Har Phool Singh Son Of Mutbanna ... vs Mandir Shri Hanuman Ji Maharaj ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4061 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 858/2011

Har Phool Singh Son Of Mutbanna Matadeen Ahir & Ors
                                                   ----Appellants-Defendants
                                    Versus
Mandir Shri Hanuman Ji Maharaj Behror Mahant Vikash Das
Chela Banwari Das & Anr.
                                                       ----Respondent-Plaintiff

For Appellant(s)           :    Mr. Manu Bhargava
For Respondent(s)          :    Pt. Shri Ram Joshi
                                Mr. Ram Prasad for
                                Mr. Aditya Mathur



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                     Order

24/05/2022
     This   appeal       has    been       filed     by     appellant-defendants

(hereinafter referred 'defendants') under Section 100 CPC against

the judgment and decree dated 11.05.2011 in appeal No.9/2009

(6/2000) passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Behror,

Alwar whereby the first appellate court allowed appeal filed by

plaintiff's-respondents against the judgment and decree dated

10.12.1999 passed in civil suit No.16/91 by Additional Civil Judge

(Jr.D.) Behror, Alwar.

Having heard learned counsel for both parties, the second

appeal requires hearing.

It appears from the record that the respondent-Temple

instituted a civil suit for declaration of ownership, claiming

exclusive and absolute possession over the property in question.

The property in question is an open piece of land measuring 48 fit

and 48 fit detailed out in the plaint.

(2 of 3) [CSA-858/2011]

The trial court, after discussion of the evidence in detail,

dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 10.12.1999 but the first

appellate court reversed the findings and declared the disputed

land to be of ownership of the Temple vide judgment dated

11.05.2011. The first appellate court has not discussed the

documents and evidence to record the findings of ownership in

favour of the Temple and has passed a decree for mandatory

injunction to demolish the construction wall of defendants in order

to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the

plaintiff. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial

question of law involved in the second appeal:-

"Whether the first appellate court committed illegality and jurisdictional error in treating the suit property in the ownership of Temple and issuing mandatory injunction against the defendants to hand over the possession of suit property to plaintiff temple after demolition of the wall, more particularly, after quashing the judgment and decree of trial court dated 17.12.1999 without discussing the documents and evidence on record?

Issue notice.

Notice need not be issued as respondents are represented

through their counsel.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

present case, it appears that on 18.12.2012 this Court, after

hearing of both parties, the stay order "the status quo with regard

to the property in question shall be maintained by the parties" has

been passed.

(3 of 3) [CSA-858/2011]

Since the impugned decree is in the nature of issuing

mandatory injunction to demolish the construction and hand over

the vacant possession to the respondent-plaintiffs.

The stay order dated 18.12.2012 is made absolute and

confirmed till disposal of the appeal.

Accordingly, the stay application stands disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

TN/100

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)