(1.) THIS first appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil procedure by the appellants-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 15-10-2004, passed by the First Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit no. 03-A/2001.
(2.) THE plaintiffs filed a suit in representative capacity under Order 1 rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code for declaration and permanent injunction. They pleaded that the temple of Hanumanji, Shivji, Parvatiji, Ganeshji, Nadiyaji and bharonji, is situated at Indore Balon Ka Bada, Dal Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior. The temple is hundred years old. An open space is also available around the temple. Number of persons used to come to worship at the temple. However, the defendant is trying to raise a construction over the place of temple. He is also trying to destroy the temple and convert the place of temple in a private property. The defendant No. 1, has an intention to construct a godown in place of temple. Initially, Rambabu Agarwal was added as defendant No. 1 and, subsequently, two other persons, namely, Mr. Balkishan and Ayodhya Mandir trust has been added as defendants. During pendency of suit, Rameshwar dayal, who is original plaintiff, was died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. Two persons, namely, plaintiff No. 2 and plaintiff No. 3 have also been deleted as plaintiffs. The Trial Court permitted the plaintiffs to pursue the suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code.
(3.) THE defendant No. 1 Rambabu Agarwal in written statement denied the pleadings of the plaintiffs. He also filed a counter claim. He pleaded that the bada was of the ownership of Ayodhya Mandir Trust, Sant Niwas Trust indore. The aforesaid trust sold the property to Mr. Ghanshyam Das and balkishan and thereafter the defendant purchased the property from Balkishan. Balkishan also sold some portion of property to Mr. Rameshwar Dayal. He further pleaded that the suit property is the exclusive ownership of the defendant and he has been performing puja and archana in the temple. It has specifically denied by the defendant that the Hanumanji temple is a public temple. He admitted the fact that there is a temple and he is the owner of the temple. The defendant further filed a counter claim mentioning the fact that there is a 10 ft. wide lane and on the aforesaid lane, plaintiff Rameshwar Dayal has made certain encroachment. The lane is 10 ft. x 30 ft. By way of counter claim, the defendant sought permanent injunction against the plaintiff rameshwar Dayal that he be restrained from creating any obstruction and nuisance over 10 ft. wide lane.