Chhadrakanta Bai vs State of M.P

Prakash Shrivastava, J.

Heard on the question of admission.

This second appeal u/s 100 of the CPC has been filed challenging the concurrent judgment of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate court dated 31.7.2006 (C.S. No. 25-A/05) and 22.12.2007 (C.R.A. No. 10A/07), whereby the suit filed by the appellants has been dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court has been affirmed in appeal. The appellants had filed the suit for declaration and injunction pleading that they are the owner in possession of the suit land. The suit land is in a village situated in earlier Gwalior State and its Numberdar was Gowardhan and his ancestors had built Radhakrishna Mandir and Maruti Mandir several years back, and then Zamindar had appointed the ancestors of the appellants as Pujari in the temple and had given the suit land for offering the prayer in the temple. The ancestors of the appellants had continued in possession of the suit land as Muafidar and on the abolition of the Gwalior State and enactment of M.P. Land Revenue Code, they had become Bhumiswami. Kishanlal had died in 1978 and after his death the appellants had continued as Bhumiswami in the same capacity, but the Collector on some complaint had passed the order dated 31.7.2000 and an attempt was made to dispossess the appellants by entering the name of the deity with manager as Collector.

The suit was opposed by the respondents by taking the stand that the Radhakrishna Mandir and Maruti Mandir are situated since ancient time in village Limboda in Gwalior State and suit land was given as Muafi Land to the deity. The Pujari was appointed as per the prevailing rules for offering prayer to the deity and for maintaining the temple. The last such Pujari was Kanhaiyalal, who had died in 1978, Pujari had no Bhumiswami right and that the temple is a public temple and the appellants were trying to grab the property of the temple.

The two courts below have appreciated the evidence in detail and have reached to the conclusion that the Limboda village was a Zamindari village of Gwalior State and Gowardhan was its Numberdar. The two temples were built by the ancestors of the Gowardhan. The courts below on appreciation of the evidence have also found that the suit land was given to the ancestors of the appellants initially for offering prayer in the two temples. Both the temples are public temples, and in 1984 the name of the ancestors of the appellant was not recorded as Bhumiswami but it was recorded as Dakhalkar. The courts below have also noted that the suit land were the land of the deity (Dev Sthan) and they are registered in the record of the earlier Gwalior State as land of the "Dev Sthan", which makes it clear that the land was not the personal land of Gowardhan but they were the land given for Dev Sthan. It has also been found that the appellants had no Bhumiswami right on the suit land at any point of time. The trial Court has also recorded the admission of the appellants that they are not offering prayer in the temple and have stopped the same since 1997-98 and the Collector by declaring them ineligible, has appointed some other person as Pujari in the temple.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Anant Kibe and Others Vs. Purushottam Rao and Others, , in the matter of State of M.P. Vs. Vijaya Bai and Others, and the judgment dated 9.4.2013 passed in S.A. No. 538/2005 (Maruti Shri Ganpati Mandir and others Vs. State of M.P. and Another), has submitted that since the suit land was the Inami land, therefore, the appellants have become Bhumiswami of the said land. He has further submitted that Ex. P/8 and P/11 have not been properly considered.

On the perusal of the judgment cited by the counsel for the appellants, it is found that the said judgments are distinguishable on their own facts. In those judgments the land was given in Inam to Pujari by the Holkar State for offering prayer to the deity. The Inam was proved by the documents filed in the suit. In the present case, it is not the plea of the appellants in the plaint that the suit land was given in Inam to them. There is also no document filed by the appellants to show that the land was given in Inam by the Gwalior State to them. On the contrary, it has been found that the suit land was not the personal land of Zamindar Gowardhan, but it was given to him by Gwalior State for Dev Sthan. As per the appellants'' own case, the suit land was given by the Zamindar to the appellants'' ancestors. Thus, the courts below have committed no error in reaching to the conclusion that no Bhumiswami right had accrued to the appellants. In view of the concurrent finding of fact which have been recorded by the two courts below, no question of law arises in the matter. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed.