SHIVAJI MAHRAJ Vs. LALA BARATI LAL
LAWS(ALL)-1955-10-27
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (AT: LUCKNOW)
Decided on October 13,1955

SHIVAJI MAHRAJ Appellant
VERSUS
LALA BARATI LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.D.Bhargava, J. - (1.) This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs who had brought a suit for proprietary possession of the land (for clarity, which was marked in the Commissioner's map), by demolition of certain constructions made thereon, on the allegations that that plot of land belonged to Shivaji and the defendants have wrongfully encroached upon that land and had made constructions in December 1945.
(2.) The plaintiffs in the suit were Shivaji through Babu Ram, acting as next friend of plaintiff 1, claiming to be its Pujari and there were 9 other Hindus who had claimed to file the Suit in representative capacity and had taken permission of the Court under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C. The existence of a temple of Shivaji in Gurahi Bazar, Mohalla Saadatganj, cannot be denied. It has been there for a very long time. On behalf of the plaintiffs it was alleged that it was a public temple and it stood on plot No. 1944 which number includes the land in dispute also. This land was dedicated to plff. 1, Shivaji from time immemorial and the dedication was sought to be proved by long user and it was said that plaintiff 1 had derived title on account of this dedication by long user. Plaintiffs also claimed damages in the sum of Rs. 320/- in respect of a wall and two trees that stood on that plot and said to have been destroyed by the defendants.
(3.) Defendant 1 carries an extensive business in vicinity of the temple and the other defendants are his relations. They denied the title of the plaintiffs either by virtue of Khasra or by dedication. They claimed the proprietorship of the land In themselves and they alleged that the Shivala had been built by their ancestors and they had been supervising and maintaining the service of Shivaji. They admitted the existence of the wall and the trees but they denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to any damages. The defendants also pleaded that the plaintiffs had no right to bring the suit and the plaintiffs were also not in possession of the property in dispute within 12 years and, therefore, the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit on the findings that the plaintiff was entitled to sue through Babu Ram, who was a worshipper, and that the suit was within 12 years and the suit was not barred by time and that the plaintiff's right to this plot of land had been established.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.