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction filed by the appellants has been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the appellants / plaintiffs have filed a civil suit before the trial Court for declaration of title and permanent injunction in regard of the suit land situated at Village Kitukhedi, Tehsil Malhargarh, District Mandsaur (M.P.) bearing survey Nos.22/1-73, 104/7-10, 21/1-15, 13/2-26, 12/2-26, 94/0-90 having total area ad-measuring 6.228 hectare. The suit land was allotted by the erstwhile Holkar State as an Inam in the year 1931 and the appellants' forefathers performed Puja and Archana in the temple of the Nilkantheshwar Mahadev situated at Village Kitukhedi. After the death of father of the appellants, appellants have been in peaceful possession of the aforesaid disputed land and temple. On 8.5.1948 Holkar State was abolished and in the year 1950 M.P. Land Revenue and Agriculture Rights Act came into force and in the year of 1959 M.P. Land Revenue Code came into existence before this Code the appellants are in possession of the suit land as Inamdar / Bhumiswami. The respondents added the name of the Collector Mandsaur as a Manager Bhumiswami in the disputed land without giving any notice to the appellants. The respondent auctioned the suit land on 25.7.1992. Thereafter, appellants gave notice to the respondent and then, filed this civil suit before the trial Court.

3. The respondent No.1 / defendant filed a written statement and denied all the plaint allegations with the contention that the disputed temple was not constructed by the forefathers of the plaintiffs, it is not a personal temple of the plaintiffs and their forefathers, it was the temple of the Holkar State and the lease has been issued in the name of Murti /Deity. The temple was a public temple, therefore, Collector have a right to auction the land belonging to public temple. The plaintiffs did not file civil suit in compliance of the section 57 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. The Deity was not implicated as a party, therefore, civil suit is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court has framed issues and after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties, dismissed the civil suit filed by the appellants / plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 3.11.1998. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, appellants have preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court and vide judgment and decree dated 8.12.2020, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the appellants have preferred this second appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are contrary to the law and facts, both the Courts below have erred in holding that the appellants are not the Bhumiswami of the disputed land and temple is a private temple and same was neither constructed by the State nor maintained by the State. Therefore, the respondent No.1 had no authority to auction the land of the said temple. Both the Courts below have erred in not considering the provisions of section 57(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1950 (hereinafter referred as “MPLRC”). It is also argued that the appellants have preferred an application under Order 41 rule 27 of CPC i.e. I.A. No.7019/2022 with the documents. Documents are necessary for the proper adjudication of this appeal, therefore, same may be taken on record. Hence, it is