Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1886 (HP)

Naag Devta Sewa Samiti, Dobri Salwala v. Sant Ram

2015-12-15

RAJIV SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., dated 28.10.2015, passed in Civil Appeal No. 55-N/13 of 2013/12. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), has instituted suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) to restrain the defendants from interfering in the management or taking forcible possession of the property of Naag Devta Mandir, situated at Village Dobri Salwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, vide registration Certificate No. 668-SDM/P 2001, dated 5.10.2001, by the Registrar of Societies, Sub Division, Paonta Sahib. The plaintiff-society has its own Constitution, Memorandum and bye-laws, for the management of temple and for carrying out other welfare activities. The Society has formed a Managing Committee for carrying out its affairs. Sh. Depinder Singh Bhandari is the President and Sh. Varinder Singh Chaudhary is its General Secretary. According to the bye-laws of the Society, its General Secretary is competent to sue on behalf of the plaintiff and conduct legal proceedings. The temple is being looked after and managed by the Temple Society since long. The Society has spent huge amount to preserve the property of the temple. The defendants have no right, title and interest in the management of the temple nor are they the members of the plaintiff- Society. The defendants in the month of March, 2002 provoked their close relations to take possession of the temple forcibly and filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was filed by Sh. Atma Ram, Raghubir Singh, Chaman Lal Sharma and others, all resident of Village Kotga Kando. The civil suit bearing No. 35/2002 was filed against the plaintiff-Society. However, the suit was withdrawn under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, on 4.1.2003. A fair (Jaitha Itwar Mela) is organized in the premises of the temple every year. On 19.5.2002, on the occasion of Jetha Itwar Fair, the defendants interfered in the smooth functioning of the fair and tried to take control of the management of the temple and offerings offered by the devotes. However, their interference was stopped. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. On 19.5.2002, on the occasion of Jetha Itwar Fair, the defendants interfered in the smooth functioning of the fair and tried to take control of the management of the temple and offerings offered by the devotes. However, their interference was stopped. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has no right in the management of the temple. The Society could be registered only for the promotion of literary, scientific and charitable purpose or for the improvement of fine arts or for the diffusion of useful knowledge, whereas the main object of the plaintiff-Society is religious and to take over the management of the temple. Hence, the Registrar of the Societies had no jurisdiction to register the plaintiff Society. Defendants No. 1 to 3 & 5 alongwith other 11 families of Pujaris are offering pooja in the temple, managing it, and are collecting the offerings from generation to generation since the time of Maharaja Dhak Prakash. The defendant No. 3 Sh. Deep Chand is the head priest of the temple. The Deity of Naag Devta/Nawna speaks through defendant No. 3. The temple of Naag Devta is centuries old. In the month of October, 2001, the plaintiff-Society with the aim to collect money from the shopkeepers had published pamphlets to auction the stalls at the fair. The Gram Panchayat Dobri Salwala passed a resolution on 7.10.2001, requesting the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur to stop the plaintiff and its members from indulging in illegal activities. The defendant No. 4 is the President of Gram Panchayat. The Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur, vide order dated 8.10.2001 directed the plaintiff and its members not to indulge in illegal activities and informed that the management of fair is within the right of Gram Panchayat. The plaintiff has no right in the management of the affairs of the temple. The plaintiff and its members have a malafide intention to grab the offerings of the temple. The Priest/Shebait have nothing to do with the management of the fairs of the temple and the plaintiff has also no right in the management of the temple affairs. The plaintiff under the garb of present suit wants to collect the offerings without any right, title and interest. 4. The plaintiff filed replication reasserting the averments made in the plaint and denying the contention raised by the defendants in their written statement. The plaintiff under the garb of present suit wants to collect the offerings without any right, title and interest. 4. The plaintiff filed replication reasserting the averments made in the plaint and denying the contention raised by the defendants in their written statement. It is admitted that the temple is situated in reserved forest and has got its history. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, framed the issues on 18.2.2008. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.9.2012. The plaintiff, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.9.2012. The learned Addl. District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, dismissed the same on 28.10.2015. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. He then contended that the courts below have not appreciated the outcome of the withdrawal of civil Suit No. 35/2002 on 4.1.2003. 6. I have heard the learned counsel and have also gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully. 7. PW-1 Roop chand has proved on record copy of previous suit filed titled as Atma Ram vrs. Naag Devta Samiti. 8. PW-2 Atma Ram Sharma, deposed that he had filed the previous suit titled as Atma Ram vrs. Naag Devta Samiti. He had withdrawn the suit with permission to file suit afresh. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had withdrawn the suit on the basis of technical grounds. He is also resident of village Nagetha and his villagers used to offer a “Patha” of their produce to Naag Devta. He also admitted that he has seen the plaintiffs of previous suit at temple acting as Pujaris. 9. PW-4 Haminder Singh testified that he is running a shop in the name of M/S Unique Electricals and the plaintiff-Samiti has purchased electrical goods on 16.9.2006. 10. PW-5 Mehar Singh has proved copy of Panchayat Resolution Ext. PW-5/A. 11. PW-6 Devi Singh deposed that he had been working as Jr. Assistant in HPSEB and account No. AW-71 is in the name of Naag Devta Committee Salwala and this connection was taken by Deep Chand Bhandari. 12. 10. PW-5 Mehar Singh has proved copy of Panchayat Resolution Ext. PW-5/A. 11. PW-6 Devi Singh deposed that he had been working as Jr. Assistant in HPSEB and account No. AW-71 is in the name of Naag Devta Committee Salwala and this connection was taken by Deep Chand Bhandari. 12. PW-7 Prem Chand Sharma has deposed that in the year 2001, Anuj Chaudhary, member of Naag Devta Committee, Salwala has got registered some antique Idols with H.P. Language and Culture Department. 13. PW-8 Kanwar Vikram Singh deposed that Naag Devta Temple was established by his predecessor Maharaja Dhak Prakash. He was regular visitor of the temple. The Committee was managing the affairs since 2001 and before this, the temple was neglected and none was looking after its affairs. Various developmental works have been undertaken by the Committee. The Pujaris and he has not seen the defendants any time working as Pujaries in the temple. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he is not representing the royal family. He has not gone to attend any function of Naag Devta. 14. PW-9 Ram Chand Sharma is a contractor. According to him, the management of the Nag Devta temple is looked after by Pradhan Depinder Singh. 15. PW-10 Jagdish Sharma deposed that he was working as Pujari in the temple alongwith Shanti Swaroop. They were getting Rs. 2500/- per month as salary. In his crossexamination, he admitted that Ram Chand is his real brother. He also admitted that whole of the villagers used to offer the part of their cultivation in the Naag Devta temple in the shape of “Patha”. 16. PW-11 Jeetu Ram is a mason. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not produced any documentary evidence regarding the engagement as mason. 17. PW-12 Rohit Kathuria has prepared site map Ext. PW-12/A. 18. PW-14 Virender Chaudhary is the Secretary of the Naag Devta Seva Samiti. It was registered and the Samiti has passed a resolution and authorized him to file the present suit and Depinder is the Pradhan of the Samiti. The Samiti was looking after the affairs of Naag Devta temple. He further deposed that prior to Committee, no one was looking after the affairs of the temple and the defendants have no right and title in the temple and they never remained Pujaris in the temple. Two functions are organized in the temple every year. The Samiti was looking after the affairs of Naag Devta temple. He further deposed that prior to Committee, no one was looking after the affairs of the temple and the defendants have no right and title in the temple and they never remained Pujaris in the temple. Two functions are organized in the temple every year. One is celebrated after Dussehra and people used to offer part of their cultivation in the temple. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the Pradhan Deep Chand Bhandari is his brother-in-law. He also admitted that he was contesting the election of Vidhan Sabha and he has not done any development work in the temple when he was Pradhan. 19. PW-16 Depinder Bhandari is the President of Naag Devta Temple Samiti. According to him, in the year 1999, the villagers of Dobri Salwala approached the Pradhan that the condition of Naag Devta temple is deteriorating and to constitute a management Committee. The Committee was constituted on 20.5.2001 to look after the affairs of the Naag Devta Temple. He proved resolutions Ext. PW-16/C, PW-16/D and PW-16/F. The committee has undertaken various developmental works, including construction, installation of electricity connection etc. 20. PW-17 Jagdish Chand deposed that he has seen Naag Devta temple and is regular visitor of the temple. He admitted that Naag Devta temple is the ancient temple and persons from various villages visit the temple and offer their part of the cultivation. 21. PW-18 Shanti Swaroop deposed that he is the Pujari by profession. He was original Pujari of Naag Devta Temple. 22. PW-19 Prithvi Singh deposed that he was local resident of Gorkhuwala. He knew plaintiff and defendants. According to him, the plaintiff-Committee was looking after the management of the temple since 7-8 years. 23. PW-20 Pradeep Kumar Sharma deposed that the Committee looks after the affairs of the temple and has undertaken various developmental works. 24. PW-21 Chatter Singh was examined in rebuttal evidence. He testified that he often visits the temple and he has never seen defendants working as Pujari in the temple for the last 40 years. 25. DW-1 Ajay Bahadur deposed that he is from the royal family. He is the representative of the royal family and participates in various functions of Naag Devta. Shri Naag Devta is their kul devta (main priest). 25. DW-1 Ajay Bahadur deposed that he is from the royal family. He is the representative of the royal family and participates in various functions of Naag Devta. Shri Naag Devta is their kul devta (main priest). The villagers came to him and asked him to register its antique Idols in H.P. Language and Culture Department and he had written letter for the same. Sant Ram and Deep Chand are working as Pujari in the temple since the time of their ancestors and they used to take offerings of the temple. 26. DW-2 O.P. Chauhan, deposed that he is an Advocate by profession. He often visits the temple. Villagers used to offer part of the cultivation to the Naag Devta in the shape of “Patha”. Deep Chand defendant and other members of his family are Pujari of the temple. He denied the suggestion that on 21.12.1999, the villagers of Gram Panchayat Dobri Salwala formed a Committee for the management of the temple. 27. DW-3 Jaggi Ram deposed that he is Advocate and he also visits Naag Devta Temple. He visits the temple for the last 50 years. The defendants were Pujaries of the temple. 28. DW-4 Bishan Singh deposed that villagers of 14 adjoining villages come and pay their offerings. He used to visit the temple since his childhood. 29. DW-5 Sadhu Ram and DW-6 Jeet Singh have also deposed that they were visiting the temple from the time of their ancestors. 30. DW-7 Jogi Ram deposed that the villagers of adjoining villages offer their grain to the Naag Devta Temple and Deep Chand used to take such offerings. This temple is ancient temple and defendants used to maintain the temple. 31. DW-8 Tarun Deep Singh deposed that he also visits the temple regularly and Deep Chand is its hereditary Pujari. DW-9 Inder Singh and DW-10 Sant Ram have also deposed that they used to offer “Patha” in the temple. 32. DW-13 Sant Ram has led his evidence by way of affidavit Ext. DW-13/A. He proved copy of Sajra Nasab Ext. DW-13/B. Its Hindi translation Ext. DW-13/D and DW- 8/A writing of Depinder Singh and pedigree table (Sajra Nasab) of owners of the year 1994- 95 Ext. DW-13/E. He has stated that the history of Naag Devta Temple is as narrated by the defendants in the written statement. According to him, first Pujari was appointed 100 years ago. DW-13/B. Its Hindi translation Ext. DW-13/D and DW- 8/A writing of Depinder Singh and pedigree table (Sajra Nasab) of owners of the year 1994- 95 Ext. DW-13/E. He has stated that the history of Naag Devta Temple is as narrated by the defendants in the written statement. According to him, first Pujari was appointed 100 years ago. He came to know about the history of temple from the forefathers. 33. DW-14 Deep Chand has also led his evidence by filing affidavit Ext. DW- 14/A. He deposed that all the defendants are the decedents of common ancestor and their forefathers came from Jaisalmer with Rajmata Sundra and since then, they are performing as Pujari in the Naag Devta temple. For the last one year, the Committee is threatening to oust him from the temple. According to him, the temple is 200 years old. 34. The registration certificate of the Society is Ext. PW-6/C. Sh. Depinder Singh is the President of the Society. The case of the plaintiff, precisely, is that the temple is ancient and that the villagers of Gram Panchayat Dobri Salwala has passed resolution on 21.12.1999 vide Ext. PW-5/A, resolving that the management of the temple be either taken over by the Government or a Committee be formed for the purpose. Thereafter, Society was constituted. It is also stated in the resolution that the original Pujari of the temple would remain in the same capacity. The plaintiff has not led any tangible evidence to prove that from the year 2001, they were managing the income and expenditure of the temple. Though, as per the statements, as discussed hereinabove, some developmental work has been undertaken by the plaintiff-Society, but it has not been proved that the amount was spent from the income of the temple. The temple is ancient temple as per the evidence led by the parties. The villagers of adjoining 14 villages have tremendous faith in the Deity. They offer part of their cultivation in the shape of “Patha”, since long. The plaintiff-Society has failed to prove as to how they came in possession of the temple. The defendants are the Pujaris of the temple. 35. DW-13 Sant Ram and DW-14 Deep Chand have categorically deposed that they were hereditary Pujaris. They have also testified about the history of the temple, including its traditions and rituals. The plaintiff-Society has failed to prove as to how they came in possession of the temple. The defendants are the Pujaris of the temple. 35. DW-13 Sant Ram and DW-14 Deep Chand have categorically deposed that they were hereditary Pujaris. They have also testified about the history of the temple, including its traditions and rituals. DW-4 Bishan Singh, DW-5 Sadhu Ram, DW-6 Jeet Singh, DW-7 Jogi Ram, DW-9 Inder Singh, DW-13 Sant Ram and DW-14 Deep Chand have deposed that the villagers used to offer their grain in the shape of “Patha” in the temple. The Pujaris have no other source of income. They have settled in village Kotga. Their only livelihood is the offerings made by the people. The witnesses produced by the plaintiff themselves have admitted the tradition of offering of “Patha”. It is also duly established from the pedigree table that defendants No. 1 to 3 and 5 and heads of 11 other families are the decedents of the common ancestor and are working as Pujaris. According to Ext. DW-8/A, the defendants No. 1 to 3, 5 and 11 families of village Kotga have been permitted to be Pujaris of the temple. 36. The Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur was requested to restrain the plaintiffsociety from indulging in illegal activities. The Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur, vide order dated 8.10.2001, directed the plaintiff and its members not to interfere in the matter of Panchayat. The copy of order is Ext. DW-10/A. There is nothing on record to prove that the defendants are interfering in the management of the Naag Devta Temple and trying to take movable and immovable property of the Naag Devta Temple illegally and forcibly. They are performing their duties as Pujaris. It is reiterated that the plaintiff-Society has failed to establish that they are running the affairs of the temple. The plaintiff-Society has also failed to prove as to how it came into possession when there is ample evidence on record that the temple is ancient. 37. Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, has argued that earlier the relatives of defendants filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It was withdrawn. The fact of the matter is that it was withdrawn with liberty to file suit afresh. Moreover, the defendants were not parties in the earlier suit. 37. Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, has argued that earlier the relatives of defendants filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It was withdrawn. The fact of the matter is that it was withdrawn with liberty to file suit afresh. Moreover, the defendants were not parties in the earlier suit. The defendants No. 1 to 3 and 5 along with other 11 families of village Kotga are entitled to manage the affairs of the temple as “Shebait” and have right to its offerings. It is not the defendants but the plaintiff-Society, who is interfering in the management of the temple. 38. The temple of Naag Devta at Village Nansar is an ancient temple. It was established by Maharaja Dhak Prakash. The defendants No. 1 to 3 & 5 and other 11 families of village Kotga are the Pujaris/Priests/Shebait of the temple and before them, their ancestors were managing the affairs of the temple from generation to generation. They have a right to perform pooja at the temple and manage its affairs and appropriate offerings of the temple. DW-14 Deep Chand is the head priest of Naag Devta Temple. The residents of 14 villages offer part of their produce as “Patha” to the temple. The fairs of the temple, as noticed hereinabove, are organized by the Panchayat. The plaintiff-Society has no right, whatsoever, to interfere with the affairs of the temple. The Courts below have correctly appreciated Ext. PW-2/A copy of plaint, Ext. PW-2/B certified copy of order dated 4.1.2003 as well as PW-6/A to PW-6/F i.e. test report, copy of intimation letter, certificate, copy of application form, service estimate and service connection order. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 39. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs.