1. The plaintiffs have assailed the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Ratlam in Civil Appeal No. 68-A/96, whereby their appeal has been partly allowed by decreeing their suit for injunction. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit of plaintiffs which was for declaration of Bhumiswami right, correction of revenue entry as well as for injunction although it was held by learned trial Court in para 11 of its judgment while deciding issue No.5 that plaintiffs arc entitled to retain 20 Beeghas of the land out of the total land in question which is 6.700 hectares.

2. In brief the case of plaintiffs is that the agricultural land, description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint has been entered in the name of temple Shri Shankar Ji through Pujari Kashi Bharti son of Nagu Bharti and Nathugir son of Gangagir Gusai. The suit land was given to the predecessors of plaintiffs hundred years ago from the date of filing of the suit (suit was filed on 16.7.1990).

3. It is the further case of plaintiffs that the suit land was given to their predecessors to establish a temple of Shri Shankar Ji and for maintenance the land in question was given to them by the then Ruler. Accordingly, plaintiffs' predecessors made a temple of Shri Shankar Ji and continued to possess the land in question which was given for maintenance. It has also been pleaded in the plaint that since no Patta was given to cultivate the land, as a result of which the then Ruler on 30.8.1911 gave Patta to the predecessors of plaintiffs to look after the temple and for its maintenance. A right to dig well was also given in the Patta. Earlier the plaintiffs' predecessors and after their death, plaintiffs are possessing the temple as well as the land in question. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that by operation o flaw, on coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short' the Code') they have acquired Bhumiswami right and, therefore, a declaratory decree has been sought praying therein that they be declared Bhumiswami of the suit property. It has also been prayed by plaintiffs that the name of Collector (defendant No.2) be deleted from the revenue record. A decree of injunction has also been sought against the defendants-State Government that the land in question which is in the name of deity Shankar Ji and which is being possessed by plaintiffs be not put to auction and plaintiffs may not be dispossessed. By amending relief clause of the plaint, it has also been prayed by plaintiffs that they are entitled to continue their names in the revenue record as Pujari in the same manner which was recorded earlier.

4. The State Government-defendants refuted the plaint averments by filing written statement. In para 13 it has been pleaded that rightly the name of Collector has been endorsed in the revenue record though it has been pleaded by plaintiffs in para 13 of the plaint that without giving any notice and providing opportunity of hearing to them, the name of Collector has been endorsed in the revenue record. The defendants have prayed that the suit of plaintiffs be dismissed.

5. On the basis of averments made in the plaint and the denial in the written statement, learned trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties though dismissed the suit, but, while deciding issue No.5 has categorically held in para 11 of its judgment that the status of plaintiffs is that of Pujari and in that capacity they are entitled to retain 20 Beeghas of land, out of total land in dispute.

6. The plaintiffs being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of learned trial Court dismissing their suit filed first appeal. On going through the record of learned first appellate Court it is gathered that defendants-State did not file any cross-objection though issue No.5 has been partly decided against them. Learned first appellate Court after hearing parties came to hold that suit of plaintiffs is liable to be decreed in part and