JUDGEMENT

Appellants / plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as 'C.P.C.') being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.07.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sardarpur, District Dhar (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No.67-A/1998, thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.04.1998 passed by the Civil Judge, Class I, Sardarpur, District Dhar (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.72-A/97, whereby suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction filed by the appellants has been partly decreed.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that Shri Ram temple (hereinafter referred as the 'disputed temple') was the personal temple owned by Jagirdar Bhopawar and the appellants / plaintiffs' ancestors received the disputed land / Muafi land (land exempted from payment of revenue) through the Jagirdar and the appellants' ancestors are the Muafidar. After abolition of Jagirdari of appellants' ancestors, they became the Pakka tenant and Bhumiswami of the disputed land and temple and also confers Bhumiswami rights. Respondents and their employees without providing any opportunity of hearing illegally mutated the disputed Muafi land in the name of Collector and plaintiffs' name as a Pujari were illegally removed from the Khasra and revenue records. They had continuously threatened the plaintiffs for dispossessing them from the disputed land and temple.

Hence, he prays that plaintiffs be declared Bhumiswami or Sabayatdar and permanent injunction be issued against the defendants to restrain them for committing any interference in the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land and the temple.

3. Respondent No.1 filed written statements and denied the plaint allegation with the contention that appellants / plaintiffs have no title over the suit land or temple. The suit land was not the Muafi land and after abolition of Jagirdari, plaintiffs did not obtain any title over the suit land.

The suit was neither properly valued nor requisite court fees was paid, therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed.

4. On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court has framed issues and after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties, partly allowed the suit filed by the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 25.04.1998. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, respondents/defendants have preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court and vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.07.2001, the first appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is contrary to law and facts, the appellate Court has erred in dismissing the suit of appellants / plaintiffs. The first Appellate Court has not considered that the temple was situated in Village Bhopawar, which belongs to the erstwhile Gwalior State and according to the list of the Government Temples maintained by the Aukaf Department, did not reveal the name of temple as a Government Temple. It was a private temple and the same was neither constructed by the State nor maintained by the State, therefore, respondent No.1 had no authority to auction the land of the said temple. Learned appellate Court has erred in not considering the provision of Section 57(2) of M.P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred as 'MPLRC'). Thus, in view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellants submits that appeal deserves to be admitted on the substantial questions of law so proposed by the appellants.

6. Per contra, counsel for respondent No.1 / State submits that impugned judgment passed by first appellate Court is duly based upon the cogent evidence available on record, therefore, it does not require for any interference.

7.