2011 (3) TMI 1817 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration of the suit property based on adverse possession.
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction.
3. Whether the suit is bad for want of necessary parties.
4. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form.
5. Relief.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Decree of Declaration Based on Adverse Possession:
The Appellant, Madan Lal Kaushik, claimed that he had been in peaceful physical possession of the property since 1943, inherited from his father, Pt. Badlu Ram. He asserted that his possession was legal and physical by virtue of adverse possession for more than 12 years. The Defendants countered that Badlu Ram was a paid employee of the Temple, and his occupancy was permissive, which ended upon his death in 1991. The court held that the Appellant's claim of adverse possession was unsustainable as his father was in permissive occupation, and the Appellant's possession for less than two years could not establish adverse possession.

2. Decree of Permanent Injunction:
The Appellant sought a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from dispossessing him. The court noted that the Appellant's claim of ownership through adverse possession was contradictory to his claim of inheritance from his father. The court found that the Appellant's occupation was unauthorized after his father's death, and thus, he was not entitled to a permanent injunction.

3. Suit Bad for Want of Necessary Parties:
The Appellant contended that the suit filed by Shree Yog Mayaji Temple was not maintainable as the Deity, a juristic person, was not impleaded as a party. The court observed that the suit was filed by the Deity, and the Plaintiffs No. 2 to 16 were co-owners and pujaris responsible for the Temple's administration. Thus, the suit was properly instituted.

4. Suit Maintainable in its Present Form:
The Appellant argued that the suit was not maintainable due to missing signatures on the plaint and verification. The court found that the suit was competent as the Deity was a juristic person, and the Plaintiffs were co-owners and in control of the Temple. Therefore, the suit was maintainable.

5. Relief:
The court dismissed the Appellant's suit for declaration and permanent injunction and decreed the suit filed by Shree Yog Mayaji Temple for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The court directed the trial court to adjudicate on the aspect of mesne profits.

Conclusion:
The court affirmed the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, holding that the Appellant's claims were contradictory and unsustainable. The suit filed by Shree Yog Mayaji Temple was properly instituted and maintainable. The appeal was dismissed, and the records were sent back to the trial court for adjudication on mesne profits.