Ramdas (Baba) vs State

Shivdayal, J.—The Appellant's suit has been dismissed on preliminary grounds. It has been held that the suit is not maintainable, that the Plaintiff's remedy lies in instituting proceedings for correction of entries in revenue papers and that a consequential relief could be prayed without which it is barred by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.

The Plaintiff's suit is that his Guru Baba Onkardas consecreted a temple of Shri Hanumanji on Khasra No. 175 of village Birpur Pargana Gird, in 1931-32. In or about 1934, Baba Onkardas died. He was succeeded by his Chela Baba Ramdas who is the Plaintiff. Formerly there was a Neem tree and also a small garden. The Plaintiff developed it and planted a number of other trees as also got a well dug and made it pucca. He also put a fencing. One Mannalal constructed a verandah and dedicated it to the temple. All these properties are in the possession of the Plaintiff as the owner. In January 1957 some inhabitants of the village filed a complaint against him in the Tehsil but it was eventually dismissed. In that connection, he came to know that in the revenue papers the temple and verandah were entered as "Panchayati". The Plaintiff claims these properties as also the temple as his and challenges their being "Panchayati". He gave a notice to the Government u/s 80 of the C. P. G. and instituted this suit for the declaration of title. He did not pray for correction of entry in revenue papers in so many words but prayed for a declaration that the entires in revenue papers were wrong and they were liable to be corrected.

In the reply to the Plaintiff's notice, the Collector of Gwalior denied the Plaintiffs title. In the written statement it is denied that Baba Onkardas consecrated the temple; that the Plaintiff is the Chela of Baba Onkardas; that the Plaintiff is in possession of the suit properties; or that the Plaintiff planted the plants. It is also urged that the plaint is defective for want of a prayer for consequential relief and it is suggested that the Plaintiff's remedy was u/s 51 of the Madhya Bharat Tenancy Act. It is contended that the public in general is the interested party and a suit should have been appropriately framed. The trial Judge dismissed the suit and the first appellate Court dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal. In my opinion this appeal must be allowed.

Since the Plaintiff asserts his own title and the Defendant State denies it, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the suit is competent and Civil Court has jurisdiction to try it. I say nothing at this stage whether the Plaintiff's claim is to the shebaiti or to the corpus of the property which in the case of a temple ordinarily belonged to the idol installed in it.

The Plaintiff has made an application for amendment of the plaint. He wants to add consequential relief among other things. He also wants to add all the inhabitants of village Birpur as Defendant No. 2. The only objection raised by the learned Dy. Government Advocate is that the application for leave to amend is made after inordinate delay. In my opinion leave to amend the plaint should be granted. It is stated that there is no Panchayat as such which claims ownership to the temple and it is only an unwarranted action of the Patwari that the entry was made in that manner. Since in the written statement the State Government has also insisted on the public being made a party, I think it is an appropriate step which the Plaintiff is now taking and he should be allowed to do it. After amendment of the plaint proceedings under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C. will have to be taken.

Since the Plaintiff has now prayed fur a consequential relief and I am allowing his application for leave to amend, I need not consider the question whether in such a case the consequential relief for correction of revenue papers must necessarily be prayed for.

I would have allowed costs to the Plaintiff. But he is liable to be saddled with costs for amendment of the plaint.

This appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside. The Plaintiff's application for leave to amend the plaint is also allowed. The case shall now go back to the trial Judge for proceeding further in the suit in accordance with law.

The parties shall bear their own costs in both the appellate Courts.