MANAK MOHTA, J. - (1.) THIS Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the defendant -appellant against the order dt. 12.09.2007 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, No. 2, Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case No. 100/2007, whereby the learned trial Court has allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC filed by the plaintiff -respondents and granted temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff -respondents and against the defendant appellant.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff -respondents filed a suit under Sections 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for permanent injunction along with Temporary Injunction Application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC in the Court of District Judge, Bhilwara. Later on, that suit along with temporary injunction application was transferred to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, No. 2, Bhilwara for adjudication. It was stated in the plaint and temporary injunction application that there are 20 Panda families who are performing Seva Pooja of 'Dhanop Mataji' temple at Bhilwara as per their settled turns. It is further stated that this turn used to come every after four years of each family for a period of four months. It was stated that at this time, the turn is come in the month of Bhadwa, Asoj, Falgun and Chaitra of Samvat 2064 and 2065. The right of seva pooja is hereditary right and in case of death of any Panda, the right of succession will be governed by Section 104 of the Indian Succession Act, the property rights will be devolved on the successors. It is stated that the families of the plaintiffs and since deceased Amarchand were the joint participants of that Seva Pooja. When Amarchand was alive, he was also jointly performing the said pious duties. They were entitled to equal shares, presents and offerings collected during that period peacefully. It was submitted that now Amra @ Amarchand expired issueless on 17.10.2004, therefore, right of pooja seva is merged in respondent No. 2 -Mishrilal, as he has performed all the religious acts at the time of death of Amra and he is in possession of the property of Amra. It is alleged that on the death of Amarchand, the defendant -appellant claimed to be assignee of late Amarchand, on the basis of gift -deed executed in his favour and on that basis, he gave threatening to interfere in the seva pooja of Dhanop Mataji temple during his turn. He also gave threatening to dispossess from the property of Amra to respondent No. 2, therefore, a suit as well as TI Application was filed to restrain him from doing so. In the TI Application, it was prayed that the defendant -appellant may be restrained from interfering in the Seva Pooja on their turn and be directed not to insist in receiving half of the offering and receipts and religious endowments. In the reply filed by the defendant -appellant has denied the exclusive right of seva pooja of the plaintiff -applicants. It was clearly stated that right of Seva Pooja has been gifted to him through a Gift -deed dt. 18.01.1992 by late Shri Amra and Smt.Sarju. The same was executed and registered on 19.01.1992 by late Shri Amra and Smt.Sarju in favour of the defendantappellant, thereunder all property rights including right of seva pooja was also given to the defendant -appellant as per his turn, therefore, he is also entitled to perform seva pooja as usual. It was further stated that on 12.11.2004, the plaintiff -respondents tried to take possession over the agriculture land, which was previously entered in the name of Amra but presently that is in possession of the defendant -appellant. In this regard, an FIR was lodged and challan was filed against the plaintiffs and the trial is still pending in the Court. It was also submitted that the plaintiff -respondents preferred a case before Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Shahpura, who passed an order dt. 04.07.2007 but being aggrieved by that, the defendant -appellant preferred an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority, in which, effect and operation of the order dt. 04.07.2007 has been stayed. It was submitted that the plaintiffs have never challenged validity of the Gift -deed executed on 19.01.1992, therefore, they are not entitled to any relief in the suit and are not entitled to get T.I order. The defendant -applicant, by way of counterclaim, also prayed to issue temporary injunction against the plaintiff for not interfering and for not making any objection in performing seva pooja and receiving half of the offerings and receipts. It was submitted that the appellant is doing Seva Pooja since 1992 and he has been receiving half part of the offering/receipts and religious endowment, therefore, he is entitled to receive the same and be allowed to perform Seva Pooja as usual. Lastly, it was prayed that temporary injunction order may be issued against the plaintiff -applicants.
(3.) AFTER hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court vide its order dt. 12.09.2007 allowed the T.I. Application filed by the plaintiff -respondents and issued temporary injunction order restraining the defendant -appellant to interfere in the seva pooja and to receive offerings and presents. The learned trial Court dismissed the T.I. prayer claimed by the defendantappellant, hence, this appeal before this Court. Notice of appeal was given to the respondents and arguments were heard and record of the case perused carefully.;