State Of Uttarkhand vs Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj

CIVIL APPEAL No.4096 OF 2008

State of Uttarakhand & Anr. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the defendants against the final

judgment and order dated 17.04.2007 passed by the High

Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in First Appeal No.51 of 2005

whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the

appellants herein and affirmed the judgment and decree dated

30.03.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/X

F.T.C., Dehradun in O.S. No. 318 of 1996.

2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, it

is necessary to set out the relevant facts infra.

Signature Not Verified

3. Appellant No.1 is defendant No.1-State of Uttarakhand Digitally signed by VINOD LAKHINA Date: 2017.09.12 18:04:11 IST Reason: (earlier part of State of UP) and appellant No. 2 is defendant

1 No.2 - Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) whereas the respondent

is the plaintiff in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.

4. The respondent (plaintiff) is one-Bharat Bhushan

Bharati. He has described himself as “Mahant" and "Manager"

of one temple known as “Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj" situated

in the midst of thick forest near one village named "Harawala"

Pargana, Pachwa District, Dehradun (Uttarakhand).

5. On 27.05.1996, the respondent filed a civil suit

(O.S.No.318/1996) in the name of “Temple Sri Laxman Sidh

Maharaj" describing himself in the cause title of the plaint as

"Mahant" and "Manager" of the temple.

6. In Paras 1 and 2 of the plaint, the respondent averred

that the temple in question is located in the thick forest near

Harawala. It is an ancient temple wherein the deity of Lord

Shiva is installed from time immoral (5-6 thousand years). It

has shrines of some saintly persons, who attained Godhood

and also has one “Kund” where there exists continuous fire.

7. In Para 3, it is averred that there was one person by

name Basant Bharatji who was earlier "Mahant" of the temple.

He died in 1982. During his lifetime, he had nominated the

2 respondent (plaintiff) as "Mahant" as his successor. This is

how the respondent became “Mahant" and "Manager" of the

temple in question for managing the affairs of the temple.

8. In Paras 4 and 5, it is averred that thousand of devotees

visit the temple every year and perform puja and other

religious ceremonies of the deity and the shrines.

9. In Paras 6 and 7, it is averred that the temple along with

Dharmshala for the benefit of devotees and “Kund” is

surrounded by 5 acres of land. Since the Dharamshala is

quite old (200 years or so) and required extensive repairs, the

respondent (plaintiff) started to carry out some repair work

but the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) - defendant No.2 of the

concerned area, on 05.04.1996, objected the respondent from

carrying out the repairs in the Dharamshala saying that the

respondent cannot do any kind of repair work and hence the

respondent became aggrieved and filed the civil suit seeking

for a declaration that, (1) the plaintiff (respondent) - temple is

the owner of the land specified in Schedule to the plaint; and

(2) permanent injunction restraining the State and its

authorities not to interfere in the respondent-plaintiff's

3 possession over the lands and the constructions made

thereon.

10. In Para 8, it was averred that due to urgency, the

respondent (plaintiff) seeks exemption from serving notice to

the State under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code”. The suit was

valued at Rs.20,00,000/- on payment of fixed court fees and

was filed in the Court of Civil Judge (senior division),

Dehradun.

11. Appellant No.1 (State) as defendant No.1 along with DFO

(defendant No.2)-respondent No.2 herein filed their written

statement and denied all averments of the plaint set out

above.

12. The Trial Court framed 7 issues, which read as under:

“1) Is the temple Sri Laxman Sidh Ji Maharaj is in actual physical possession of the piece of land admeasuring 5 acres situated at Village Harrawala, District Dehradun without any let or hindrance for the last thousands of years?

2) Has the plaintiff got right to raise the construction on the disputed land?

3) Can the permission for raising the construction over the disputed land not be given to the plaintiff as has been mentioned in paras 6 and 7 of the plaint of the plaintiff?

4 4) Relief.

5) Is years old well belonging to the plaintiff situated at a short distance from the temple, feeds the temple precincts through a pipe line?

6) Is the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable?

7) Has the suit been undervalued and insufficient court free has been paid?”

13. After framing the abovementioned issues and recording

the evidence, the Trial Court by judgment/decree dated

30.03.2002, partly decreed the suit. It was held that the

plaintiff is the owner of the land admeasuring 3.573 acres

mentioned in the schedule to the plaint by virtue of their

adverse possession but the plaintiff is not the owner of one

well except to the extent that he will have a right to enjoy the

easementary rights over the well to take water from the well.

The Trial Court also issued permanent injunction against the

State and their authorities not to interfere in the plaintiff’s

possession and also not to interfere in their right to undertake

construction work in the temple and Dharmshala.

14. It is apposite to reproduce the operative part of the decree

passed by the Trial Court hereinbelow in verbatim which reads

as under:

5

"The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the plaintiff shrine Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj is declared as an owner by virtue of adverse possession in respect of property admeasuring 3.573 acres, as depicted in red colour in Site Plan 49-A attached with the plaint, but the plaintiff is not the owner of the property of well, as depicted in red colour in Site Plan 49-A, but the plaintiff/temple has the easementary rights to take water from the said well and the defendants are permanently restrained from interfering in the possession or construction being raised by the Mahant in the property of temple and from creating obstruction in the way of plaintiff in taking water from the well as depicted in Site Plan 49-A attached with the plaint. The Site Plan 49-A-1/3 attached with the plaint shall form part of the judgment and decree.”

15. The State, felt aggrieved of the aforesaid

judgment/decree, filed first appeal before the High Court of

Uttarakhand. The Division Bench of the High Court by

impugned order dismissed the appeal and affirmed the

judgment and decree of the Trial Court quoted supra which

has given rise to filing of the appeal by the defendants by way

of special leave before this Court.

16. Heard Ms. Shilpi Satya Priya Satyam, learned counsel for

the appellants and Ms. V. Mohana, learned senior counsel for

the respondent.

17. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on

6 perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow

the appeal and while setting aside of the impugned order

dismiss the suit filed by the respondent as being wholly

misconceived.

18. At the outset, we are constrained to express our total

displeasure on the casual manner in which both, the Trial

Court and the High Court, decided the suit and the appeal. If

we may say so, it only shows total non-application of their

judicial mind while deciding the case. It will be clear from the

discussion made hereinbelow.

19. We have set out the averments of the plaint supra to

show that a relief of declaration of ownership over the suit

properties and injunction was sought on these averments.

20. To begin with, in our considered opinion, the plaint

completely lacked of necessary material pleadings and

particulars for claiming a declaration of title over the suit

property (temple and land) and permanent injunction.

21. Secondly, the necessary material pleadings in such case

ought to have been as to how and on what basis, the plaintiff

claimed his ownership over such a famous heritage temple

7 and the land surrounding the temple. The plaintiff, i.e., Sri

Bharat Bhushan Bharti, who had styled himself as ‘Mahant”

and “Manager” of the temple, ought to have pleaded necessary

details such as, whether he claimed the right of ownership

through his forefathers and, if so, who were they and whether

they constructed the temple with their own resources and, if

so, in which year?

22. Thirdly, whether the plaintiff's forefathers were allotted

the land in question pursuant to any grant or patta or lease or

license or any kind of written permission for constructing the

temple on such land by the State and, if so, its details ought

to have been pleaded.

23. Fourthly, whether the plaintiff's forefathers ensured

compliances of such grant etc. if grant was made and whether

the construction of the temple was for the family as a private

temple or for the benefit of public at large as the case may.

These facts also ought to have been pleaded.

24. Fifthly, how and in what manner, the present plaintiff

claims to be or/and is related to the forefathers, who

constructed the temple around 5000-6000 years back for

8 tracing the plaintiff’s right of inheritance through family

pedigree. These facts also ought to have been pleaded.

25. Sixthly, when the plaintiff claimed a right of management

of the temple and its property as "Mahant/Pujari" or

"Manager", then he ought to have pleaded as to on what basis,

he was claiming the post of "Mahant/Pujari” or "Manager" -

was it through his forefathers or through any other channel

and who, according to him, was the owner of the temple; and

who nominated him as Mahant/Pujari; and whether it was by

any written order; and, if so, on what terms and conditions

and whether such person had any such authority to nominate

the plaintiff or was it by way of any custom prevalent etc.

These facts ought to have been pleaded with details.

26. Seventhly, whether the plaintiff as “owner” or “Mahant”

or “Manager” ever asserted his right of ownership, Mahantship

or Managership against public at large without there being

any objection from anyone from public at large.

27. In our considered opinion, a case with which we are

dealing here, the aforesaid material facts were necessarily to

be pleaded to establish prima facie the legal right of the

9 plaintiff in such type of suit property.

28. As mentioned above, since the plaint did not contain

aforementioned pleadings, the suit was liable for rejection at

the threshold. That apart, there was absolutely no evidence

(documentary) adduced by the plaintiff to prove and establish

his legal ownership rights over the temple and the land and

nor did he adduce any documentary evidence to show his

so-called “Mahantship" or "Managership", except making bald

averments in the plaint running in four pages and that too

with no material details set out above.

29. We are, therefore, really at a loss to understand as to

how and on what basis such suit could be entertained much

less decreed.

30. What was more a matter of serious concern that the Trial

Court proceeded to decree the plaintiff's suit by conferring an

ownership of the Temple/land with a right of easement over

the use of well to drink water from the well on the basis of

their "adverse possession" over the suit property.

31. By no stretch of imagination, in our view, such a

declaration of ownership over the suit property and right of

10 easement over a well could be granted by the Trial Court in

plaintiff's favour because even the plaintiff did not claim title

in the suit property on the strength of "adverse possession".

Neither there were any pleadings nor any issue much less

evidence to prove the adverse possession on land and for grant

of any easementry right over the well. The Courts below

should have seen that no declaration of ownership rights over

the suit property could be granted to the plaintiff on the

strength of "adverse possession" (see Gurdwara Sahib vs.

Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & Anr., (2014) 1 SCC 669.

The Courts below also should have seen that courts can grant

only that relief which is claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint

and such relief can be granted only on the pleadings but not

beyond it. In other words, courts cannot travel beyond the

pleadings for granting any relief. This principle is fully applied

to the facts of this case against the plaintiff.

32. In our considered opinion, if the Trial Court committed

several jurisdictional and legal errors by not applying any legal

provisions and just on mere asking, decreed the suit, at least,

the High Court (Division Bench) in its first appellate

11 jurisdiction in an appeal filed by the defendants against the

judgment of Trial Court should have taken note of relevant

legal provisions applicable to the case and then decided the

appeal accordingly.

33. Unfortunately, the High Court also cursorily dismissed

the defendants’ appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree

of the Trial Court without entering into any discussion on any

issues much less relevant legal issues. Indeed, while

examining the issue, the provisions of Heritage Property Act

and the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 could

also have been taken note of with a view to find out as to

whether the structure which is 5000 years old is governed by

the provisions of these two Acts or not and if it is governed,

then its effect. We, however, do not wish to examine this issue

in this appeal, because, in our view, the suit is otherwise

liable to be dismissed on other grounds set out above.

34. As held above, we cannot, therefore, countenance the

approach and the manner in which the suit and the appeal

were decided by the respective Courts and nor can we concur

with their respective so-called reasoning and the conclusion.

12 Indeed, if we may say so, there is no reasoning much less

judicial reasoning of the Courts below which is capable of

being upheld.

35. In the light of foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation

to hold that the filing of the suit by the plaintiff was wholly

misconceived and was nothing but it was abusing the process

of law. In any event, we also hold that the plaintiff was

neither in possession of the suit property much less in its legal

possession nor he had any authority to remain in its

possession for want of any lawful authority. The plaintiff thus

has failed in every respect.

36. Before parting, we consider it apposite to state that

several cases of this nature have come to our notice which are

either pending in courts or they remain unnoticed.

Unfortunately, it appears that the State did not take up such

cases seriously nor has taken any steps to preserve, control

and manage effectively such priceless heritage culture of our

country with the result, the precious heritage of our country is

being misused by handful of private persons for their personal

benefits.

13

37. We hope that the State (appellant herein) would pay

serious attention not confining to the temple in question but

to several alike and take suitable measures as may deem fit

and proper after taking into account the pattern followed by

other States in such type of cases, if any, and relevant

provisions of the Acts applicable to such structures for the

benefit of public at large so that heritage of our country is

preserved, managed and controlled in letter and spirit for

coming generations.

38. As a result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The

impugned judgment/decree of both the Courts below are set

aside and the suit filed by the respondent is dismissed with

cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the plaintiff-Bharat Bhushan

Bharti personally. The cost shall be deposited by the

respondent-plaintiff with the State Legal Services Office.

………...................................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL]

…...……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi;

September 12, 2017

14 ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.3 SECTION X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4096/2008

STATE OF UTTARKHAND & ANR. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

MANDIR SRI LAXMAN SIDH MAHARAJ RESPONDENT(S)

(HEARD BY: HONBLE R.K.AGRAWAL AND HONBLE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ. )

Date : 12-09-2017 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Rahul Kaushik, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Bansal, AOR Mr. Akshay K. Ghai, Adv. Mr. Brahma Prakash, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and His Lordship.

The appeal succeeds and is allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment. The impugned judgment/decree of both the Courts below are set aside and the suit filed by the respondent is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the plaintiff-Bharat Bhushan Bharti personally. The cost shall be deposited by the respondent-plaintiff with the State Legal Services Office.

[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER

[SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE]

15