Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 2019 - HC - Indian LawsSuit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land - Bhumiswami - Land and temple - defendants issued an advertisement inviting applications for for giving the suit land by way of auction for the year 1993-94 - whether the suit land is a private property of the plaintiff? - HELD THAT:- In revenue register the suit land/property neither recorded in the name of ancestors of the plaintiff or in the name of the Government. The land is recorded in the name of Mandir. The plaintiff has sought the relief in the plaint that a decree of declaration be passed that the property is neither the property of Okaf Department nor the Government and the advertisement is void and illegal and the defendants be restrained not to put the land on auction. The plaintiff had also challenged that the entry by which the name of Collector was recorded as Manager. The plaintiff did not claim the relief that he be declared owner of the temple and the land. Despite that the learned Trial Court has casted the burden on plaintiff to prove his ownership. Admittedly the land is recorded in the name of the temple then the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the temple is a private property. The name of Bhagwandas was recorded as Pujari of the temple not as an owner of the land and temple. Initially the name of Bhagwandas was recorded as Pujari which was replaced by the name of Ganeshlal and thereafter in the year 1974 the name of the Collector had been recorded as Manager. The plaintiff did not file any document to demonstrate that the name of his fore fathers was ever recorded as Bhumiswami. The plaintiff has successfully proved his possession over the suit land and his status as Pujari by way of oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-5. Therefore, the learned appellate Court has wrongly recorded the finding that the temple and the land is a private property of plaintiff and his ancestors. The plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership over the temple and land. Hence, findings recorded in sub-para (1) and (2) of Para 25 are perverse and liable to be set-aside. In the case of THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS PUJARI UTTHAN AVAM KALYAN SWAMITI [2015 (8) TMI 1514 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT], the Division Bench of this Court has held that the name of the Pujari cannot be removed from the revenue records and setaside the notification of the Government by which the direction was issued to record the name of the Collector as Manager. The Question is answered in favour of the appellant by setting-aside the finding that the land and temple are a private property of plaintiff and his ancestors and upheld the findings recorded so far as it relates to the deleting the name of Collector as a Manager from the revenue records and restraining the Collector to put the land for auction. Appeal allowed in part.
|