Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record along with the two judgments recorded by Trial Court and lower Appellate Court dated 21.3.2006 affirming the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
The plaintiff-respondents Shiv Parvati situate in Shiv Parvati Temple, village Amodha, P.O. Ghughali, Tehsil and District Mahrajganj and the Managing Committee of the temple had filed a suit no.1994 of 1985 (Shiv Parvati and Others Vs. Kailashpuri and another) for cancellation of sale deed dated 7.8.1984 and will deed dated 14.11.1987 executed by one Kailash puri in favour of the defendants , Shantipuri, Laxman etc. As per the plaintiff- respondents Shiv-Parvati Temple is existing for more than 150 years in the aforesaid village. The Virajman deities of Shiv and Parvati are being worshiped by the villagers of the area. This temple is a public temple and was being managed by a committee. It has been highlighted before the court that for the purpose of worship deity and other religious services to be rendered in the temple, Mahant, Pujari were inducted by the management of the temple and in the same service earlier one Mahant Mangal Puri was appointed to render religious service in the temple. After his death, Gaurishanker, Hariharpuri and Jagdishpuri were appointed. Mahant Jagdish Puri had died in the year 1972. He was succeeded by his disciple (Chela) Kailashpuri. His name was entered in the record and Gram Pradhan etc. were the Manager of the Managing Committee of the temple. The Managing Committee later on learnt that Mahant Kailashpuri had executed a sale deed in respect of the temple and its land in favour of his own son Lakshman (defendant-appellant). A will was executed on 14.11.1987 and it was pleaded before the Trial Court that Mahant Kailashpuri was merely a Pujari to carry out the religious rites, Puja, Archana in the temple. No ownership rights were ever given to these persons. Several documents were placed before the courts below and witnesses were examined. Both the courts have taken note that Jagdish Puri, the earlier Mahant had executed a will on 1.1.1971, appointing Kailash Puri as next Mahant. Kailash Puri was a married person having children. It was also brought on record that Guru-Shisya/Chela Parampara was taken note of by the court on the basis of the documentary evidence placed as 26 Ga,27Ga, 28Ga, 29Ga, 30Ga, 115Ga, 118 Ga, 119Ga, 121Ga in the revenue entries relating to year 1333-1329 Fasli and1359-1356 Fasli. The name of occupants were shown in order to show Guru-Shishya/Chela parampara. Nothing was demonstrated that the property in dispute i.e. Shiv Parvati Temple and the land was self-acquired for ancestral of Kailash Puri. Right from the days of Mahant Mangal Puri to Jagdish Puri, all the disciples (Chela) were not having issues. They may not be Grehasthya (married).
This traditions was disturbed when Lakshman was inducted as disciple of Kailash Puri. He was a married and having family. Both the courts have noted that these persons were engaged in worshiping deities and carry out day to day function in Hindu temple. Both the courts below have noted that the property belonged to Shiv-Parvati Temple and defendants were its Pujari. The court has also taken note of paper no.185Ga that in the proceedings before S.D.M. Sadar, Mahrajganj in case no.8 of 106 under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act, Land Management Committee Vs. Shantipuri, a judgment has been passed which shows that gata no.14 measuring area 2.72 Acres was the property of Shiv-Parvati Temple Shantipuri Chela Kailash Puri was recorded as Sarvarakar. Lakshman (defendant-appellant herein), who is claiming title over the land in dispute on the basis of the sale-deed and will deed was party to this litigation. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded a clear finding of fact that the area shown as Ka, Ga was recorded in the name of Shiv-Parvati Temple and Shantipuri (respondent herein) was recorded as Sarvarakar Hindu. Once it has been held by the court that Shantipuri, Kailashpuri etc. was Sarvarakar of Shiv-Parvati Temple, they were not empowered to execute a sale deed on 7.8.1984, wrote a will in respect of the property, which was not owned by them or acquired by Kaiash Puri or was devolved on him through some land of succession. The Trial Court had decided the issue against the Lakshman. What is the nature the Guru-Shishya Parampara, has been taken note of by the courts below in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court and this Court. Both the courts have dealt with 11 issues, which were framed by the Trial Court in detail. Both the courts have taken note of the revenue entries and found that for the last 105 years, the temple and the land of the Shiv-Parvati Temple was recorded in the name of Virajman Deity i.e. Shiv Parvati. The person engaged for carrying out religious service in the temple as Sarvarakar has no right to sell the property of temple. Both the courts have weighed the judgment of the court and documents to record such findings of fact. The admission of Kailash Puri was recorded by both the courts shows that the Virazman deity Shiv- Parvati were the owner of the property and Kailash Puri had conceded before the Revenue Court that he was a Sarvarakar.
The appellant before the lower Appellate Court and this court has submitted that the dispute was barred by Section 49 of the C.H.Act and he has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court reported in 2001 (92) RD 241 SC, Shri Ram and another Vs. 1st Additional District Judge and Others in support of his submissions. In para 25 and 26 of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, this point has been dealt with in detail that no document was placed before the court below as to when Section 4 under C.H.Act and when the Consolidation Proceedings were concluded as per Section 52 of the C.H. Act. The court below has taken note of the document 14 Ka, which shows that Kailash Puri had himself expressed his mind that parties may reach at the compromise before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. If the sale deed was executed on 7.8.1984, permission of the competent court i.e. Settlement Officer, Consolidation ought to have been taken by the Vendor. As far as execution of 25 Kha is concerned, it was carried out in respect of property indicated as Ka and Ga. No document or evidence was found to demonstrate before the courts below that the suit relating to sale deed was barred by C.H.Act and this argument was found to be of no avail to the appellant. This court also founds that the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case, where it has been concurrently found by the two courts below that the appellant Lakshman has no right to sell the property of land belonging to Virajman Deity i.e. Shiv Parvati Temple. There appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the judgment rendered by the courts below.
No substantial question of law is made out and the appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.1.2010 pks