Back
1 F.A.No.253/2001
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
:SINGLE BENCH:
{HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK}
FIRST APPEAL NO.253/2001
Ramkrishna Sharma
Vs.
State of M.P. & Anr.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.K. Gupta, learned senior counsel with Shri Santosh Agrawal,
learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vijay Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting : Yes
Law laid down:
1.
It is settled in law that Shebaitship is like immovable property, it
is hereditary and heritable office and at the same time
Shebaitship is having no right to sale the office nor it can be
mortgaged or leased. Ram Ratan Vs. Bajrang, AIR 1978 SC
1393 and Profulla Chorone Vs. Satya Chorone, AIR 1979 SC
1682 relied.
2.
Section 110 of Indian Evidence Act give effect to a well known
principle of law, common to all system of jurisprudence, that
possession is prima facie evidence of title. A long, peaceful and
lawful possession of the plaintiff lends presumption of title.
State of Gujarat Vs. Allauddin Babumiya Shaikh, AIR 1990
SC 2220, Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. Vs.
2 F.A.No.253/2001
Collector and others, AIR 2003 SC 1805, State of Andhra
Pradesh and others Vs. Star Bone Mill and Fertiliser
Company, (2013) 9 SCC 319 and M. Siddiq (Dead) Through
Legal Representatives (Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case) Vs.
Mahant Suresh Das and others, (2020) 1 SCC 1 relied.
3.
dokvn ekQhnkjku tqTos vkjkth o uDnh] fj;klr Xokfy;j]
lEor 1991 makes a mechanism for cash grant to religious
places (nsoLFkku) irrespective of their status, whether
Private/Public or State owned temples.
4.
In the present case, temple declared to be Private temple on
which Public Trust cannot be created.
***************
N.K.Gupta,Advocate General
(Delivered on 22nd day of April, 2022)
Instant appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated
30-11-2001 passed by the XII Additional District Judge,
Gwalior in Civil Suit No.30-A/2001 whereby the suit preferred
by the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed.
Facts in brief for adjudication are that suit for declaration and
permanent injunction was filed by the appellant as plaintiff
against the respondents/defendants with the pleadings that
property by way of house situate at house No.39/720 Jiwaji
Chowk, Bada Lashkar District Gwalior is his ancestral property
3 F.A.No.253/2001
in which deities Shri Hanuman Ji, Shri Ram Janki Ji and Shri
Mahadev Ji were installed and anointed by his ancestors. House
was constructed around 200 years back and thereafter these
deities were established by his ancestors while bringing the
statues from Rajasthan. This temple is their personal temple and
since inception they are taking care of the temple and whole
management of the temple is being undertaken by the plaintiff.
Prior to him, his ancestors were managing the temple by their
own funds and time to time constructions of different nature
were raised by the plaintiff and his ancestors. All festivals were
being organized by the plaintiff and earlier to him their
ancestors.
As pleaded, plaintiff's ancestor Mangilal was managing the
temple (and the property) as owner of the property and
thereafter his son Keshavdev took the responsibility. After his
death his brother Ramswaroop, who was father of plaintiff was
involved in maintenance of temple and offering Pooja to the
deities.
In 1974 at the instance of some disgruntled people (tenants
evicted by plaintiff) enquiry was conducted vide case No.2/74-
75-B/121 in the Court of Additional Tahsildar, Gwalior and
after enquiry Tahsildar vide order dated 05-12-1974 found that
temple is not Government temple but it is personal and private
property. No nemnuk (cash grant) was given by the Government
4 F.A.No.253/2001
and matter was dropped.
5.
As per the appellant/plaintiff, some tenants who were earlier
inducted by the plaintiff's ancestor in part of the premises, suit
for eviction was filed as owner of the suit property and same
was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 09-03-1978
by IV Additional District Judge, Gwalior and the same was
affirmed by this Court in First Appeal No.18/1978 vide
judgment and decree dated 19-04-1989 (Ex-P/20).
6.
It is pleaded that the tenants who were earlier inducted by the
plaintiff's ancestor in part of the premises made some
complaints and on the basis of those complaints, Additional
Tahsildar again issued notice on 02-04-1978 and notification
was issued on 25-04-1978 for appointment of Pujari. Therefore,
with said cause of action, suit has been filed and it was pleaded
that respondents cannot harass the plaintiff and sought relief for
declaration of right and permanent injunction.
7.
Written statement was filed by the State as defendants and
admitted the fact about existence of temple called Baade Ke
Hanuman (ckM+s ds guqeku) but denied ownership of premises
of plaintiff. Facts pleaded in para 2 to 5 have been denied not
in specific term but general denial was made and so far as
pleadings in para 7 of the plaint is concerned defendants
pleaded ignorance about the same and according to them
judgment earlier passed between two different parties is not
5 F.A.No.253/2001
binding over them. According to defendants, nemnuk was
regularly given to the plaintiff and his ancestors, therefore,
temple was public temple.
8.
Special objections were raised by the defendants from para 19
to 26 in which it has been mainly pleaded that earlier one
Devkinandan was appointed as Pujari on behalf of Gwalior
State (native ruler) and he received nemnuk from the concerned
Muafi Department and after his death his son Pannalal bein
