JUDGMENT

This first appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.6.2003 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.11-A/2000 by which suit filed by the appellant for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been rejected.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in short are that a temple namely Shri Maruti Hanuman Ji Mandir is situated in Kadam Sahab ki Signature Not Verified Goth, Janakganj, Lashkar, Gwalior. Adjoining to this temple, House No.6/474 is situated and according to the plaintiff, house belongs to the deity. The house is the disputed property. It was the claim of the plaintiff that the temple and the house belongs to State Government being a mafi auqaf property and Manager of the said temple is Collector. Semu Bai was the previous priest and after her death, Vinayak Shankar Telang became the priest of Shri Maruti Hanumanji Temple who tendered his resignation in the year 1965. Thereafter, Ramkrishna Narayan Kasture was offering prayer and was managing the temple and was also residing in the disputed house which is adjoining to the temple. The S.D.O., Gwalior directed the Tehsildar to conduct an enquiry as to who is maintaining and offering puja in the temple. Accordingly, Tehsildar by order dated 15.1.1991 directed the R.I., Circle 2, Lashkar, Gwalior to carry out spot inspection and to collect information with regard to the maintenance as well as prayers. Accordingly, R.I., Circle 2, Lashkar, Gwalior submitted his report to the Tehsildar on 18.3.1991. Thereafter, Tehsildar sent his report along with the report of R.I., Circle 2 pointing out that for the last 25-26 years Ramkrishna Narayan Kasture is residing in the house and he is maintaining the temple. It was also mentioned in the report that the disputed house belongs to the deity. Accordingly, S.D.O., Gwalior by order dated 24.9.1991 passed in Case No.19/414/91 appointed Ramkrishna Narayan Kasture as the regular priest. It is also the case of the appellant / plaintiff that the name of the deity is mentioned in the record and in Column No. 9 of the said record, description of the house is mentioned. Thus, it is clear that the house which is adjoining to the temple is the property of the deity and owner of the said property is State of Madhya Pradesh as the property is mafi auqaf property. It was claimed that defendants No. 1 to 5 had no right and title in the disputed house and they are trying to grab the property by hook and crook. They are trying to Signature Not Verified dispossess the priest from the disputed property. Accordingly, priest had sent complaint to the concerning officers from time to time. It was further pleaded that defendants No. 1 to 5 with the help of other 10 to 15 persons had demolished the Pator constructed over one room of the house. It was further alleged that even the toilet and the tap were destroyed. It was further pleaded that defendants No. 1 to 5 even knowing that the property in dispute is the property of mafi auqaf department, which is being maintained by the Collector, executed two sale deeds. One was executed in favour of defendant No. 7 for a consideration amount of Rs.1,40,000/- and another sale deed was executed on the very same day in favour of defendant No. 6 for a consideration amount of Rs.1,40,000/- Thus, it was clear that defendants No. 1 to 5 had no right and title over the property and thus, both the sale deeds dated 25.3.1994 executed in favour of defendants No. 6 and 7 are null and void to the extent of right of the deity. It was further pleaded that the disputed house is still in possession of the deity and it has not been dispossessed. The fact mentioned in the sale deeds that possession has been given is false. Since defendants No. 1 to 5 have executed two sale deeds, therefore, title of the deity over the property in question has come under cloud. Therefore, suit was filed for declaration that the dispu