A mere suit for injunction does not constitute a serious title dispute to non-suit a plaintiff in eviction proceedings under the Provincial Small Causes Court Act.

1. Heard Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Petitioner before this Court is admittedly a tenant in the suit property and it is for his ejectment that Small Cause Suit No. 2 of 2018 has been instituted before the Judge, Small Causes, Pilibhit by the contesting respondent who claimed to be a Trust managing the affairs of the Temple namely Gopal Mandir Virajman Thakur Ji Maharaj and Radha Ji.

3. Upon suit being instituted, petitioner moved an application under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 for return of the plaint on the ground that there was serious title dispute between the contesting plaintiff/ respondent and one Naresh Chandra Agarwal who claimed himself to be Shebait of the Temple and it was in that capacity that Mr. Agarwal had instituted a regular suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction, being Original Suit No. 195 of 2017.

4. Upon the said application filed under Section 23 of the Act being rejected by the Judge, Small Causes vide order dated 14.12.2022, petitioner preferred a revision being No. 30 of 2023 which also came to be dismissed on 28.11.2023 and hence this petition.

5. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold:

i). There being a serious title dispute as to the management of the Temple in question between the contesting plaintiff/ respondent, a Trust and one Naresh Chandra Agarwal, who claimed to be a Shebait in a suit instituted by later for permanent prohibitory injunction, the plaint in eviction suit before the Judge, Small Causes Court Act was liable to be returned.

ii). Both the courts below have manifestly erred in failing to appreciate a fact that petitioner having been depositing the rent in an account managed by Naresh Chandra Agarwal, the petitioner was not liable to be treated as tenant of Trust to maintain a suit for eviction at its instance.

 

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Tarun Agrawal has relied upon a concurrent bench judgment of this Court in Mst.

Bhagmani Devi v. VIII A.D.J. and Anr., 2011 (9) ADJ 567. He has also relied upon another judgment of this Court in the case of Gurmala & Ors v. Mohd. Ishaq & Ors, (2013) 99 ALR 624 and M. Siddiq (dead) through Legal Representatives (Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case) v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, (2020) 1 SCC 1.

7. Per contra, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff/ respondent is that a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction may invite the court to incidentally go into the question of title but this suit by itself cannot become a declaratory suit to raise a dispute of title by the plaintiff claiming as Shebait.

8. It is argued that taking the plaint allegations of the injunction suit in its entirety, it is admitted to the alleged Shebait that a Trust got created with the registration of Trust Deed to manage the affairs of the Temple and unless and until a decree to declare the Trust null and void in so far as management of temple is concerned, is prayed for, no title dispute prima facie can be said to have been raised.

9. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent has further argued that plaintiff of injunction suit namely Naresh Chandra Agarwal himself, upon being implicated in a criminal case for selling away properties of the Temple in collusion with the opposite party, as tenant of the temple, applied for bail, in which he denied himself to be Manager of Temple property and this fact having not been denied either in revision or before this Court, it does not lie in the mouth of the tenant to suggest that there was a serious title dispute to non-suit the plaintiff under Section 23 of the Act.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that core issue is as to whether the suit filed by Naresh Chandra Agarwal being O.S. NO. 195 of 2017 can be said to be a title suit as against the plaintiff/ respondent, to non-suit him by the tenant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document