S. K. Dhaon, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's Second Appeal. The trial court on 30th April, 1974 dismissed suit no. 60 of 1971 in which the plaintiff claimed the cancellation of a sale deed dated 27th May 1969 with respect to certain agricultural plots and also the delivery of the possession of the said plots after the ejectment of the defendants. The other usual reliefs were also claimed. The lower appellate court by its judgment and decree dated 3rd December, 1976 reversed the decree of the trial court and decreed the suit.
(2.) THE material averments in the plaint are these. One Thakur Jodha Singh was the zamindar. He owned Sir land. During his life time he created a public trust by means of a registered waqf deed dated 24th September, 1934 whereby he endowed his sir land, which formed part of agricultural plots (hereinafter referred to as the plots in dispute; in favour of the plaintiff (Sri Thakurji Mahraj Birajman Mandir) for the maintenance and upkeep etc. of the temple and the Bhog expenses of the plaintiff THE plots m dispute were recorded in the revenue papers as the sir of the plaintiff. During his life time Thakur Jodha Singh remained the Manager of the temple and thereafter amongst others Ganga Nandan Chela Bramha Nandan became the Manager. THE plots in dispute were cultivated by the Managers on behalf of the plaintiff Preceding Baba Sant Ram Dass, the present Mahant and Sarbarkar of the plaintiff, Jagan Nath Dass was the Mahant and Sarbarkar of the plaintiff. On 27th May, 1969 Jagan Nath Dass executed a sale deed and transferred the pilots in dispute to the defendants for an alleged consideration of Rs. 30.000/-. THE plots in dispute measured 33 bighas, 18 biswas and 10 biswansis. During the tenure of managership of Ganga Nandan, Jagan Nath Dass with the connivance of the Lekhpal got his name entered in the Khasra record On acquiring this knowledge, Ganga Nandan moved an application in the form of objection before the Sub Divisional Officer concerned under section 240 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in compensation proceedings. This case was registered as case no. 157 of 1957 (Ganga Nandan v. Jagan Nath Dass). In the said case, a compromise was arrived at on 21st December, 1957 in which Jagan Nath Dass admitted the title of the plaintiff. He agreed to manage the plots in dispute as the Manager of the temple without any right to sell or mortgage the same. This compromise was duly executed by the parties and was filed in the case. It was duly recorded and the proceedings were disposed of by an order dated 21st December 1957 in terms of the compromise. THE said compromise was acted upon thereafter. Jagan Nath Dass continued to be the Mahant and Sarbarkar of the plaintiff from the date of the said compromise. After some time he became dishonest and manoeuvred to get the plots in dispute recorded in his personal name in the revenue records. He obtained a Bhumidhari Sanad with respect to the said plots and thereafter executed the impugned sale deed. On these facts coming to light the Hindu Public of the village concerned removed Jagan Nath Dass; from Mahantship and duly appointed Baba Sant Ram Dass as Mahant and. Sarbarkar of the plaintiff. Jagan Nath Dass died in January, 1971. The defendants filed a common written statement. In it, the material averments are these. Jagan Nath Dass was the Sirdar of the plots in dispute in his own right and he not only continued to be recorded as such but also continued to be in possession over the plots in dispute. The village where the plots in dispute were situated, was brought under consolidation operation and in those proceedings [he was recorded sirdar of the plots in dispute. He was also issued CH Form no. 45 and those proceedings became final. The plaintiff did not raise any objection in the consolidation proceedings The suit is, therefore barred under section 27 read with section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Jagan Nath Dass was not the Sarbarakar or the Manager of the plaintiff. Jagan Nath Dass obtained bhumidhari sanad after depositing the necessary amount and after complying with the necessary formalities. Thereafter he executed the impugned sale deed and on its basis the defendants came in possession of the plots in dispute and they continued to be in possession. The Revenue Court alone had the jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff had neither any title over the plots in dispute nor was in possession over the same. The suit was barred by limitation. The rights, if any, of the plaintiff extinguished long back. Jagan Nath Dass, at no stage, accepted the title of the plaintiff in the proceedings under section 240 of the Act. Since Jagan Nath Dass was neither the Sarbarkar nor the Manager of the plaintiff, the question of his being removed from the possession of the plots in dispute did not arise. The trial court framed a number of issues Its material findings are these. The Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit can be instituted by the plaintiff through Sant Ram Dass even as a worshipper. The suit is not barred either by section 91 or order 1 rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code. The arrangement made in proceedings under section 240 that Jagan Nath Dass would be the Sarbarkar and the Manager of the temple was extraneous to proceedings under section 240 G and had no affect even otherwise, there was absolutely no evidence to show that Jagan Nath Dass acted as Sarbarkar of the plaintiff in pursuance of the compromise. Therefore, Jagan Nath Dass was never the Sarbarkar or the Manager of the plaintiff. The plaintiff stepped into the shoes of Thakur Jodha Singh and, therefore, became the owner of the plots in dispute. The plaintiff was recorded as Sir Malikan in 1359 Fasli i.e. immediately before the date of vesting or the abolition of zamindari. However, in the khataunis of 1356 Fasli and 1359 Fasli the name of Mahant Dhirma Dass was recorded as Dar Sikmi kastkar against the plots: in dispute. These entries show that Dhiram Dass was in possession of the plots in dispute. In the Khatauni of 1362 Fasli the plaintiff was recorded as the Bhumidhar against the plots in dispute. However, in column no 7 oft the said document, Mahant Dhiram Dass was ordered to be recorded as the Sirdar against the said plots on the basis of an order dated 10th May, 1936 passed by the Assistant Collector. This order was given effect to and the name of Mahant Dhiram Dass was recorded as sirdar. In 1356 Fasli there was an entry of Dhiram Dass as an occupant and, therefore he became an. adhiwasi under section 20 (b) of the Act. In proceedings taken under Chapter IXA of the Act the title of the plaintiff extinguished as it accepted compensation and Dhiram Dass was declared as the sirdar. Dhiram Dass died in the year 1955. He was the great grand Guru (Dada) of Jagan Nath Dass. The plaintiff having led no evidence to the contrary Jagan Nath Dass is to be accepted as the heir of Dhriam Dass and, therefore, upon the demise of Dhiram Dass he became the Sirdar of the plots in dispute. A deity cannot be regarded either as a minor or a physically infirm person as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. The disability, if at all, should be of the Sarbarkar of the. deity. There being no pleading or proof of any disability of any Sarbarkar, there was no impediment in the way of Dhiram Dass becoming an Adhivasi and thereafter a sirdar. The revenue entries in favour of Dhiram Dass and Jagan Nath Dass are not fictitious and are genuine. In proceedings under section 240 G Ganga Nandan got his objection dismissed and took compensation for the rights and interest of the plaintiff Jagan Nath Dass in those proceedings was treated as Sirdar. Even in consolidation proceedings Jagan Nath Dass was recorded as a sirdar and those ;proceedings having become final, the suit is barred by section 49 read with section 27 of the consolidation of Holdings Act. Jagan Nath Dass, therefore, legally transferred the plots in dispute after becoming bhumidhar of the same. The defendant are bhumidhars in possession over the plots in dispute. The plaintiff was never in possession within twelve years from the date of the suit and, therefore, it is barred by limitation.
(3.) THE findings recorded by the lower appellate court are these. THE suit is maintainable at the instance of Sant Ram Dass. Dhiram Dass could not become an Adhiwasi within the meaning of section 20 (b) of the Act. Since he was also recorded in the khasra of 1359 Fasli and was, therefore, a person in cultivatory possession in 1359 Fasli year and he could acquire Adhiwasi right under section 30 (b) of the U. P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act, 1952. Jagan Nath Dass was not the chela of Dhiram Dass. After the demise of Dhiram Dass, Dhiram Dass left no chela and the name of Jagan Nath Dass was fictitiously recorded in his place even though he was not in possession over the plots in dispute. Kunwar Singh, one of the defendants, has admitted in his deposition that the plots in dispute were the personal property of Jagan Nath Dass and the same had no concern with the temple nor he was the Sarbarkar of the temple and that he used to live in Bareilly. He also admitted that Jagan Nath Dass is the chela of Narain Dass. THE terms of the compromise as recorded in proceedings under section 240 of the Act were binding upon Jagan Nath Dass. Inspite of the rejection of the objection, there is no evidence that compensation was paid to Ganga Nandan. On account of the compromise entered into, Jagan Nath Dass had also given up his right and title, if any, in the plots in dispute. Since the compensation was not paid, hence a mere recital in the compromise that compensation shall pass to Ganga Nandan was of no avail. After the compromise the status of Jagan Nath Dass or Dhiram Dass prior to the date of compromise became immaterial as Jagan Nath Dass himself accepted to be acting as Mahant THE giving up of his rights over the property and his acceptance to act as Mahant implies that he accepted the objection of Ganga Nandan; that, in fact, Dhiram Dass had started looking after the property at the instance of Ganga Nandan when he was sick and the entries by the Lekhpal in the revenue record were fictitious. In the absence of any evidence that compensation statement was prepared or compensation was paid to any party, it is clear that no compensation statement was prepared nor finalised as provided under section 240-K and hence Jagan Nath Dass was never declared a Bhumidhar or sirdar and, therefore, he had no right to obtain bhumidhari sanad Jagan Nath Dass could not wriggle out of the compromise. Jagan Nath Dass, so long as he remained the Mahant, could not claim any interest adverse to the plaintiff. Section 49 and section 27 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act could not be pressed into service by the defendants as Jagan Nath Dass got possession as trustee under the compromise in proceedings under section 240G of the Act and thereafter if his name continued in the revenue record, it shall be held that he held the property as a Mahant of the temple and he has no transferrable right therein. An admission is the best evidence and Jagan Nath Dass is bound by his admission made in the compromise in proceedings under section 240G, Jagan Nath Dass was neither the Adhiwasi nor the Sirdar. THE defendants could not get any advantage of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act THE defendants are not transferees for full value. Since the property belonged to the temple, therefore, even if it is assumed that the defendants got possession from the date of the sales deed i.e. 27th May 1969, the suit filed on 25th February 1971 was within twelve years and, therefore, clearly within time. The lower appellate court has recorded a finding of fact that Jagan Nath Dass was not the Chela of Dhiram Dass. For doing so he has placed reliance on the testimony of DW 1, Kunwar Singh. We have to first consider the question as to whether JaganNath Dass was the chela of Dhiram Dass. In the plaint there is no reference at all to Dhiram Dass. In the written statement too there is no reference to Dhiram Dass Baba Sant Ram Das, PW 1, in his examination-in-chief does not make any reference to Dhiram Dass. In cross examination he states "I did not know Baba Dhiram Dass. Jagan Nath Dass was the chela of Marain Das but I did not know whose chela was Narain Dass. I am a Guru: Bhai of Narain Dass" and then states "I am the Guru Bhai of Jagan Nath Dass and Chela of Narain Dass " This witness, therefore, has not come out with the truth insofar as he states that "he did not know Dhiram Dass." He, however, admits that Jagan Nath Dass was the Chela of Narain Dass. DW 1, Kunwar Singh in his examination-in-chief states" Jagan Nath Dass was the chela of Narain Dass. Narain Dass was probably the Chela of Bijrang Dass Jagan Nath Dass got the property from his guru Dada Dhiram Dass. On a query by the witness from Jagan Nath Dass about Dhiram Dass, the witness was told by Jagan Nath Dass that his Guru Dada was Dhiram Dass It is thus evident that the defendants failed to produce any reliable evidence to establish that Jagan Nath Dass was the Chela of Dhiram Dass. The lower appellate court had the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of DW 1. It bad done so. I find no reason to disagree with its appraisement of the testimony of this witness. It follows that [the period of limitation of filing a suit against Dhiram Dass by the plaintiff cannot be lagged with the period of limitation within which a suit could be instituted by the plaintiff as against Jagan Nath Dass or his successor-in-interest I, therefore, uphold the finding of the lower appellate court that the suit had been filed well within time.;