Full Judgment Text
1
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5041 OF 2009
Ramesh Das (Dead) Thr.Lrs. .…Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna,J.
1. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in Civil Suit
No.9A of 1996. The suit filed by the plaintiff was for the
relief of declaration and perpetual injunction. The trial
th
court through its judgment dated 14 October, 1996
decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The respondent
herein assailed the same before the lower appellate court in
C.A.No.88A of 1999. The lower appellate Court through its
th
judgment dated 18 May, 2001 set aside the judgment and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MAHABIR SINGH
Date: 2019.07.22
17:34:58 IST
Reason:
decree passed by the trial court. The plaintiff, therefore,
claiming to be aggrieved was before the High Court of
2
Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in the Second Appeal
filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The
same was registered as S.A. No.274 of 2001. The learned
Judge of the High Court having taken note of the
contentions was of the opinion that the appeal does not
involve any substantial question of law within the meaning
of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly,
the Second Appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved the
plaintiff/appellant is before this Court in this appeal.
2. The factual matrix leading to the suit is the claim of
the plaintiff that Shri Ram Mandir situate at Dedla Village,
Dhar Tehsil is a private temple which belonged to the
forefathers of the plaintiff, the temple was built out of their
own funds and the idol was installed by them. It is
contended that the family of the plaintiff was performing
the pooja for generations. It was pleaded in the suit that
the said Dedla Village was a Jagir Village of the former
Jagirdar. Since he was the devotee of Shri Ram Mandir the
Jagirdar gifted 25 bighas of land from his jagir village of
which the land in question bears Survey No.442. Prior to
3
1974 the name of Shri Ram Mandir and the name of
Laxmandas, Pujari of Shri Ram Mandir had been continued
in the Government records. The plaintiff on tracing the
family tree has contended that he has succeeded to the
said temple and the land. Being the son of the said
Laxmandas he claims that having thus succeeded he is
performing the pooja in the temple, he is in possession of
the land and is cultivating the same. The grievance that
prompted the filing of the suit is that according to the
plaintiff the SubDivisional Officer who had no manner of
th
right over the property, on 29 April, 1992 issued a notice
to auction the land in question for one year. The revision
st
filed by the plaintiff was rejected by the Collector on 1
September, 1992. In that view the plaintiff filed the suit
seeking declaration of his title and ownership over the land
and to hold that the defendants cannot auction or
dispossess the plaintiff.
3. The defendant having appeared in the suit filed a
detailed written statement disputing the claim put forth by
the plaintiff. The contention of the plaintiff that the temple
4
belongs to the family and the plaintiff had succeeded as
the pujari was also disputed. It was contended that the
pujari of the temple is appointed by the Government and
the father of the plaintiff though had performed pooja in
that regard the plaintiff is not the pujari of the temple as he
has not been appointed nor he has any right and title to the
disputed land. The manner of claim as put forth in respect
of the property was disputed and the Revenue entry as
stated by the plaintiff was explained that such entry was in
the name of the temple and the name of the father of the
plaintiff Late Laxmandas was only in the capacity of the
Manager of the temple. The name of the District Collector
has been recorded as Manager in the year 1974 as per the
directions of the State Government. According to the
respondent, Laxmandas did not make any objection during
his life time on deletion of his name. When Laxmandas did
not object for such deletion, Ramesh Das has no right to
th
raise objection. The auction held on 29 April, 1992 was
sought to be justified as the plaintiff had no right. It was
further contended that the procedure for appointment of
pujari was known to the plaintiff and he had also made an
5
application but since no pujari was appointed for the
temple and the land was not being utilised, the auction was
ordered for the benefit of the temple. In that view, the
defendants had sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. Taking note of the rival contentions, the trial court
framed four issues for its consideration. The plaintiff
examined himself as PW1 and relied upon the documents
at Exhibits P1 to P13. He examined one Shri Hari Singh
as PW.2. The defendants examined the witnesses DW1
and DW2 and also relied upon the documents at Exhibit
D. Series. The trial court on analysing the evidence
accepted the claim put forth by the plaintiff and on relying
upon the revenue documents which were marked by the
plaintiff, decreed the suit by holding that Ram Mandir as
private temple. The lower appellate court in the appeal
filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code while
reappreciating the evidence had considered the evidence
and has set aside the judgment of the trial court by holding
that plaintiff has not adduced any evidence that the suit
temple is a private temple. The High Court in the appeal
6
filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has
accepted the finding rendered by the lower appellate court
that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit temple is a
private temple.
5. In that background what arises for consideration
herein is as to whether the assessment of the evidence
made by the lower appellate court, which was accepted by
the High Court in the Second Appeal is based upon
evidence or as to whether the consideration made by the
trial court is appropriate. In that regard, though the
plaintiff as PW.1 has claimed that the land and the temple
constructed thereon belongs to their family and in that light
has not only claimed to be the owner of the property and
also contends that he is the pujari of the temple, the
fallacy of such claim is evident in the very pleading as put
forth inasmuch as the claim at the outset is to the effect
that Shri Ram Mandir Temple was built by the forefathers
out of their own pocket on the land in question. The
further averment is that the Jagirdar being the devotee of
the Ram Mandir gifted 25 bighas of land from his jagir. If
7
that be the pleading, as to how the temple was built before
the land as claimed was gifted would not stand answered.
Be that as it may, as rightly observed by the lower appellate
court and the High Court, no document of title to acquire
right and title over the land has been relied upon by the
plaintiff. The evidence of Shri Hari Singh PW.2 is also to
the said effect and has sought to assert that the people of
the village go to the temple for darshan and offer pooja.
That by itself does not prove the status of the land nor the
ownership as claimed by the plaintiff. Bandobasti Khasra
(Ex.D1) has been produced by the respondentdefendant
as per which the disputed land had been shown as “Inam
Devasthan”, being of the ownership of the temple and the
pujari has been shown as the Manager.
6. Though the plaintiff had relied upon the Revenue
entries which were marked in Exhibit P.Series, since we
have already taken note that there is no document of title
relied upon by the plaintiff, the Revenue entries are of no
assistance since as per the wellestablished position of law
the revenue documents do not create title. Even otherwise
8
as stated in the evidence of the defendants, the entries
initially were in the name of temple and none of the entries
contained the name of the plaintiff. Though initially the
name of the pujari in that background was indicated, the
Revenue entries were changed to that of the District
th
Collector in view of the Administrative Order dated 12
April, 1974. According to the respondentState, the entry
of the name of District Collector as Manager of the temple
properties dated 12.04.1974 has been done pursuant to an
order of the State Government in order to curb the
mismanagement of the temple properties at the hands of
the pujaris. When the name of the Collector has been
recorded as Manager in the year 1974, Laxmandas did not
make any objection during his life time on deletion of his
name. Despite the plaintiff claiming right to the property
based on the Revenue entries no grievance had been raised
at any given time earlier to the filing of the present suit.
Even in the suit presently filed the grievance made is with
regard to the auction dated 29th April, 1992 and the suit
itself was instituted in 1996.
9
7. As against the contentions put forth by the learned
senior counsel for the plaintiffappellant contending right of
the plaintiff over the property, the learned counsel for the
respondent, in addition to pointing out the conclusion
reached by the lower appellate court as also the High
th
Court has relied upon the judgment dated 27 February,
2019 (2019) 4 SCALE 302 Shri Ram Mandir Indore vs.
. This Court in the
State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
said appeal was considering a similar claim put forth in
respect of the property and had negatived the contention
put forth therein and dismissed the appeal. What is
necessary to be taken note at the outset is that in the said
case the Shri Ram Mandir Indore was before this Court and
the documents relied upon also referred to the status of the
land and the right claimed by the Mandir. However, the
claim as made to claim as a private temple was negatived.
In fact, in the instant case as rightly observed by the lower
appellate court the claim is not even by the temple or the
deity but the individual has made claim over the property
as if it is privately owned. In that background, the High
Court has also taken note that no document has been
10
relied upon by the plaintiff to claim ownership over the
property.
8. The learned senior counsel on being confronted
with the above aspects has contended that even if in the
absence of documents of title, when the Revenue entries
were to be changed to the name of the District Collector the
same could not have been made based on Administrative
th
Order dated 12 April, 1974 without giving opportunity to
the person whose name is entered in the Revenue
Registers. In that regard, the learned senior counsel has
th
placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 6
October, 2016 passed in C.A.No.8554 of 2015 titled as
State Government of Madhya Pradesh. & Ors. vs.
It is no doubt
Narsingh Mandir Chikhalda and Ors.
seen in the said judgment that this Court had adverted to
the provision as contained in Section 115 of the M.P. Land
Revenue Code, 1959 and keeping in view the provision had
arrived at the conclusion that any change in the Revenue
entry even to make correction of a wrong entry in the
Khasra and any other land records, it can only be done by
11
providing opportunity to the person in whose name the
Revenue entry subsists and is sought to be corrected.
9. Notwithstanding the legal position in that regard
cannot be disputed, the said judgment cannot be applied in
abstract. We say so for the reason that in the instant case,
as already noticed from the evidence as appreciated by the
courts below including the High Court it is evident that no
document of title was relied upon by the plaintiff herein to
establish his claim. Even the Revenue entry was not
individually in the name of the plaintiff but was being
claimed based on the entry of his father’s name with that of
the temple. On the other hand, in the cited case, the
temple itself was the plaintiff and was claiming the entries
in their name for which the document relied upon was a
th
registered gift deed dated 20 June, 1963. In that
background, it could be assumed that the Revenue entries,
if any, contained in the said case was in the background of
reliance placed on the gift deed and it is in that backdrop
the second substantial question of law relating to the
compliance of issuing notice under Section 115 of the M.P.
12
Land Revenue Code, 1959 had arisen for consideration. The
same was further in the background of the first substantial
question of law that was raised therein relating to the
status of the temple. In the instant case no substantial
question in the contest of ownership has arisen. If that be
the position the cited decision would not be of assistance to
the appellant herein.
10. Referring to Bandobasti Khasra (ExD1), the First
Appellate Court held that Ex.D1 is an important document
in which the disputed land has been shown as “Inam
Devsthan” and being of ownership of the temple and pujari
has been shown as the Manager and later, the name of the
District Collector, Dhar has been recorded and the said
position has been continuing. Based upon the evidence,
the First Appellate Court rightly held that mere statement
of the plaintiff and Hari SinghPW2, cannot prove the
disputed temple as a private temple, the First Appellate
Court held that in the Revenue record, the ancestors of the
plaintiff has been shown only as Manager and this position
has been shown in Ex.D1 also. In that circumstance, in
13
our considered view that as rightly observed by the High
Court in S.A.No.274 of 2001, no substantial question of law
as contemplated under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure had arisen for consideration. If that be the
position no issue arises for consideration in the instant
appeal as well.
11. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit
stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
……………………….J.
(R. BANUMATHI)
……………………….J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
July 22, 2019