AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
“Site plan,Ex.P1
Rent agreement,Ex.P2
Record,Ex.PW2/A
Water/Sewerage bill,Ex.P3
Assessment register record,Ex.P3/A
House Tax slip,Ex.P4
Electricity bill,Ex.P5
Rent receipt,Ex.P6
Water bill,Exs.P6 to P19
Receipt of PWD,Ex.P20
Judgment of Shri Vinod Jain,
Senior Sub-Judge, Bhiwani dated
09.12.1992",Ex.P21
Notice to Rukmani by MC office
Bhiwani",Mark-C
Farm no.10 of MC Bhiwani,Mark-Dâ€
the documentary evidence led by them before the Courts below, with no document of any gift made by Rukmani Devi in favour of the defendants, or",
donating the land for public worship, having been produced by the appellants.",
As regards their possession over the suit property while living in Andhra Pradesh, the judgments of the Courts below observe that the contention of",
the plaintiffs was that it was during the pendency of the suit that a wall and a gate was constructed on the suit premises by the appellants and,
consequently they had sought a decree of mandatory injunction seeking the removal thereof.,
Nothing has been pointed out to this Court, in this 2nd appeal, that it was in any manner not proved by the respondents-plaintiffs that were not in",
possession or that the appellants and their contesting co-defendants could prove that the wall was not built during the pendency of the suit. In fact, no",
specific argument in that regard has been raised at all before this Court, other than stating that they being residents of Andhra Pradesh, they could not",
have been in possession of the suit land.,
Even that statement, of lack of possession by an absentee land/property owner, has to be rejected, as again nothing has been argued before this Court",
that the appellants could actually prove their own possession over the suit property, during the absence of the plaintiffs. In fact, had the suit property",
been used as a place of public worship as contended, then in any case the appellants cold not have been in possession thereof, unless they had been",
appointed as Purohits/Pujaris of the mandir, which again is not an argument taken at all before this Court.",
That being so, and the learned Courts below having come to a finding of fact on the basis of the evidence led, that the suit property was not being",
used as a mandir but was the personal property of the respondents/plaintiffs, which had devolved upon them after the demise of Rukmani Devi, they",
already having been declared to be her successors by way of a previous court decree, with the electricity connection still standing in the name of",
Rukmani Devi, and even municipal tax being paid in her name, I see no reason to entertain this 2nd appeal, which is consequently dismissed in limine.",