Hari Nath Tilhari - (1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal arising out of suit for possession over the property in dispute described in the schedule 1 attached to the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents 1 to 3 i. e Harihar Singh, Surendra Singh and Hira Yadav from realising rent from the respondent 4 to 2 in the second appeal. It may be mentioned here that Harihar Singh had died during the pendency of the second appeal and his heirs have been brought on record as respondents 1/1 to 1/8. The injunction had been claimed by the plaintiff-appellant in the suit against the 1st and Ilnd set of respondent i. e. originally against Harihar Singh and now the heirs of Harihar Singh as well as Surendra Singh and Hira Yadav that they be restrained from realising rent from other respondents.
(2.) THE plaintiff's case has been that Mission Compound of Maunathbhanjan along with Bunglow therein was attached to the Church of North India (CNI) and that Vishram Mashih and other Pastorate Committee Church of North India Maunathbhanjan i. e the plaintiff-appellant claimed to be Committee of the CNI and it was claimed that the said Committee through Vishram Mashih was in possession of the said property in dispute and that plaintiff no. 1 Vishram Mashih as secretary of pastorate Committee used to manage the property on behalf of the pastorate Committee and had right to sue in that capacity. THE Mission Compound was a public trust and no body bad right to transfer it. Harihar Singh, defendant no. 1 expressed and declared his Intention of getting a sale deed of the disputed property from Deendayal and other on the basis some forged documents. THEreupon the respondent no. 1 filed a suit no. 246 of 1973 In the Court of Munshif Mahmadabad Gohna against Revision Rt. Bishop Deendayal and others. THE plaintiff asserted that in that suit an order was passed that Bishop Deendayal and others had no right to transfer the property of Mission Compound. THE plaintiff further asserted that the appellant and respondent second set colluded with each other and took unauthorised possession of. the Bunglow of the Bishap on 14-3-1976 by use of force. THE respondents third set were tenants in the room and houses of the compound on behalf, of the respondents first set. THE plaintiff's further case is that the original defendant respondent 1 to 3 were giving threatenings to the tenants and were asking them not to pay any rent to the plaintiff-appellant. THE plaintiff's case is that despite of requests being made by the plaintiff neither the respondent no. 1 whose heirs are 1/1 to 1/8 nor respondent no 2 to 3 did deliver possession of the bunglow and nor they did stop or alestam (sic) from threatening the tenants and asking the tenants not to pay rent the plaintiff-appellant and so according to the plaintiff's case, the cause of action did arise for filing the suit, the relief mentioned above. The suit was contested by the defendant No. 1 i. e. primarily and only by Harihar Singh, the original defendant who is the respondent no. 1 In the second appeal and whose heirs 1/1 to 1/8. The written statement was filed by original defendant no. 1 Harihar Singh. No written statement was filed either by respondent no. 2 and 3 or by the tenants i. e. present respondent 4 to 21 contesting the suit. The trial court passed exparte deeree against the respondent no. 2 to 21. The suit was contested as mentioned earlier by Sri Harihar Singh, the original defendant/respondent no. 1. The case of defendant/respondent no. 1 has been that plaintiff's suit at the Instance of the plaintiff-appellant was not maintainable. The defendant no. 1 asserted that plaintiff appellant no. 1 was not the secretary of the pastorate committee Church of North India Maunathbhanjan, District Azamgarh, now present district (Mau). It was further asserted by the appellant that the property in Compound was the property of Methodist Missionary society of Australia which was registered under the Companies Act. Mr. J. H. Allen took the land of the Compound on lease Company's men for constructing house. Schools and wells etc. and handed-over it to the company through a registered deed. The defendant respondent no. 1 asserted that the plaintiff had no concern with them in any way. Methodist Overseas Mission (Methodist Missionary Society of Australia) Trust Association (herein-after referred as M.O.M.T.A.) was the owner of the entire compound and India it managed it through registered agent through his registered attorney.
(3.) THE trial court framed 11 issues as under :- 1 Whether plaintiff no. 2 Is the owner In possession of the disputed property. If so, its effect ? 2. Whether the defendants first set are in possession of the disputed property as alleged in the plaint and are liable to be dispossessed ? 3. whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover rent from the defendants second set ? 4 Whether the plaintiffs have right to file the suit ? 5. Whether the suit is barred by section 92 CPC as alleged In para 9 of the written statement ? Whether the suit is under valued and the court fees paid is insufficient ?;