Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Lrs Of Ramdas vs Lrs Of Gusai Karangiri Ji Chela ... on 15 December, 2023

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2023:RJ-JD:43880]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 249/2022
1. Lrs Of Ramdas, S/o Jaisiram, R/o In Front Of Khiwsar Ki
Haveli, Gulab Sagar Ki Nahar, Jodhpur Through His Legal
Representatives-
1/1. Smt. Ramdas W/o Ram Das, (Died Since 21-04-2014), R/
o In Front Of Suthla Dauji Ki Pole, Near Shop No. 10,
Chop0Asani Road, Jodhpur.
1/2 Bhagwan Das S/o Late Ramdas, (Died Since 21-04-2014),
R/o In Front Of Suthla Dauji Ki Pole, Near Shop No. 10,
Chopasani Road, Jodhpur.
1/3. Lt. Murlidas S/o Lt. Ramdas, Through His Lrs-
1/3/1 Anandi W/o Lt. Murlidas, Aged About 65 Years, R/o In
Front Of Suthla Dauji Ki Pole, Near Shop No. 10,
Chopasani Road, Jodhpur.
1/3/2 Bhuvnesh S/o Lt. Murlidas, Aged About 36 Years, R/o In
Front Of Suthla Dauji Ki Pole, Near Shop No. 10,
Chopasani Road, Jodhpur.
1/4 Satyanarayan @ Satudas S/o Lt. Ramdas, Aged About 78
Years, S/o Lt. Ramdas, R/o In Front Of Khiwsar Ki Haveli,
Gulab Sagar Ki Nahar, Jodhpur.
1/5 Jugaldas S/o Lt. Ramdas, (Died Since 22-10-2009), R/o
In Front Of Khiwsar Ki Haveli, Gulab Sagar Ki Nahar,
Jodhpur.
1/6 Late Hariprasad S/o Ramdas, Through His Lrs-
1/6/1 Smt. Hansa Vaisahnav W/o Late Shri Hariprasad, Aged
About 53 Years, R/o In Front Of Khinwsar Ki Haveli, Gulab
Sagar Ki Nahar, Jodhpur.
1/6/2 Yash Vaishnav S/o Late Hari Prasad, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o In Front Of Khinwsar Ki Haveli, Gulab Sagar Ki Nahar,
Jodhpur.
1/6/3 Yugh Vaishnav S/o Late Shri Hariprasad, (Minor Through
His Natural Guardian (Mother) Smt. Hansa Vaisahnav), R/
o In Front Of Khinwsar Ki Haveli, Gulab Sagar Ki Nahar,
Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus

Late Gusai Karangiri Ji Chela Kishangiri, By Caste Gusai
(Mahant) Ji, R/o Kharda Mewasa Mathh, Tehsil Osian,
Distt. Jodhpur, Through His Lrs-
1/1 Late Ram Giri Chela, Late Gusai Karangiri J, R/o Kharda
Mewasa Mathh, Tehisl Osisan, Distt. Jodhpur.
1/2 Sant Giri Chela, Late Ramgiri, R/o Kharda Mewasa Mathh,
Tehsil Osian Distt. Jodhpur.
----Respondents/Plaintiffs

For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Thanvi

(Downloaded on 18/12/2023 at 08:51:48 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:43880] (2 of 15) [CSA-249/2022]

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

15/12/2023

1. The present second appeal has been preferred against the

judgment and decree dated 15.10.2023 passed by the Additional

District Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metro in Civil Appeal Decree

No.40/2018, whereby the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2018

passed by the Senior Civil Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metro in Civil

Original Suit No.116/2013 (NCV No.212/2016) has been affirmed.

The learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated

08.08.2018, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for possession.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

A suit for possession and rendition of accounts was preferred

by the plaintiff respondent in the year 1981 with the following

averments-

i. Plaintiff Gusai Karangiri Chela Kishangiri, being Mahant of

Kharda Mewasa Mathh, takes care of all the properties

belonging to the said Mathh. Qua one property of the Mathh

situated at Jodhpur, defendant Ramdas was appointed as

Pujari at a salary of Rs.5/- per month for performance of

seva puja in the temple and maintenance of the property.

For the said purpose, he was even provided accommodation.

However, as defendant Ramdas started claiming himself to

be the owner of the property and attempted to sell out and

rent out the Mathh property, a notice was issued to him to

refrain from entering into any such transactions.

ii. Thereafter, his services were terminated and a paper

publication regarding the same was also made in "Dainik

(Downloaded on 18/12/2023 at 08:51:48 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:43880] (3 of 15) [CSA-249/2022]

Jalte Deep" on 16.10.1980. When despite the notice being

served and his services being terminated, the defendant did

not hand over the possession of the property to the plaintiff,

the present suit with the relief for possession as well as for

rendition of accounts qua the rent of the property let out by

defendant No.1 was preferred.

iii. The averment of the plaintiff was that a patta dated

31.06.1988 of the property in question had been issued in

favour of Mahant of the Mathh.

3. Written statement to the plaint was preferred by defendant

No.1 with denial of the averments as made by the plaintiff.

Defendant No.1-Ramdas denied the factum of plaintiff being

Mahant and he being appointed as a Pujari by the plaintiff. He

claimed that the property in question was transferred by Maharaja

Vijay Singh to his ancestors and he and his family are in

possession of the said property since then. Regarding the patta as

averred by the plaintiff, it was pleaded that the same is a forged

one.

4. On basis of the pleadings of both the parties, learned trial

Court framed the following six issues:
^^mHk; i{kksa ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij U;k;ky; }kjk fuEu fooknd fojfpr
fd;s x;s %&
1. vk;k okni= ds in la- 1 o 2 esa tk;nkn [kkjMk esoklk eB] rglhy
vksfl;k dh tk;nkn gS\
-----oknh
2. vk;k izfroknh la- 1 e`rd jkenkl dks oknh dh vksj ls iqtkjh :- ikap
izfrekg dh nj ls fu;qDr fd;k x;k\
----oknh
3. vk;k izfroknh la- 2 oknh ds gd esa r; gksrk gS] rks D;k oknh }kjk izfroknh
la- 1 dh lsok,a fof/kor :i ls lekIr dj nh vkSj oknh izfroknh la- 1 ls
mDr tk;nkn dk dCtk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\
----oknh
4. vk;k izfroknh la- 1 us tk;nkn dks fdjk;s ij nsdj fdjk;k olwy fd;k\
----oknh

(Downloaded on 18/12/2023 at 08:51:48 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:43880] (4 of 15) [CSA-249/2022]

5. vk;k izfroknh us okn dk ewY;kadu de fd;k gS\
----izfroknh
6. vuqrks'k\"

5. Plaintiff got examined PW-1 Ramgiri, PW-2 Badri Singh, PW-

3 Rooparam, PW-4 Chenaram, PW-5 Kishangiri and PW-6 Sugan

Singh and got exhibited 17 documents. Defendant got examined

DW-1 Hari Prasad and DW-2 Mohan Singh.

6. At this stage, it is relevant to note that the suit was, at the

first instance, decreed on 31.10.1996 in favour of the plaintiff ex

parte. An application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and

decree was moved by the defendant and on the same being

allowed, the suit was again registered on 17.07.1998. Prior to the

ex parte decree dated 31.10.1996 been passed, statements of

PW-1 Ramgiri and PW-2 Badri Singh had been recorded. After the

suit been restored on 17.07.1998, the matter remained pending

on various applications before the further evidence could be led in

the matter. Meanwhile, PW-1 Ramgiri and PW-2 Badri Singh

expired and hence, they could not be cross examined, however,

further evidence was led by the plaintiff.

7. Ultimately, learned trial Court, while deciding issue Nos.1 to

3 & 5 in favour of the plaintiff, decreed the suit for possession.

However, issue No.4 was decided against the plaintiff and hence,

relief for rendition of accounts/recovery of the amount was not

decreed.

8. It is relevant to note at this stage that the learned trial

Court, while adjudicating issue No.1, concluded that the

statements of PW-1 Ramgiri could be read in evidence as his

statements were recorded in presence of the counsel for the

(Downloaded on 18/12/2023 at 08:51:48 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:43880] (5 of 15) [CSA-249/2022]

defendants and no objection was raised by the counsel on the

document Exh.1 being exhibited. So far as the statements of PW-

2 Badri Singh are concerned, learned trial Court concluded that his

statements cannot be read into evidence.

9. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated

08.08.2018 passed by the learned trial Court, the regular first

appeal was preferred by the legal representatives of defendant

Ramdas (as he had expired during the pendency of the suit). The

learned first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree as

passed by the learned trial Court. However, the first appellate

Court specifically concluded that the learned trial Court could not

have considered the statements of PW-1 Ramgiri. The learned

first appellate Court reversed the finding of learned trial Court to

the extent that the statements of PW-1 could not have been read

into evidence. However, the Court observed that even if the

evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is not taken into consideration, the

other witnesses as examined by the plaintiff had sufficiently

proved issue Nos.1 to 3 & 5 and hence, affirmed the decree of

possession as passed by the learned trial Court.

Aggrieved of the said judgment and decree dated

15.10.2022 passed by the learned first appellate Court as well as

judgment and decree dated 08.08.2018 passed by the learned

trial Court, the present second appeal has been preferred.

10. Before proceeding on the adjudication of the issues involved,

it is relevant to note that at the inception, the prime ground as

raised in the present appeal was that both the Courts below erred

in taking into consideration statements of PW-1 Ramgiri. However,

subsequently an application for amendment of the memo of

(Downloaded on 18/12/2023 at 08:51:48 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:43880] (6 of 15) [CSA-249/2022]

appeal was preferred by learned counsel for the appellant with the

submission that the said ground has inadvertently been raised as

the first appellate Court had specifically held that the evidence of

PW-1 Ramgiri could not have been read/considered. Vide order

dated 02.05.2023, this Court observed that the said fact would be

taken into consideration at the time of admission/hearing of the

appeal and no amendment in the memo of appeal is required to

be made.

In view of the above observation, it is hereby clarified that

this Court is proceeding with the understanding/assumption that

the ground of evidence of PW-1 Ramgiri having been considered

wrongly by the first appellate Court has not been raised in the

present appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants raised the following

grounds:

i. When once it has been held that the evidence of PW-1

Ramgiri could not be read, the documents exhibited in his

statements could also not have been considered. The Courts

below erred in relying upon the document Exh.1 (patta) and

Exh.8 (order passed by the Jagir Commissioner).

ii. If the documents Exh.1 and Exh.8 are not taken into

consideration, there remains no material on record to prove

the ownership of the plaintiff on the disputed property. None

of the other witnesses had deposed qua the ownership of the

property in question and hence, the Courts below erred in

deciding issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Sans Exh.1 and

Exh.8, there was not an iota of evidence available on record

to prove the factum of ownership or defendant Ramdas

(Downloaded on 18/12/2023 at 08:51:48 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:43880] (7 of 15) [CSA-249/2022]

having been appointed as Pujari of the property in question.

Hence, issue Nos.1 & 2 have wrongly been decided in favour

of the plaintiff.

iii. So far as the other documents pertaining to the statements

of accounts qua the payment of salary to the defendant are

concerned, the same could also not be read into the

evidence and hence, factum of the defendant been appointed

as Pujari by the plaintiff could also not be termed to have

been proved.

iv. Even if the document Exh.8, the order passed by the Jagir

Commissioner is to be taken into consideration, the same

cannot be a proof of title in favour of the plaintiff as any

order passed by a Revenue Authority cannot confer any title.

Further, the order declaring a person to be a Jagirdar or

declaring any property to be of a Jagirdar can also not be

said to confer any title as the same is only a grant in terms

of the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and

Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952.

v. As per the settled position of law, the contents of a

document are essentially to be proved and hence, mere

exhibiting of the document Annex.8 would not be a proof of

its contents. The contents of the document Annex.8 having

not been proved, reliance on the same was totally uncalled

for.

vi. There being no relief of declaration prayed for, the simplicitor

suit for possession was not maintainable.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the

appellant relied upon the following judgments:

(Downloaded on 18/12/2023 at 08:51:48 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:43880] (8 of 15) [CSA-249/2022]

i. AIR 2023 SC 379; Smriti Debbarma vs. Prabha Ranjan

& Ors

ii. AIR 2021 SC 4739; Prabhagiya Van Adhikari vs. Arun

Kumar & Ors

iii. (2016) 16 SCC 483; Rakesh Mohindra vs. Anita Beri &

Ors

iv.(2015) 14 SCC 450; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Nomi

Singh & Ors

v. (2019) 10 SCC 259; Prahlad Pradhan & Ors. vs. Sonu

Kumhar & Ors

vi. AIR 1983 Bom 1; Om Prakash Berlia vs. Unit Trust of

India & Ors

vii. (1972) 4 SCC 562, Sait Tarajee Khimchand vs.

Yelamarti Satyam.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted as

under :

(i) The ground that the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 could not be

read into evidence is not even available to the appellant as the

first appellate Court had specifically concluded that the said

evidence could not have been read. Once, the first appellate

Court had observed in favour of the appellant, the said ground did

not even survive and hence, raising the said ground before this

Court is totally uncalled for. Further, the first appellate Court,

without taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2,

analysed the findings of learned trial Court on all the issues and

affirmed them excluding the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2.

Therefore, the findings of the first appellate Court being totally in

consonance with law, does not deserve any interference.

(Downloaded on 18/12/2023 at 08:51:48 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:43880] (9 of 15) [CSA-249/2022]

(ii) Even if it is assumed that the statements of PW-1 could not

have been read into evidence, the documents Exh.1 & Exh.8 were

very well put to the defendant witnesses in cross examination and

they were even questioned on the said documents and hence, the

same were clearly proved on record.

(iii) Further, no objection whatsoever was raised on behalf of the

defendants when the defendant witnesses were cross examined on

the said documents. Meaning thereby, the objection, if any, was

waived and the objection once waived, cannot be permitted to be

raised at a later stage.

(iv) The document Exh.8 was not a mere revenue entry but a

public document which could have been read suo moto by the

Court. Moreover, the defendant witnesses having been cross

examined on the said document, it would be deemed to be

proved. Even if the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was excluded, the

other plaintiff witnesses specifically deposed about the ownership

of the plaintff, a patta being issued in his favour and the defendant

being appointed by the plaintiff as Pujari. The said witnesses were

not even cross examined on these aspects and hence, the issue of

ownership of the plaintiff was proved on record beyond doubt.

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the

respondents has relied upon the following judgments:

i. 2016 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 426 (Delhi); Asha

Gupta vs. Mahendra Kumar & Ors. (decided on

10.03.2016)

ii. (2003) 8 SCC 752; R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs.

Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Ors.

(Downloaded on 18/12/2023 at 08:51:48 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:43880] (10 of 15) [CSA-249/2022]

13. In rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the appellants

submitted that even if the plaintiff witnesses had not been cross

examined, the burden was on the plaintiffs to prove their case.

The weakness of the defendants case cannot be a ground to hold

that the plaintiffs have successfully discharged their burden.

14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

15. The first ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant,

in the opinion of this Court, does not even deserve any

consideration. As is clear on record, the first appellate Court

specifically held that the evidence of PW-1 could not be read and

hence, the said ground does not even survive. The said finding of

the first appellate Court being not under challenge by the

respondents, this Court would not go into the validity of the same.

16. Coming on to the question whether documents Exh.1 &

Exh.8, exhibited vide the statements of PW-1 could have been

considered, this Court is of the clear opinion that they could have

been relied upon. The said opinion of this Court is based of the

following reasons:

i. Defendant witnesses DW-1 and DW-2 were specifically cross

examined on the said documents. At that point of time, no

objection whatsoever was raised by learned counsel for the

defendants. DW-1 and DW-2 even responded on the

questions pertaining to the said documents and DW-2, in

specific terms, even admitted the factum of Exh.1-patta

having been issued by Maharaja Jaswant Singh. DW-2

Mohan Singh specifically deposed as under:

(Downloaded on 18/12/2023 at 08:51:48 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:43880] (11 of 15) [CSA-249/2022]

";g lgh gS fd oknxzLr tk;nkn dk iV~Vk izn"kZ&1 tloar
flag th egkjktkf/kjkt }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k gSA"

He further admitted as under:
";g eq>s ugha ekywe fd izn"kZ&1 iV~Vk oknxzLr tk;nkn dk
tkjh fd;k x;k gksA izn"kZ&1 esa tks iM+kSl fy[ks gSa oks oknxzLr
tk;nkn ds gh gSA
...............

..............

izn"kZ&8 esa ist la[;k 5 in la[;k 4 esa tks iM+kSl fy[ks gS oks oknxzLr tk;nkn ds gS ;k ugha eq>s ugha irk gS ,oa eSa i<+ dj Hkh ugha crk ldrk gw¡A ;g lgh gS fd oknxzLr tk;nkn ukxkSjh xsV ds vUnj vkbZ gqbZ gSA ;g lgh gS fd oknxzLr tk;nkn ukxkSjh xsV esa u;k rkykc ij vkbZ gqbZ gSA ............

............

jkenkl th ;k muds okfjlku ds uke dk oknxzLr lEifr ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ Hkh nLrkost eSus ugha ns[kkA ............

............

izn"kZ&17 uD"kk lgh gSA eq>s vkt rd Loa jkenklth ;k muds okfjlku us izn"kZ&1 ls izn"kZ&17 rd ds nLrkost ugha crk;s dsoy tqckuh crk;kA ............

............

;g lgh gS fd izn"kZ&1 o izn"kZ&8 nLrkost eq>s ;fn fn[kk;s ;k i<+k;s tkrs rks eSa budh tk¡p ds ckn gh c;ku nsrkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd izn"kZ&1 o izn"kZ&8 nLrkost ;fn igys fn[kk fn;s tkrs rks eSa dsoy jkenklth ds dgus ls c;ku ugha nsrkA"

(ii) DW-1 Hari Prasad, son of the defendant Ramdas was also

cross examined on the document Exh.1 wherein he admitted that

he had seen a copy of the said patta, although he denied the

factum of the said patta being pertaining to the property in

question. Once the document had been admitted by the

defendant witnesses, the plaintiff was not even required to prove

the same. Therefore, the document Exh.1 having been put to

defendant witnesses in their cross examination and having been

admitted by one of the witnesses, in the opinion of this Court, was

clearly proved on record and hence, the finding on issue No.1 in

[2023:RJ-JD:43880] (12 of 15) [CSA-249/2022]

favour of the plaintiff as reached by both the Courts below does

not deserve any interference.

17. The second ground as raised by learned counsel for the

appellants that sans the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, there was no

evidence available on record to prove issue Nos.1 & 2, also does

not hold any water.

A perusal of the evidence available on record makes it clear

that the pleading of the plaintiff-Mahant being owner of the

property in question and the defendant having been appointed as

a Pujari of the property in question has been corroborated by all

the plaintiff witnesses. Further, the said fact has even been

admitted by the defendant witnesses.

PW-3 Rooparam in his cross examination deposed as under:

"eSaus fookfnr eB dh tehu ftldk ekfyd jkefxjh gS mlds dkxtkr ns[ks Fks tks y{e.kfxjh o jkefxjh ds uke ls FksA dkxt gkFk ds fy[ks gq,s FksA dkxt cgh tSlk yEck FkkA izfroknh 1 ls 7 tks gS oks jkenkl ds csVs gS vkSj ,d nks uke vkSj gSA ;s lgh gS fd jkenkl us d.kZfxjh dks lQkbZ gsrq ru[okg ij j[kk FkkA tks ru[okg nh tkrh Fkh oks cgh esa fy[kh tkrh Fkh tks fd cgh eSus ugha ns[khA ru[okg eSjs lkeus nh FkhA ;s dguk xyr gS fd fookfnr tk;nkn jkenkl dh gksA ;s dguk xyr gS fd jkenkl fookfnr tk;nkn dk ekfyd gksA"

PW-4 Chenaram in his cross examination deposed as under:

"ukxkSjh xsV eB esa ,d ikuh dk Vsad gS vksj ,d Nrjh vkSj ,d f"kofyax eafnj cuk;s vksj jgus ds fy;s dqN edku cus gq,s gSaA fdrus edku cus gq,s gS eq>s /;ku ugha gSA eSa tc 25&30 lky igys vk;k rc ukxkSjh eB esa jkenkl th jgrs FksA ............

............

jkenkl th igys [kkjM+k esoklk esa eB esa lsok djrs FksA ............

............

;s dguk xyr gS fd jkenkl th [kkjM+k esoklk esa iwtk dk dksbZ dke ugha djrs gksA eB esa lsok ds fy;s d.kZfxjh us jkenkl th dks fu;qDr fd;k bl ckcr nLrkost ns[ks FksA oks dkxt eBk/kh"kksa ds ikl gksxk vc ew>s D;k irkA ml dkxt esa jkenkl dk fglkc fy[kk FkkA cgh [kkrk Fkk ftleas efgus dh ru[okg

[2023:RJ-JD:43880] (13 of 15) [CSA-249/2022]

tks jkenkl dks nsrs Fks oks fy[kk FkkA eSus ml le; oks cgh ns[kh FkhA eSa ogha eB ds ikl gh jgrk gw¡ esjk eB esa vkuk tkuk gS vkSj esjs lkeus gh jkenkl dks fu;qDr fd;k FkkA eSaus jkenkl dh fu;qfDr dk dkxt ugha ns[kk esjs lkeus ekSf[kd gh fu;qDr fd;k FkkA ............

............

cgh esa gLrk{kj fdlds gksrs Fks ;s eq>s /;ku ugha gSA ............

............

jkefxjh d.kZfxjh dk f"k'; ¼psyk½ FkkA ............

............

eB dk dke igys d.kZfxjh th ns[krs Fks fQj ckn esas jkefxjh th ns[kus yxsA"

PW-5 Kishangiri in his cross examination deposed as under:

";g dguk xyr gS fd jkenkl th esoklk eB esa ekfyd dh gSfl;r ls jgrs gksA eSaus esoklk eB ds dkxtkr ns[ks gSaA tks esoklk eB esa ns[ks gSa tks iV~Vk tkjh fd;k gS og ekjokM+h Hkk'kk esa gSA"

PW-6 Sugan Singh in his cross examination deposed as

under:

"eSa jkenÙkth mQZ jkefxjh th egkjkt dh xkMh ij Mªkboj Fkk o mudh xkM+h pykrk FkkA ............

............

;g eqdnek bl ckcr fd;k gqvk gS fd jkenkl dks igys esoklk xk¡o esa eB esa iqtkjh j[kk gqvk Fkk] ckn esa ukxkSjh xsV okyks esoklk eB esa iqtkjh ds in ij j[kk Fkk] oks mldk vius dks ekfyd crkrk gS blfy;s dCts dk nkok is"k fd;kA ............

............

dj.kfxjh th }kjk jkenkl dks oknxzLr eB esa iqtkjh gsrq fu;qDr fd;k bl ckcr dksbZ nLrkost gks rks eq>s irk ugha] egar th tkurs gSA jkenkl dks tks ru[okg feyrh Fkh mldh is fLyi ugha curh Fkh vt [kqn dgk fd ml oDr cfg;ksa esa fy[kk tkrk Fkk] is fLyi ugha curh FkhA cfg;ksa es eSa ugha fy[krk Fkk mlds fy;s vyx ls vkneh j[kk gqvk FkkA ............

............

larfxjh jkefxjhth egkjkt dk f"k'; gS o xknhifr gSA ............

............

;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa dj.kfxjh o jkefxjh dk MªkbZoj gksus ls larfxjh ds dgus ls vkt ;gk¡ >wBs c;ku ns jgk gw¡A"

[2023:RJ-JD:43880] (14 of 15) [CSA-249/2022]

18. A bare perusal of the above statements makes it clear that

the evidence qua all the issues was led by the other plaintiff

witnesses too and the same have been specifically proved. All the

plaintiff witnesses have unanimously deposed about factum of the

plaintiff being owner of the property in question and defendant

being appointed by him. The findings of issue Nos.1 to 3

therefore does not deserve any interference and the same are

hereby affirmed.

19. So far as the statements of accounts pertaining to the salary

being paid to the defendant is concerned, the evidence qua the

same has also been led by the plaintiff. PW-6 specifically deposed

that the account of salary paid to defendant Ramdas was

maintained in "Bahi" by the Mahant. Therefore, finding on issue

No.2 also does not deserve any interference.

20. So far as the document Exh.8, the order of Jagir

Commissioner is concerned, as rightly held by first appellate

Court, the same does not even deserve to be proved as the Court

can suo moto take its cognizance. Further, even if the said

document Exh.8 is not taken into consideration, there is ample

evidence available on record to prove that defendant Ramdas was

appointed as a Pujari/Care-taker of the property in question and

hence, did not have any rightful ownership over the property in

question.

21. True it is that a plaintiff has to prove his own case and

loopholes in defendant evidence cannot be made the ground to

decide an issue in favour of the plaintiff, but then, the specific

admissions of the defendant witnesses can also not be ignored.

Further, when the defendant came up with the specific case that

[2023:RJ-JD:43880] (15 of 15) [CSA-249/2022]

the property in question was transferred to his ancestors by

Maharaja Vijay Singh, he was definitely under an obligation to

prove the said fact by oral/documentary evidence. To the

contrary, DW-1 Hari Prasad specifically denied any such fact and

deposed as under:

"Lo- egkjktk fot;flag us gekjs fdl iqoZt dks tk;nkn lqiqnZ fd eq>s /;ku ugha gSA esjs iqoZtksa dks tk;nkn lqiqnZ djus dk nLrkost esjs ikl ugha gSA eq>s irk ugha fd esjs iqoZtksa us mDr tk;nkn dk iV~Vk ysus fd dk;Zokgh fd ;k ughaA eSaus ;k esjs HkkbZ;ksa us iV~Vk ysus ckcr dk;Zokgh ugha fd gSA"

22. In view of the specific admissions of the defendants

themselves, this Court is of the clear opinion that the learned

Courts below rightly decided issue Nos.1 to 3 & 5 in favour of the

plaintiff.

23. So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for

the appellants are concerned, this Court does not deem it

essential to go into the ratio laid down in the said judgments as

the same is not even required in the present matter. The case of

the plaintiffs having been proved on record totally on facts, no

question of law arise in the present appeal.

24. Consequently, the present appeal stands dismissed.

25. Stay application and all the pending applications, if any,