Tarun Chatterjee, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and decree dated 17th of October, 2000 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 443 of 1994 whereby the High Court had set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Panna who in his turn had allowed the appellants appeal against the decree of the trial court dismissing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellant.
(2.) The case of the appellant is that a temple in the name of "Shala Janki Raman Mandir in village Gadhi Padrariya and the agricultural lands (in short "the suit lands") as fully described in paragraph 1 of the plaint were owned by Mahant Ramdas, who was the guru of the appellant, as Manager of the same. The temple and the suit lands were bequeathed to the appellant by Mahant Ramdas to succeed to the same as Manager. In the year 1987-88, the Collector Panna started auctioning the suit lands and therefore, the appellant filed a suit for declaration of title with regard to the suit lands and also a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the enjoyment and possession of the same. The suit filed by the appellant was contested by the respondent on the ground that the temple and the suit lands were the property of the State and that Mahant Ramdas was appointed as a priest and after his death, the appellant was appointed in his place as the priest. It was further alleged that when the appellant sent a resignation letter to the Collector, the same was accepted and another person was appointed in place of the appellant as the priest. Neither Mahant Ramdas nor the appellant owned the temple or the suit lands, which were the property of the State and the Will in question was a fabricated document, which was prepared to grab the temple and the suit lands. The trial court dismissed the suit of the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Panna and the same was allowed. Against this decision of the first appellate court, the respondent filed a second appeal, which, as noted herein earlier, was allowed. It is this judgment of the High Court which is impugned in this appeal.
(3.) While allowing the second appeal, the High Court had framed the following substantial question of law :- "Whether in the light of the admissions of the plaintiff that his name does not find place in the revenue records and that he was forcibly dispossessed by the Collector in 1987, the courts below have committed an error in granting a decree for declaration and injunction ;