Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 741 (PAT)

Shri Raghunathjee v. Leelawati Devi

2002-07-15

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2002
Judgment 1. This appeal by the plaintiff is against the judgment of reversal passed in Title Appeal No. 25 of 1998/42 of 1995 (D. J.) by 5th Additional District Judge, Gaya, setting aside the judgment passed by Ist Subordinate, Judge, Gaya in Title Suit No. 59 of 1976. 2. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff-appellant is that Goalpathal Thakurbari situated at Mohalla Goalpathal Gaya is an ancient Thakurbari in which Raghunathjee and other deities are installed. The said Thakurbari is the principal Thakurbari having several other subordinate Thakurbari, including the Gopinath Thakurbari (defendant) within its control and supervision. The original defendant Shyam Sundar Pujari was appointed as Pujari for the said Gopinath Thakurbari on a fixed salary for day to day management of the properties attached thereto by the Mahanth of Goalpathal Thakurbari, who has every right to terminate the services of the defendant. The said Pujari during his service developed immoral character with the tenant associates of the Thakurbari and also misappropriated the fund of the temple, which compelled the plaintiff to terminate the service of the defendant, who was asked to vacate the temple premises and hand over the charge of all the properties,. The defendant challenged the authority of the plaintiff claiming himself as Mahanth of independent Gopinath Thakurbari. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that Gopinath Thakurbari and the properties attached thereto belong to Goalpathal Thakurbari and the defendant be directed to hand over the charge to the plaintiff and vacate the premises of Gopinath Thakurbari. 3. The defendant by filing written statement denied that Gopinath Thakurbari is subordinate to Goalpathal Thakurbari in any way. According to him, plaintiff has no concern with Gopinath Thakurbari and its properties nor defendant Shyam Sundar Pujari was appointed by the plaintiff. Munshi Amrit Lal of village-Adampore more had founded this Gopinath temple more than 100 years back and since then the property of the temple are managed and controlled by its own Mahanth or Shebait. Gopinath Thakurbari standing on Municipal plot no. 11559 never belonged to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has got no right, title, interest and possession over Gopinath Thakurbari. The S.D.O. has rightly decided the proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P.C. vide order dated 12.10.1972 in favour of the defendant, who are paying rent to the State of Bihar. 4. Gopinath Thakurbari standing on Municipal plot no. 11559 never belonged to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has got no right, title, interest and possession over Gopinath Thakurbari. The S.D.O. has rightly decided the proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P.C. vide order dated 12.10.1972 in favour of the defendant, who are paying rent to the State of Bihar. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court found that Gopinath Thakurbari belongs to the plaintiff-GoaIpathaI Thakurbari and the defendant has no right, title and interest in the said Thakurbari and is simply a Pujari and has been directed to hand over the charge to the plaintiff vacating the temple premises. The trial court disbelieved the story that Amrit Lal was founder of Gopinath Thakurbari, and, thus, decreed the suit. The defendant being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court preferred appeal and the appellate court on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence allowed the appeal by interfering with respect to point nos. lII & IV only and held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that Gopinath Thakurbari is subordinate to Goalpathal Thakurbari and the plaintiff has got no right, title and interest in Gopinath Thakurbari and its property attached thereto and he further found that the status of the original defendant Shyam Sundar Pujari is not more than a Pujari. 5. The plaintiff, who is appellant herein, has preferred the present second appeal, challenging the judgment of the lower appellate court. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has submitted that the findings recorded by the trial cout in paragraphs 66 to 74 of its judgment has not been considered by the lower appellate court, and the lower appellate court has failed to consider the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff in its correct perspective, which has adversely affected the case of the plaintiff. 6. From perusal of the impugned judgment it appears that the lower appellate court agreed with the findings of the trial court and interfered only with respect to point nos. Ill & IV, which has been dealt in paras 14 to 22 of its judgment. On the point whether Gopinath Thakurbari is subordinate to Goalpathal Thakurbari, lower appellate court has considered various documents filed by the plaintiff as well as defendant and found that on the basis of exhibits, it cannot be said that Gopinath Thakurbari is subordinate to Goalpathal Thakurbari. On the point whether Gopinath Thakurbari is subordinate to Goalpathal Thakurbari, lower appellate court has considered various documents filed by the plaintiff as well as defendant and found that on the basis of exhibits, it cannot be said that Gopinath Thakurbari is subordinate to Goalpathal Thakurbari. The lower appellate court on consideration of oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff has found that none of the witness has said that on what basis Gopinath Thakurbari is subordinate to Goalpathal Thakurbari, and, thus, held that Gopinath Thakurbari is not subordinate Thakurbari to Goalpathal Thakurbari, and further, held that the plaintiff has got no right, title and interest in Gopinath Thakurbari and its property attached thereto. The findings of the trial court recorded in paragraphs 66 to 74 of its judgment has been considered by the lower appellate court in paragraph 14 and onwards while considering point no. III. 7. As the aforesaid facts stand concluded by the findings recorded by the lower appellate court on consideration of evidence oral as well as documentary, I do not find any case for interference in Second Appeal, moreso, when no substantial question of law is involved. The appeal is, thus, dismissed summarily.