ONKAR LAL Vs. PURSHOTTAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for possession of an 'Obari' (small room) with an Ikdara (a small verandah) and for grant of a permanent, injunction restraining the defendants from using a projection (Raus).

(2.) THERE is a temple of Shri Sitaramji situated in Mohalla Babrapara in the city of Kotah. The defendants Purshottam and Nathulal (here respondents) have a house adjacent to Shri Sitaramji's temple on the west side of the temple the idol of Shri Ramji is installed on the first floor of the temple and on the ground floor are the other apartments there is the disputed 'Obri' and the 'Ikdara' contiguous to the eastern wall of the defendants' house the plaintiff Onkarlal who claims to be the manager of the temple filed the suit on behalf of Chhipa community alleging that the defendants had opened a door in their house in the ikdara on 4 -7 -67 and had also opened two windows in the 'Obari' and had in this manner taken unlawful possession of both the Ikdara and the Obari the projection (Raus) is on the first floor and connects the temple with the residential quarters of the Pujari who brings Bhogmani from over the Raus to the deity. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had opened a door on their first floor so that they could go over the Raus and disturb the privacy of the Pujari Onkarlal sought the permission of the learned Civil Judge, Kota for filing the suit in representative capacity and then filed the suit the learned Civil Judice permitted the plaintiff Onkarlal to file the suit in representative capacity the defendants denied that they had taken unlawful possession of the two apartments or that the door in question was opened ever the Raus in the manner alleged or that the privacy of the Pujari was thereby invaded. Both the parties led their evidence.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the decree of the learned Civil Judge the defendants went up in appeal to the court of the District Judge the plaintiff Onkarlal, however, filed a cross objection regarding the door opening on the Raus. the learned District Judge reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was not successful in proving his claim on the Ikdara and the Obari. In the result, therefore, the learned District Judge reversed the decree of the Civil Judge regarding the Obari and Ikdara. Regarding the cross objection filed by the plaintiff the learned Judge observed that there was no case for interference with the conclusion reached by the learned Civil Judge. Accordingly, he dismissed the cross objection.