JUDGEMENT

This is a Second Appeal filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs against the following judgments;

[i]

Judgement and decree dated 20.12.1996 passed in Civil Suit No.313-A/1994 by 3rd Civil Judge, Ujjain whereby suit has been partly decreed with certain directions.

[ii]

Judgement and decree dated 30.07.2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Appeal No.40-A/2000 whereby the First Appeal has been dismissed.

[2]

The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of land survey No.332/1, area 5.466 (new survey No. 136 area of 5.42 hectares), survey No.426 area 2.895 ( survey No.139 area 2.50 hectares total area 7.92 hectare) total area 8.361 stiauted at Village Amodiya, Tehsil Ghatiya and SriRam Mandir, Malipura (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’). According to the plaintiffs, they have been exclusive owners and occupiers of the suit land since the lifetime of their forefathers and they are cultivating the same. They owned the private temple in the name of Shri Ram Mandir situated in their house in the village of Malipura, Ujjain. This temple was established by the forefathers of the plaintiffs in which the government did not grant any financial aid. The Jagirdar Shri Sardar Agrane being happy with the devotion and worship of the forefathers of the plaintiffs granted them the suit land free of cost, therefore, the government has no title over the said land. It is also pleaded that from the year 1979, the Tehsildar started the auctioning of the suit land but the plaintiff obtained suit lands in the auction under the protest reserving their right to establish the title of the land. In the year 1980- 81, the Tehsildar continued to auction the land but the plaintiffs remained in the possession. Later on, the defendants changed the entry in the revenue book and recorded the name of the Collector as Manager of the land and temple which gave a cause of action for filing the suit for declaration and title in respect of the suit land and temple.

[3]

The defendant/State filed a written statement by submitting that the suit land was not given to the forefathers of the plaintiffs by way of Mafi. They were only given the right to worship as deity in the government temple. As per the orders of the government, the Pujari is only entitled to retain the 10 acres of the land and the remaining land is liable to be given on lease by way of auction. The defendant/State specifically denied that the Shri Ram Temple is the private temple of the plaintiffs. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Civil Court framed 7 issues for adjudication which are as under:-

1 अ. या वाद त भूिम वादगण के पूवजो को त कािलन जागीरदार ी सरदार अेने माफ के प म द थी माणत ब. यद हा तो या तभी से वाद के पूवज एवं वतमान म वादगण का िनबाध आिधप य चला आ रहा है माणत 2 अ. या ितवाद ारा करायी जा रह वाद त भूम िनलामी अवैध है िनणय के पैरा . 27 के अनुसार िनराकृ त ब. या वादगण िनलामी म जमा कराई गयी लीज क रािश वापस ा त करने के अिधकार है िनणय के पैरा . 27 के अनुसार िनराकृ त

3. या ी राम मंदर मालीपुरा उ जैन वादगण के पूवजो ने थापत कया होकर वादगण क िनजी संप है अमाणत 4. या वादगण ारा धारा 80 सी.पी.सी. को नोटस न दये जाने के अभाव म वाद चलन यो य नह है दनांक 21-10-94 के आदेशानुसार िनराकृ त अमाणत

5. या वादगण ने कम याय शु क चुकाया है दनांक 21.10.94 के आदेशानुसार िनराकृ त 6. या वादण ारा धारा 57(2) म.. भू-राज व संहता के अंतगत अनुवभागीय अिधकार के सम कोई कायवाह नह कये जाने के कारण वाद चलन यो य नह है दनांक 21.10.94 के आदेशानुसार िनराकृ त

7. सहायता एवं यय अंितम पैरानुसार [4]

Both the plaintiffs examined themselves as PW-1 and PW- 2 respectively. The plaintiffs exhibited 31 documents as Ex. P/1 to P/31. In defence, the defendant examined, Mangilal, the then Patwari of P.H.No.12, Ghatiya as DW-1, Arjun Singh, the then Tehsildar as DW-2. After appreciating the evidence that came on record, the learned Civil Judge while answering the i