Vishan Singh vs Shri Mandir Shri Ramjnki Ji

J.K. Maheshwari, J.—Heard on the question of admission.

This appeal is by the plaintiffs directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2005 passed by Additional District Judge Mungawali in Civil Appeal No. 32A of 2000 confirming the finding recorded by judgment and decree dated 31.3.2000 passed by Ist Civil Judge Class I Mungawali in Civil Suit No. 8A of 1999 whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

The plaintiffs'' case in brief is that the land of Survey No. 126 area 0.063 Hectares and also the Survey No. 65 area 3.648 Hectares and Survey No. 123 area 0.094 Hectares is of the Imrat Singh. While the land bearing Survey No. 240 area 1.620 Hectares is of the possession of Malkhan Singh. It is said that on the date of Zamindari Abolition Act (hereinafter it be called as "Abolition Act"), they were recorded as Pucca Krishak, however, as per section 38 of Abolition Act, they have acquired right, title and interest in the suit property. It is further said that the original holder Kashiram was died. Thereafter, the name of defendant No. 7 was recorded who sold the land to Malkhan Singh by registered sale deed dated 3.4.1964. Accordingly, they have become absolute owner of the suit property, however, the declaration of title has been sought for, with further prayer seeking injunction.

Defendants No. 1 to 8 by filing written statement denied the plaint averments inter alia contending that the land is recorded in the name of Mandir Ramjanki and Hanuman Ji which is Maufi land. Thereupon, public trust has been registered, however, on Maufi land, the provisions of Zamindari Abolition Act do not attract and by virtue of adverse possession, title do not accrue to them. In such circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiffs cannot be decreed. It is further stated that Bhagwati Prasad having no right to sell the property because, his name was recorded as Pujari. Therefore also, on the Maufi land by virtue of the sell deed executed by Bhagwati Prasad, no right accrues to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the suit may be dismissed.

Learned courts below after framing various issues and appreciating the evidence brought on record, found that the land in question is Maufi land whereupon, the plaintiffs do not acquire any right, title or interest, however, the declaration as prayed for has been refused. The court has also refused to grant injunction holding that they have no right on the suit land being Maufi land.

Shri J.P. Mishra and Shri Rishikesh Bohre learned counsel representing appellants submit the plaintiffs were recorded as Bhumiswami continuously in the revenue papers and they were recorded as Pucca Krishak on the date of commencement of the Abolition Act and thereafter on commencement of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, by operation of law, they have become absolute owner of the suit property. The courts below have not acted in right perspective, however, the finding recorded by them is perverse. However, formulating substantial question of law, this appeal may be admitted for final hearing.

Per contra, Shri K.B. Chturvedi learned Senior Counsel as well as Shri Rathi Government Advocate placing reliance on the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Kanchaniya and others Vs. Shiv Ram and others, submit that as per revenue entries, it is apparent that the land in question is a Maufi land. On the said land, rights of a occupancy tenant or a pucca tenant do not accrue. Therefore, the courts below have rightly dismissed the suit. The said finding of fact, concurrently recorded by two courts below do not warrant any interference and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, however, it may be dismissed at the admission stage.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record and the document of defendants Ex. D/9 which is revenue entry of 1951-52 it is apparent that the said land is recorded as Maufi land. In the Khasra entries Ex. P/8 in Samvat 2008 also, similar entry is there. As per entry Ex. D/13 of Samvat 2013, it is recorded in the name of Ramjanki Mandir Pujari Bhagwati Prasad. The aforesaid fact also indicates that the land in question is not of the individual right and ownership, but it is a Maufi land recorded in the name of temple and Bhagwati Prasad as Pujari. In such circumstances, the sale deed executed by Bhagwati Prasad do not confer any right on the plaintiffs. In addition thereto, on the Maufi land, as per the provisions contained u/s 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act, right, title and interest do not accrue to the plaintiffs. In that view of the matter, the finding of facts concurrently recorded by two courts below do not warrant any interference in this appeal. Simultaneously, if any person is recorded as Pujari on the land of Temple, the capacity of such person is of Manager, not better from it. In this regard, guidance can safely be taken from judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Kanchaniya (Supra).

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any substance in this appeal and no substantial question of law arises for consideration, hence, it is dismissed at the admission stage. So far as the constitution of public trust on the Maufi land is concerned, if any litigation is initiated by the plaintiffs, it would be decided in accordance with law without influencing the finding recorded in this suit.