2018 (2) TMI 2019 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land - Bhumiswami - Land and temple - defendants issued an advertisement inviting applications for for giving the suit land by way of auction for the year 1993-94 - whether the suit land is a private property of the plaintiff? - HELD THAT - In revenue register the suit land/property neither recorded in the name of ancestors of the plaintiff or in the name of the Government. The land is recorded in the name of Mandir. The plaintiff has sought the relief in the plaint that a decree of declaration be passed that the property is neither the property of Okaf Department nor the Government and the advertisement is void and illegal and the defendants be restrained not to put the land on auction. The plaintiff had also challenged that the entry by which the name of Collector was recorded as Manager. The plaintiff did not claim the relief that he be declared owner of the temple and the land. Despite that the learned Trial Court has casted the burden on plaintiff to prove his ownership. Admittedly the land is recorded in the name of the temple then the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the temple is a private property. The name of Bhagwandas was recorded as Pujari of the temple not as an owner of the land and temple. Initially the name of Bhagwandas was recorded as Pujari which was replaced by the name of Ganeshlal and thereafter in the year 1974 the name of the Collector had been recorded as Manager. The plaintiff did not file any document to demonstrate that the name of his fore fathers was ever recorded as Bhumiswami. The plaintiff has successfully proved his possession over the suit land and his status as Pujari by way of oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-5. Therefore, the learned appellate Court has wrongly recorded the finding that the temple and the land is a private property of plaintiff and his ancestors. The plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership over the temple and land. Hence, findings recorded in sub-para (1) and (2) of Para 25 are perverse and liable to be set-aside. In the case of THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS PUJARI UTTHAN AVAM KALYAN SWAMITI 2015 (8) TMI 1514 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT , the Division Bench of this Court has held that the name of the Pujari cannot be removed from the revenue records and setaside the notification of the Government by which the direction was issued to record the name of the Collector as Manager. The Question is answered in favour of the appellant by setting-aside the finding that the land and temple are a private property of plaintiff and his ancestors and upheld the findings recorded so far as it relates to the deleting the name of Collector as a Manager from the revenue records and restraining the Collector to put the land for auction. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding land ownership
- Interpretation of revenue records and ownership rights
- Burden of proof on ownership and possession
- Appeal against judgment and decree

Analysis:
1. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction concerning the ownership of land registered in the revenue records in the name of a private temple. The plaintiff claimed possession from his forefathers and challenged an advertisement by the defendants inviting applications for auctioning the land. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was not the owner, and the government had the right to initiate proceedings regarding the land.

2. The Trial Court framed issues, including whether the suit land was the plaintiff's private property. Witnesses and documents were presented by the plaintiff to support his claim, while the defendants did not present any evidence. The Trial Court found against the plaintiff on ownership but partially decreed the suit in his favor, directing eviction and auction of the land.

3. The plaintiff appealed the judgment, and the Additional District Judge set aside the Trial Court's decision, ruling in favor of the plaintiff, stating the land and temple were his private property. The appellate court held that the defendants had no right to auction the land. The plaintiff's possession and the temple's ownership were key points in the judgment.

4. The plaintiff's possession over the land, as recorded in revenue documents, was crucial. The burden of proof was on the plaintiff to establish ownership, especially as the land was registered in the temple's name. The appellate court's decision was challenged based on the plaintiff's failure to prove ownership and the interpretation of revenue records.

5. Referring to a previous case involving Pujaris and temple properties, the judgment emphasized the significance of accurate revenue records and ownership rights. The appellate court's decision was partly overturned, emphasizing the deletion of the Collector's name as Manager from revenue records and restraining auction of the land. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining property rights and the role of Pujaris in temple management.

6. In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, with the appellate court's findings on ownership and possession being upheld. The judgment emphasized the need for accurate documentation and the burden of proof in establishing ownership rights over disputed properties.