- (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.1.90 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Dholpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 13/79, whereby the trial court has dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff filed against the respondent-defendant-State of Rajasthan.
(2.) AS per the case of the appellant-plaintiff before the trial court, the residents of the town Bari, were running a school known as "Shri Nrusinh Sanskrit Pathshala " and the management of the said Pathshala was being done by the executive committee. At the relevant time of the filing of the suit, Shri Ishwar Dutt Viadya was the president of the said Executive Committee, through whom the suit was filed. According to the appellant-plaintiff, though the said Pathshala was got registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958, on 3.1.76, the activities of the Pathshala were being carried on in a rented building prior thereto. As per the further case of the appellant-plaintiff, the Pathshala had also purchased a piece of land from the Municipal Board Bari for Rs. 337.50/- on 30.9.57 and the said Municipal Board Bari had issued the certificate as regards the handing over of the possession of the said piece of land. According to the appellant-plaintiff, subsequently, the Pathshala had also got the permission from Municipal Board, Bari on 28.11.57, for the construction of the building over the said plot and thereafter the construction of some rooms, temple, water-hut etc was also made by the said Pathshala with the help of the funds of certain donors. It was further case of the appellant-plaintiff that the respondent-defendant-State was running a primary school in the said town of Bari, in the house of one Jamna Das Shivcharan Lal, however the said person having got the decree of eviction against the defendant-State, the defendant vacated the said house in the year 1965-66. Since the defendant required some premises for running their school, the then Headmaster of the School Shri Vedariya Ram Dixit had approached the authorities of the plaintiff-Pathshala and requested them to provide some space for running the school temporarily. The office bearers of the plaintiff-Pathshala therefore considering the interest of students allowed the defendant to run the school in one 'Chhapar' shown and marked as 'E' in the map annexed to the plaint. However, thereafter in the year 1970-71 the officers and authorities of the said school of the defendant occupied some more rooms, Verandah etc., as shown and marked as 'f,g,h and j' annexed to the plaint, without the permission of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit against the defendant after serving a notice under Section 80 of CPC, seeking possession of the premises marked as "e,f,g,h and j' in the map annexed to the plaint and also seeking mesne profits from the defendants. The said suit was resisted by the respondent-defendant by filing the written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and further contending interalia that there was no Sanskrit Pathshala being run in the town Bari as alleged and hence the question of managing the same through the plaintiff or the Executive Committee did not arise. It was further contended that the plaintiff was not the owner of the plot or the suit premises. There was no registered sale-deed executed by the Municipal Board in favour of the plaintiff, and if any certificate was issued by the said Municipal Board in that regard, the same was illegal and not binding to the defendant. The respondent-defendant also contended that the primary school was being run by the defendant in the Mohalla Gumat Sherganj since 1948 till 1965 and the said school was thereafter being run in the part of the disputed premises since August, 1965. It was further contended that in fact, as per the authorisation given by the then office bearers of the Sanskrit Pathshala and by the reputed persons of the town, the defendant had started the primary school in part of the disputed premises in the year 1965-66 and had carried out the construction and renovation in the rooms in which the school was being run, with the help of public funds and the donation given by various persons. According to the defendant, the plaintiff did not have any right to file the suit and seek possession of the premises in which the primary school was being run by the State Government to serve the public purpose and public demand in the town. It was also contended that the plaintiff wanted to grab the entire plot under the guise of running Sanskrit Pathshala, and to make a commercial use by constructing shops thereon.
(3.) THE trial court after framing as many as 9 issues dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff. Out of the said 9 issues, the trial court decided Issue No.2 in favour of the plaintiff and rest of the issues against the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the appellant-plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.;