9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Possession of lands in question - Recognition of deities as private deities - Refusal by Government to hand over possession - Cancellation of notification declaring temples as public trusts - Rejection of counter-affidavit by High Court - Absence of reply to special civil applications - Prima facie evidence of right to possession Possession of lands in question: The judgment involves a dispute over possession of lands between the parties. The respondent, who succeeded his father as the jagirdar, claimed ownership of specific survey numbers assigned to family deities. Despite various payments made by the Government to the deities, possession of the survey numbers was not handed over to the respondent. The High Court ultimately directed the appellants to hand over possession of the lands to the respondent. Recognition of deities as private deities: The respondent claimed that the deities assigned the survey numbers were recognized as his private deities by the Government. Payments were made to the pujari of the deities from the income of the disputed lands. Additionally, the respondent dedicated one of the temples to the public and had a trust registered for its management. The High Court acknowledged the recognition of the deities as private deities of the respondent. Refusal by Government to hand over possession: Despite the recognition of the deities as private deities and various payments made to them, the Government refused to hand over possession of the survey numbers to the respondent. This led to the respondent filing special civil applications in the High Court to quash a notification declaring the temples as public trusts and to seek possession of the lands. Cancellation of notification declaring temples as public trusts: The Government canceled the notification declaring the temples as public trusts on June 29, 1965. However, the High Court clarified that the cancellation did not resolve the issue of possession of the survey numbers, which still needed to be decided. The cancellation of the notification did not render the special civil applications moot. Rejection of counter-affidavit by High Court: The appellants failed to file a counter-affidavit despite multiple adjournments and opportunities to do so. The High Court proceeded ex parte as the appellants did not submit their affidavit. The court rejected a belated attempt by the appellants to file the affidavit, citing inordinate delay and the absence of a valid reason for the delay. Absence of reply to special civil applications: Due to the absence of a reply affidavit from the appellants, the High Court accepted the statements made by the respondent in his special civil applications as prima facie evidence of his right to possession of the lands in question. The lack of a counter-affidavit left the High Court with no specific grounds to challenge the respondent's assertions. Prima facie evidence of right to possession: The absence of a reply affidavit from the appellants resulted in the High Court accepting the respondent's statements as prima facie evidence of his right to possession. The appellants' failure to provide a counter-affidavit hindered their ability to challenge the respondent's claims effectively. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the respondent was awarded costs in one set only. In conclusion, the judgment addresses the possession dispute, recognition of deities as private deities, refusal of the Government to hand over possession, cancellation of the public trust notification, rejection of the counter-affidavit, absence of reply to the applications, and the acceptance of respondent's statements as prima facie evidence of his right to possession.
|
