JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. Leave is granted to convert this petition into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioner plaintiff had filed a suit being Original Suit No. 211 of 1997 before the learned Civil Judge. (Junior Division). Haridwar, for injunction against the defendant opposite parlies. In connection with the said suit, he had filed an application for injunction, which was rejected by an order dated 30th May, 1998 passed by the learned trial court. A Civil Misc. Appeal No. 97 of 1998 was preferred by the plaintiff. By an order dated 31st May, 1999 the learned Additional District Judge. Second Court, Haridwar, had dismissed the said appeal. These two orders have since been challenged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S. K. Misra contends that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie as is apparent from the plaint and the application for injunction supported by an affidavit and also by production of documents on which he relied upon. But the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court relied on only on the documents in which the petitioner's name has been shown to have been recorded as Manager and had held that the petitioner cannot be the owner. At the same time had committed an illegality and Irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in relying upon the deed of trust executed in 1984 to deny the title of the petitioner and confer the title on the defendants on the strength thereof. He had also pointed out many other infirmities in both the orders and contended that the orders could not be sustained. Since the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case, therefore, the injunction application could not have been dismissed.
4. Mr. N. C. Rajvanshi learned counsel for the defendant opposite parties on the other hand contends that the 1984 trust was a elucidation of the trust, which existed since 1935 in respect of the properly on which the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was appointed as Priest and the father of the petitioner had always acted as Manager of the Dharamshala, being the disputed property and the petitioner had also acted as Manager thereof under the trustees. It is apparent from various documents which has been produced on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner or his father was only Manager of the property and were not owner, which is admitted position by reason of certain documents relied upon by themselves, which was executed some times in 1976-77. He had also produced various rent receipts granted by the trustees in favour of the various shops in respect of the properties. Thus, it appears that the plaintiff could not claim any Interest on the basis of title relying upon the documents showing the name of the plaintiff as Manager of the property. Even till today, there was no document in the form of sale seed or in the form of any deed to show that the plaintiff was the owner in respect of the property and has any kind of title thereto. There is nothing on record either in the form of khasra and khatauni or in the Assessment Register of the Nagar Palika to substantiate that the plaintiff was the owner of the property. According to him, both the courts below had correctly come to a finding of fact that the plaintiff was unable to make out a prima facie case since he could not show anything prima facie to prove his title to the property. There facts being concurrent findings of fact, this Court sitting in revision, cannot interfere. On these grounds, he seeks dismissal of this petition.
5. After having heard both the learned counsel, it appears that the learned trial court and the learned appellate court had relied on the documents in which the plaintiffs name was recorded as Manager in respect of the Dharamshala and that the plaintiff has not been able to produce any document of title in his favour and that on the other hand the defendant had produced a trust deed as well as various rent receipls and other documents from which it was clear that the defendants were the owners of the property. Xerox copy of the trust deed was produced by Mr. Rajvanshi in this Court. From the said trust deed, it appears that it was executed in 1984. That apart, the trust deed does not include or mention the property in dispute. Mr. Rajvanshi has not been able to point out from the trust deed anything from which it could be deciphered that the property in dispute was subject-matter of the trust deed. Mr. Rajvanshi then contended at the bar that another trust deed was executed before 1935. When he was asked to produce copy of the said trust deed, he had contended that it was an oral trust. He further contended that this property though was not mentioned in the 1984 trust deed but this property was handed over to the new trustees by the old trustees in 1987. Thus, it appears prima Jade that the right to the property is being claimed by the trustees pursuant to trust deed executed in 1984, which does not include the property, which had since been handed over to the trustees by the alleged old trustees in 1987. There is nothing to show that how these alleged trustees had become trustees nor there is anything on record to show that there was any oral trust. Even if it is alleged by affidavit, in that event there may be some substance in it but that is subject to the decision by the determination of the Court on the basis of evidence and materials that might be produced. At this stage, on the basis of the trust deed executed in 1984 and the alleged handing over of the property, it cannot be conclusively contended that the trustees are the owners of the property and thereby unsuit the plaintiff. On the other hand, it appears from Annexure-2F to the writ petition that a plan was sanctioned by the Nagar Palika some times in 1955 in respect of the property for construction. In the said plan, the said property was described as belonging to Sri Pandit Bhagirath Lal Sharma. In the plan it has been disclosed that the father of the plaintiff was the owner of the property and that he had obtained the said plan sanctioned for construction of the building an the property. That the father of the plaintiff had executed a Will on 20th November, 1963 on the basis of which the plaintiff had alleged to have acquired title to the property. Thus, the execution of the Will by the father of the plaintiff itself shows that the father of the plaintiff had treated the property as his own property. Even if he has no title still then he raised a presumption prima facie that he had exercised all the rights of ownership though he was described as Manager of the property in 1963 when he had executed the Will, which can be presumed to be an exercise of adverse possession. Even if 1963 is taken to be a date of assertion of adverse possession, by 1975 the said adverse possession must have been resulted into an absolute title. Then again he having obtained the plan sanctioned in 1955 in his own name stating the property belonging to himself. It seems that the father of the plaintiff had even asserted his title in the property in 1955. Thus, prima facie it can be shown that even if he has no title, but he could have acquired title by virtue of adverse title.
6. Be that as it may. Apparently, it seems that the plaintiff is in possession, which was also a finding of the learned courts below on the basis of Commissioner's report, which according to Mr. Rajvanshi has not been accepted and has not been decided by examination of the Commissioner and that too was a document which was of recent origin.
7. Be that as it may. From these materials, it appears that it cannot be denied that the plaintiff has not been able to make out a prima Jade case. At the same time, it also cannot be said that the defendants have been able to make out a conclusive title in their favour denying in totality the claim of the plaintiff. At best, on the basis of the materials on record, it can be said that there are some materials to show that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. Whereas at the same time, it can also be contended that the defendants have also been able to make out a prima facie case. In such circumstances, unless defendants' prima facie case out-weighs the prima facie case of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has failed altogether to make out a prima facie case. Then again having regard to the documents, namely, the plan sanctioned in 1955 and the deed executed in 1963, it seems that the origin of the plaintiffs title is earlier in point of time than those of the defendants who had been claiming relying on the documents after 1975 except the oral trust alleged to have been executed in 1935. In absence of any proof about the trust created in 1935 as on record, it cannot be conclusively contended that the plaintiff has failed altogether to make out a prima facie case.
8. Thus, it appears that both the Courts below had acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercising its Jurisdiction in rejecting the application for injunction. In the circumstances, it appears that this is a case fit for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. Accordingly the jurisdiction is so invoked. The orders dated 31st May. 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Second Court. Haridwar in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 97 of 1998 affirming the order dated 30th May, 1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Haridwar in Original Suit No. 211 of 1997 (both the orders) are set aside.
10. Let there be an order of status quo as of today with regard to possession, nature and character of the suit property. The plaintiff shall not be entitled to make any construction or addition or alteration or cause any damage or waste of the property till the disposal of the suit. In case of making repairs and painting for maintenance of the property, the parties may apply before the appropriate court for appropriate orders, if they are so advised.
11. The manner in which the suit has been contested appears to be terribly hot. It is expected that the learned trial court shall decide the suit as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date a copy of this order is produced before the learned trial court.
12. The petition is thus allowed to the extent above. No cost.
Let it be recorded that the observations made herein are tentative and shall not be taken note of while deciding the suit on merits.