B.D. Agrawal, J. - (1.) THIS is defendant's appeal. The Panchayat Dhara Bada Miyanan, Kankhal (hereinafter referred to for the sake of convenience as 'the Panchayat DBM') is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Society is an amalgamation of a Chitthis that is thoks such as Thok Miyanan Goswamis, Chandaman, Kakiras, Chaklan. The general body comprises of one adult member of the families in each of the eight thoks. The Executive Committee consists of 23 members of whom there is one representing each of the thoks. The objects for the formation thereof are enumerated as under: - - (i) For effort being made for all -round development of the Tirth Porohits; (ii) Appropriate management and increase in the income of the movable properties of the Panchayat obtained in the past and accruing in the future; (iii) Providing education to the sons and daughters of the Tirath Purohits and making effort for their character development; (iv) According help to the helpless widows and daughters of Tirath Purohits; (v) Maintenance and development of the sacredness of Haridwar and Kankhal Tirath. The Executive Committee has for its office bearers the President, two Vice -Presidents, Secretary, two Joint Secretaries, Cashier and Accountant. The Panchayat DBM was registered under the order of the Registrar of Societies, U.P. dated October 24, 1962, for which the Memorandum accompanied with Rules formulated under the signature of seven persons associated for the purpose was submitted to the Registrar on August 27, 1962. In the Memorandum, among the properties enumerated as belonging to the Society, is included the house in dispute situate at the Vishnu Ghat in Haridwar and described by boundaries at item No. 3 in Clause 16. Prior to the registration of the Panchayat DBM, there was, according to the plaintiffs, the Panchayat Brahminan (hereinafter referred to as the Panchayat B) or called sometimes the Panchayat Dhara 400 the figure signifying the number of families attached thereto. This was admittedly unregistered.
(2.) THE suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted on September 28, 1964, in the Court of Civil Judge, Roorkee, by the Panchayat DBM through the President (Vishnu Dutt Miyanan) and the then Secretary Dwarika Prasad Misra, whereafter Pran Nath Kaushik has been brought in his place. The contention is that Chandi Dtitt Goswami the defendant was also a member of the Panchayat B. He managed the affairs of the properties, including the property in dispute as Muntazim/Secretary. The defendant was also the Secretary/Muntazim when the Panchayat DBM was registered in 1962. He was in occupation of the house described at the foot of the plaint in his capacity as the manager. It was his duty as such to keep and maintain accounts relating to the properties placed under his charge. Since the defendant did not submit accounts for long despite opportunity being accorded and being required to come up and explain, he was removed with effect from June 8, 1983, from the office. The house, however, has not been vacated by him and his possession over the same is unauthorised ever since the removal from the office. The relief claimed accordingly is possession of the house, rendition of account by the defendant and also injunction. In defence it was pleaded that the defendant is a member of Panchayat DBM. The plaintiffs' right to sue was refuted and it is maintained that the property in question does not belong to them. It has been asserted that this has devolved upon the defendant from his ancestors. There was permission accorded by the defendant's grandfather Jai Ram Goswami to the Panchayat for carrying on its Panchayat therein. But the defendant, it is asserted revoked this permission thirty to forty years prior to the institution of the suit. There is no liability on the defendant's part to render any accounts. The bar of limitation is pleaded also besides setting up a claim of adverse possession.
(3.) UPON considering the evidence placed on the record, the learned Civil Judge found that the Panchayat DBM is duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and is entitled to sue. The house in question is its property; the possession of the defendant was in capacity as the manager/secretary. He has been removed from the office on June 8, 1963. There is no foundation for the claim of adverse possession. Accordingly the suit has been decreed on August 2, 1971, for possession over the house and permanent injunction besides directing the defendant to render accounts in respect of the properties during his tenure as manager/secretary upto June 8, 1963 and with respect to the property in dispute from June 8, 1963, till the date of handing over possession. Aggrieved, the defendant has preferred this appeal.;