Ramsewak vs Nazul Officer

Alok Aradhe, J.—Heard on the question of admission.

This appeal is by the plaintiffs who have lost in both the courts below.

The facts, giving rise to filing of the appeal, briefly stated, are that the plaintiffs filed the suit on the ground that one Mahant Rabhubardas had raised the construction of a temple on the lands bearing khasra numbers 1406, 1407, 1408, 1409 and 1410. On the aforesaid lands, garden and a well were also constructed by Mahant Rabhubardas. It was further pleaded that Mahant Rabhubardas during his lifetime vide Will dated 91.5.1922 handed over the property in question to the plaintiffs'' uncle. Thereafter the plaintiffs'' uncle, namely, Swami Ram was in possession of the property in question as a owner thereof. The plaintiffs'' uncle was issueless and executed a Will dated 9.7.1982 in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs acquired the title in respect of the aforesaid property by virtue of the aforesaid Will. In the year 2010 the plaintiffs filed the application for recording their names in the revenue record. However, their names were recorded only in respect of khasra numbers 1407 and 1410 and in respect of remaining lands, the names of the plaintiffs were not recorded. The Collector declared the temple to be a public temple. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

The defendants filed the written statement in which it was inter alia pleaded that the lands bearing khasra numbers 1407, 1408 and 1410 were recorded in the revenue record in the name of the State Government. It was further pleaded that the Collector vide order dated 19.4.2000 directed the temple to be recorded in the name of the State Government. It was also pleaded that lands bearing khasra numbers 1407, 1408 and 1410 did not belong to Mahant Rabhubardas and, therefore, he had no authority to allot the same to anybody.

The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2008 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The aforesaid decree has been affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective which resulted in erroneous finding and consequently an erroneous decree.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. Both the courts below on the basis of entries made in the revenue record particularly Exhibit P-20, have held that the lands in question belong to the deity and Mahant Rabhubardas has only been described as manager. The courts below on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record have held that Mahant Raghubardas had no authority to sell the property in question to anybody. The plaintiffs have not filed the Will which was allegedly executed on 9.7.1982. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to dislodge the concurrent finding of fact which are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record.

Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact u/s 100 of the CPC is well defined by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. This Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact until or unless the same is perverse or contrary to material on record. [See: Narayanan Rajendran and Another Vs. Lekshmy Sarojini and Others, , Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and Others, (2011) 7 SCC 189, Union of India (UOI) Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another, , D.R. Rathna Murthy Vs. Ramappa, Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, and Vanchalabai Raghunath Ithape (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Shankarrao Baburao Bhilare (D) by L.Rs. and Others, ]

The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record which by no stretch of imagination can be said either to be perverse or based on no evidence.

10 For the aforementioned reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the instant appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.