JUDGMENT 1. The plaintiffs have come up in this second appeal having lost from both the Courts below as their suit for declaration of Bhumiswami right and injunction has been dismissed. 2. Suraj Singh and Chandar Singh were the original plaintiffs whose L.Rs. are the present appellants. However, wherever word 'plaintiff' is written in the judgment it would mean original plaintiffs Suraj Singh and Chandar Singh. The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of Bhumiswami right and permanent injunction in respect to certain agricultural lands which is the subject-matter of the suit. According to the plaint averments, in village Badnagar there is a temple Laxminarayan Ji Bhagwan and suit lands are owned by the said temple. In the revenue record, the name of Collector, Ujjain has been mentioned as Vyavasthapak (Manager) and the name of one Rugnath Ji son of Mohniraj Ji is mentioned. According to the plaintiffs, said temple is the ancestral temple of Rugnath Ji and the suit lands are Muafi Inami lands and the State of M.P. has no right, title and interest either in the temple or in the suit lands. 3. It is the further case of plaintiffs that suit property which is agricultural land was given to plaintiff No.1 by Pujari Rugnath Ji on Shikmi basis by executing a Patta on 23.4.1998 and since then plaintiffs are possessing the suit property as Shikmi of Pujari Rugnath Ji. 4. By operation of law, on coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), firstly plaintiffs became occupancy tenant and thereafter became Bhumiswami. 5. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No.2 viz., Tahsildar by holding that the suit land is Government land put it to auction in Case No. 36/80-81B/ 121 dated 17.5.1981 hence the present suit has been filed for dec1aration of Bhumiswami right and injunction. In the alternative, plea of adverse possession has also been taken by the plaintiffs. 6. The State Government-defendant 1 and 2 by filing written statement denied the plaint averments and have specifically pleaded in para 1 of the written statement that this land is of Aukaf Department and Pujari was not having any right, title and interest to give suit property on Patta by inducting any Shikmi. 7. After framing necessary issues the evidence was recorded and learned trial Court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the suit. 7. After framing necessary issues the evidence was recorded and learned trial Court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the suit. The appeal which was filed by plaintiffs has also been dismissed by impugned judgment and decree. 8. In this manner present second appeal has been filed by plaintiffs assailing the impugned judgment and decree passed by the two Courts below. 9. This Court on 21.1.1993 admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether in view of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 9 CPC, the Courts below were bound to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to implead the idol Shri Laxminarain as Party to this suit? 2. Whether in absence of the idol as party in view of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 9 CPC the suit could be decided between existing parties? 3. Whether document Ex. D-2 was not compulsorily registerable in view of section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act? 4. Whether the State Government could substitute lawfully its nominee in place of the Pujari as the Manager without notice to the plaintiff?" Today also after hearing learned counsel for the parties one more substantial question of law is framed which reads thus: "Whether, having come to the conclusion by the two Courts below that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property, they can be dispossessed without adopting due procedure as prescribed under the law and the suit of plaintiffs so far as injunction part is concerned is liable to be decreed?" 10. I have heard Shri M.K. Jain, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Anand Pathak, Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2. 11. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that Rugnath Ji being Pujari of the temple gave land on Shikmibasis to the predecessor of appellants and the relationship between Rugnath Ji and the plaintiffs was that of Shikmi and if that would be the position, on 2.10.1959 when M.P. Land Revenue Code came into force plaintiff No.1 became occupancy tenant under section 185 of the Code and by operation of law became Bhumiswami under sections 189 and 190 of the Code and, therefore, Collector and Tahsildar were not having any jurisdiction to put the suit property to auction. 12. 12. On the other hand, Shri Anand Pathak, learned Government Advocate for defendants/State argued in support of the impugned judgment and by placing heavy reliance on decision of Supreme Court Kanchaniya (Mst.) and others v. Shiv Ram and others [1992 RN 194] has submitted that as per plaintiffs own case land was given to Pujari under the provisions of Kawaid Muafidaran Juzve Aarazi va Naqdi, Samvat 1961(Gwalior State) under a grant (parwana). The status of Pujari was of a Manager and, therefore, he was not having any authority to give suit property on Shikmi basis to plaintiff No.1 and, therefore, the two Courts below did not commit any error in dismissing the suit of plaintiffs. 13. Regarding Substantial Question of Law No.4: It is plaintiffs own case that the suit land is Muafi land, therefore, it was rightly given on Shikmi basis to plaintiff No.1 by Rugnath Ji who was Pujari of the temple. Since plaintiffs own case is that the suit land is Muafi and Inami and was given to plaintiff, I am of the view that the fate of this case can be decided on the basis of decision of Kanchaniya (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has held that Pujari was not having any right to give land on tenancy basis. The substantial question of law No.4 is accordingly decided that the State Government was lawfully empowered to nominate a Pujari as the Manager without notice to the plaintiffs. Since substantial question of law No.4 which pertains to the right of appellants is decided against them, other substantial questions of law are not being answered. 14. Thus, according to me, learned two Courts below did not commit any error in holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are having Bhumiswami right on the suit property and have rightly dismissed the suit on that score. 15. Regarding Substantial Question of Law No.5: On going through the plaint averments it is revealed that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land since 1948 and are still having possession. The factum of possession has not been disputed in the written statement, though it has been admitted that they are trespassers. 15. Regarding Substantial Question of Law No.5: On going through the plaint averments it is revealed that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land since 1948 and are still having possession. The factum of possession has not been disputed in the written statement, though it has been admitted that they are trespassers. Overwhelming material has been placed by way of evidence by the plaintiffs to demonstrate that they are in possession of the suit property and, therefore, according to me, the two Courts below erred in dismissing the suit of injunction because admittedly the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property since the year 1948 and, hence, the suit of plaintiffs so far as injunction part is concerned, is hereby decreed. The defendants/State Government is, hereby, restrained from interfering with the possession of plaintiffs. The substantial question of law No.5 is thus answered that since plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property they cannot be dispossessed without adopting due procedure as prescribed under the law and the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of in junction and accordingly their suit for injunction is decreed. 16. However, it is hereby made clear that State shall be free to adopt due procedure as prescribed under the law to dispossess the plaintiffs, but at the same time it shall be guided by the directions given in the decision of Kanchaniya (supra) wherein it has been mentioned by the Supreme Court that the senior official in the Aukaf Department shall consider whether the appellants of that case can be permitted to cultivate the land in dispute on terms which may be suitably revised. The Supreme Court further held that in case the said official is of the view that the appellants of that case can be so permitted, a suitable direction in that regard may be given by the Aukaf Department to permit the appellants of that case to cultivate the land on the revised terms. The Supreme Court further held that appellants of that case shall not be ejected from the land in dispute till the matter is so considered. The Supreme Court further held that appellants of that case shall not be ejected from the land in dispute till the matter is so considered. This Court also adopts the same directions and accordingly, respondents are hereby directed to consider the case of plaintiffs whether they can be permitted to cultivate the land in question on the revised condition as held in the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Kanchaniya (supra) and till the matter is considered, plaintiffs shall not be dispossessed. 17. With the aforesaid directions, this appeal is allowed in part and is disposed of with no order as to costs.