Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 2937 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 1015/2019

Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh Panjikrit Sanstha, Through
President Registered Office Shri Sambhavnath Ji Ka Mandir,
Lakhan Kotri, Ajmer
                                                              ---Plaintiff/Appellant
                                      Versus
1.       State    Of      Rajasthan,          Through          Secretary,    Urban
         Development Department Secretariat, Jaipur
2.       District Collector, Ajmer
3.       Urban Improvement Trust, Amer
4.       Shri Jain Shwetamber Khatargacchh Sangh Through
         President, Shri Narendra Lunia, N.k. Jewellers, Naya
         Bazar, Ajmer
                                                   ---Defendants-Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. N. K. Maloo, Senior Counsel with Mr. Pratyush Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. K. Agarwal, Senior Counsel with Mr. Adhiraj Modi, Adv.

       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

                                   Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT                                                    02/08/2023

Instant appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for short 'the

plaintiff') against the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2019

passed by learned Additional District Judge No.3, Ajmer in Civil

Suit No.22/2017 (CIS No.307/2014) titled as Shri Jain

Shwetamber Shri Sangh Panjikrit Sanstha through President Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. by which trial court dismissed the

plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for

declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents-

(2 of 12) [CFA-1015/2019]

defendants (for short 'the defendants') mentioning therein that

the plaintiff is a representative body of Mandir Margi Sect of Jain

religion in Ajmer. The suit property is situated at Ajmer consisting

of 10 khasra numbers total admeasuring 10 Bighas 18 Biswas,

which is surrounded by boundary wall and temple of Dadabari and

Parshwanath deity, hostel, auditorium, Bhojanshala etc. were

constructed there. Earlier the property was recorded in the name

of 'Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat' through its Mohatmim Seth

Heera Chand Sancheti for last 80-90 years. In the year 1955,

members of Mandir Margi Sect constituted a body in the name of

plaintiff i.e. Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh and got it registered

in the year 1958 to look after all the temples and religious places

etc. belonging to Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat. Subsequently,

except four khasra numbers namely 3923, 3924, 3925 and 4736

measuring 2 Bighas 10 Biswas, remaining land of Khasra No.3927,

3928, 3929, 3930, 3931, 3932 measuring 8 Bighas 8 Biswas were

recorded as Sivay Chak without any court order and subsequently

it was mutated in the name of UIT, Ajmer from 31.03.2004. After

that, in pursuance of Government order dated 23.11.2006, the

defendant No.3 allotted the property to defendant No.4 w.e.f.

27.11.2006 and lease deed was executed in favour of defendant

No.4 on 04.12.2006. The plaintiff had filed a revenue suit against

it. These orders were without jurisdiction. So, plaintiff is not bound

by these orders. After some differences, members of both sub-

sects arrived at settlement on 21.01.1994. It was further

confirmed and approved in the general body meeting dated

03.04.1994. As per the settlement, it was decided that the plaintiff

(3 of 12) [CFA-1015/2019]

will continue to manage the affairs of all the religious and

charitable activities of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat.

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed written statement and did not

specifically controvert the averments of the plaintiff but gave

evasive reply. Defendant No.4 in his written statement mentioned

that registered land was donated by the then Ruler Anoraj Raja to

Dada Jindutt Suri Ji who was the first Acharya of Khattargacchh

Sect. It was also mentioned that the plaintiff is not successor of

Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat and compromise dated 21.01.1994

being unregistered, unstamped document, it is not acceptable by

parties. So, this compromise has no evidentary value.

Trial court framed the following issues on the basis of

pleadings of the parties :

(1) Whether the plaintiff has possession over the land mentioned

in para 1 of the plaint which was entered in the revenue record in

the name of Mandir Margi Panchayat Oswal Mohatmim Seth Heera

Chand Sancheti, the plaintiff's predecessor, and in the year 1955

members of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat got it constituted and

registered as Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh, thus plaintiff became

owner of the said property?

(2) Whether except land mention in para 7 of the plaint out of the

land mentioned in para 1 of the plaint, land of rest khasra

numbers was deleted from the name of plaintiff in the Jamabandi

of 2020 without any basis and recorded as Sivay Chak?

(3) Whether mutation No.203 and 204 dated 31.03.2004 by which

land was recorded in the name of defendant No.3 is illegal and

unauthorized?

(4 of 12) [CFA-1015/2019]

(4) Whether compromise dated 21.01.1994 was executed between

plaintiff and defendant No.4 and defendant No.4 is bound by it?

(5) Whether allotment letter dated 27.11.2006 and lease deed

dated 04.12.2006 being illegal, void and ineffective, do not have

adverse effect on plaintiff's right?

(6) Whether compromise dated 21.01.1994 is unregistered,

insufficiently stamped and not acted upon?

(7) Relief?

Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that learned

trial court wrongly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Learned

senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that finding of the trial

court is wholly contrary to the facts of the case and contrary to

law. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that

plaintiff in his plaint as well as evidence proved that Mandir Margi

Oswal Panchayat Mohatmim Manager Seth Heera Chand Sancheti

had land consisting of Khasra No.3923, 3924, 3925, 3927, 3928,

3929, 3930, 3931, 3932 and 4736 since 80-90 years. In the year

1955, a meeting of members of Mandir Margi Oswal Mohatmim

Panchayat was held on 16.03.1955. The members of Tapogacchh

and Khatargacchh were in it and they decided to constitute a body

in the name of plaintiff i.e. Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh and

got it registered to look after all the temples and religious places

etc. belonging to Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat. Shri Ratan Chand

Sancheti presided over the meeting. Learned senior counsel for

the plaintiff also submits that in Samvat 2020, land of Khasra

No.3923, 3924, 3925 and 4736 measuring 2 Bighas 10 Biswas

was only entered in the name of Mandir Margi Panchayat Oswal

and rest of Khasra numbers were deleted in the name of Mandir

(5 of 12) [CFA-1015/2019]

Margi Panchayat Oswal and entered as Sivay Chak without any

reason. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that in

the year 1955, Mandir Margi Panchayat Oswal was merged into

Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh. It was also got registered under

the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act. Learned senior

counsel for the plaintiff also submits that property consisting of

plaintiff is of a Temple of Lord, Dadabari and Parshwanath which is

surrounded by Pucca boundary wall in which hostel, auditorium,

Bhojanshala, school, Dharamshala, Vridhaashram, hospital and

accommodation have been constructed for empoyees.

Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that on

31.03.2004, disputed land was entered in the name of Urban

Improvement Trust, Ajmer and UIT, Ajmer allotted the land to

defendant No.4 on 27.11.2006 and lease deed was executed on

04.12.2006. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits

that the said disputed land was never acquired by the Competent

Authority and Government has no power to allot the land to Urban

Improvement Trust without acquiring it. So, action of the

Government is not legality tenable. Learned senior counsel for the

plaintiff also submits that a compromise was arrived between the

plaintiff and defendant No.4 on 21.01.1994 in which defendant

No.4 admitted the ownership of the plaintiff regarding the

disputed property. Witness of defendant No.4-Narendra Kumar

Lunia admitted the signature of his grandfather Shri Ramlal Lunia

on it.

Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that

disputed property was entered as a trust property and registered

under the Trust Act. So, civil court had no right to decide the

(6 of 12) [CFA-1015/2019]

ownership regarding porperty. Learned senior counsel for the

plaintiff also submits that defendant No.4 in his written statement

as well as evidence mentioned that disputed land was allotted by

the then King Anoraj Raja to Dada Jindutt Suri Ji, but they failed

to submit any document regarding allotment during evidence.

Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that they had

filed a suit before Revenue Court regarding deletion of the land

and entry thereof as a Sivay Chak and said suit is pending before

the Competent Court.

Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that

order of the Additional Collector, Ajmer (Ex.22) also supported the

plaintiff's contention that disputed land was in ownership of the

plaintiff.

Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the

plaintiff has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by

which the plaintiff has sought to take on record the application

filed by Shri Jain Shwetamber Khartargacchh Sangh, judgment

dated 30.05.2013 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Devsathan

and constitution of Shri Jain Shwetamber Khartargacchh Sangh.

Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff also submits that these

documents are necessary for adjudication of present appeal.

These documents prove that Shri Jain Shwetamber Khartargacchh

Sangh had not ownership of the disputed property because they

wrote in the application filed by them that disputed property is not

of their ownership. So, application filed by the plaintiff be allowed

and judgment and decree of the trial court be set aside.

Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance

upon the following judgments :- (1) Vijay Pullarwar & Ors. VS.

(7 of 12) [CFA-1015/2019]

Shri Hanuman Deostan reproted in (2019) 11 SCC 718; (2)

Shri Jin Kushal Guru Prachin Dadawadi Bhakjan Samiti Vs.

Chetani Vyason Ki Bagichi Neelkanth Mahadev Trust in S.B.

Civil Revision Petition No.2/2009 decided on 26.09.2011;

(3) B. K. Ravichandra & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

reported in (2021) 14 SCC 703; (4) Hari Krishna Mandir Trust

Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2020) 9 SCC

356; (5) Rattan Chand & Ors. Vs. Mori (Dead) by LRs. & Ors.

reported in (2010) 11 SCC 768; (6) Geega Ram & Anr. Vs.

Board of Revenue & Ors. reported in 2008 (1) WLC 110; (7)

Jaipur Development Authority VS. Khaju Shah @ Khaju

Khan & Ors. reported in 2015 SCC online Raj 3307; (8)

Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.

reported in (2008) 9 SCC 368; (9) Sankalchan Jaychanddbhai

Patel & Ors. Vs. Vithalbhai Jaychandbhai Patel & Ors.

reported in (1996) 6 SCC 433; (10) Sawarni Vs. Inder Kaur &

Ors. reported in (1996) 6 SCC 223 and (11) Jitendra Singh Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online

SC 802.

Learned senior counsel for the defendants has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the plaintiff and

submitted that land of the disputed land was given by the then

King Anoraj Raja to Dada Jindutt Suri Ji. Learned senior counsel

for the defendants also submits that Mandir Margi Oswal

Panchayat had no connection with the plaintiff and no merger took

place. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits

that plaintiff failed to produce any documents which proved that

Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat constituted as Shri Jain

(8 of 12) [CFA-1015/2019]

Shwetamber Shri Sangh in the year 1955. Document (Ex.16) on

which plaintiff relied is only regarding the management of the

temples and religious places. Learned senior counsel for the

defendants also submits that plaintiff's witness Suresh Chand

deliberately denied the contents of the document (Ex.16).

Document (Ex-16) was only for the management of the temples

and religious places. This document did not prove any ownership.

Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that

disputed land was wrongly entered in the name of Mandir Margi

Oswal Panchayat in the revenue record in Samvat 2016-2019.

Plaintiff failed to submit any document regarding ownership of the

disputed land. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also

submits that as per the plaintiff's contention, Mandir Margi Oswal

Panchayat was constituted as Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh in

1955 but Adhyaksh Chaganmal Jalori had written various letters

(Ex.1 to Ex.3) to authorities in which he demanded to restore the

disputed land in revenue record in the name of Mandir Margi

Oswal Panchayat. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also

submits that if Shri Jain Shwetamber came into existence in place

of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat then there was no occasion to

write these letters for the restoration of the land in the name of

Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat. Learned senior counsel for the

defendants also submits that revenue suit was also filed in the

name of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat in the year 2006 whereas

Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat was said to be constituted as Shri

Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh in the year 1955 as per the

contention of the plaintiff. Learned senior counsel for the

defendants also submits that document (Ex.22) which was the

(9 of 12) [CFA-1015/2019]

judgment dated 22.10.1959 of Additional Collector, Ajmer, land

was declared in the possession of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat.

So, it revealed that Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh was not in

existence at that time.

Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that

compromise (Ex.38) was not binding upon the defendants because

plaintiff had not obey the compromise. Learned senior counsel for

the defendants also submits that plaintiff's witness Suresh Chand

had also admitted that proceedings of general meeting was not

filed. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that

present suit filed by the plaintiff is time barred because by way of

this suit, they are challenging the disputed land which was entered

in the name of UIT Ajmer on 31.03.2004.

Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff for taking

the documents filed with the application under Order 41 Rule 27

CPC on record at this stage. Learned counsel for the defendants

also submitted that these documents are not necessary for

adjudication of the appeal and there is no bona fide reason for not

filing these documents at belated stage. Learned counsel for the

defendants also submitted that the defendants rightly wrote in the

application that at present, disputed land is not their possession.

It will be mentioned after receiving the possession. So, appeal as

well as application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the

plaintiff be dismissed.

Learned senior counsel for the defendants has placed

reliance upon the following judgments :- (1) Nagpur

Improvement Trust VS. Sheela Ramchandra Tikhe reported

(10 of 12) [CFA-1015/2019]

in (2019) 11 SCC 552; (2) Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji

(Deceased) through LRs Vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai

(Deceased) through LRs & Ors. reported in (2022) 12 SCC

128; (3) Khatri Hotels Private Limited Vs. Union of India &

Anr. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 126; (4) Shanti Conductors

Private Limited Vs. Assam State Electricity Board & Ors.

reported in (2020) 2 SCC 677; (5) M/s Sree Surya

Developers and Promoters Vs. N. Sailesh Prasad & Ors. in

Civil Appeal No. 439/2022 decided on 09.02.2022.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the

defendants.

The contention of the plaintiff that Mandir Margi Oswal

Panchayat through its Mohatmim, Seth Heera Chand Sancheti was

constituted as Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh in the year 1955

but plaintiff failed to submit any document which shows the

merger of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat in Shri Jain Shwetamber

Shri Sangh. Plaintiff relied on the document (Ex.16). A perusal of

the said document reveals that the said document was only for the

management of the Jain Temple and religious places. It was not a

title document. Contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that

defendants failed to prove the document of the allotment of the

dispute land by the then King Anoraj Raja to Dada Jindutt Suri Ji,

but in my considered opinion, plaintiff has to stand on his own leg.

Weakness of the defendant does not confirm the title of the

plaintiff. Plaintiff's witness PW1- Suresh Chand gave evasive reply

at the time of cross-examination. In cross-examination he

admitted the fact that Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh consists two

(11 of 12) [CFA-1015/2019]

Mandirs; one Parshawanath and second Lakhan Kothdi Mandir. He

had deliberately denied the fact mentioned in the document

(Ex.16) regarding management of the temple. As per the

plaintiff's contention, Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat was

constituted as Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh in the year 1955,

but as per the document (Ex.16) and various letters wrote by the

Shri Chaganlal to various authorities in the year 2005 for restoring

the disputed land in the name of Mandir Margi Panchayat Oswal

Mohtmim shows that Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat was in

existence in the year 2005. If Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat

became Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh, then no occasion arises to

register the name of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat in the revenue

record instead of Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh. Revenue suit

was also filed in the name of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat.

These facts are contradictory to the pleading and evidence led by

the plaintiff. Order of the Additional Collecotr, Ajmer (Ex.22) also

did not support the plaintiff's case. In the said order disputed land

was mentioned in the name of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat. The

said order was of the year 1959. Compromise (Ex.38) was not

complied by the plaintiff and the said compromise was not acted

upon. Proceedings of the general meeting was not filed by the

plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to prove is case that disputed land was in

the name of Mandir Margi Oswal Panchayat before the Samvat

2016. Disputed land was registered as Sivay Chak and was

allotted to UIT in the year 2004 and UIT, Ajmer allotted the said

disputed land to the defendant No.4 on 27.11.2006 and lease

deed was executed on 04.12.2006.

(12 of 12) [CFA-1015/2019]

I have considered the arguments advanced on application

under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Documents filed by the plaintiff are

not necessary for adjudication of this appeal and no bona fide

cause has been shown by the plaintiff for filing these documents

at this belated stage. So, in my considered opinion, present appeal

as well as application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC being devoid of

merit, are liable to be dismissed which stand dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /89

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)