^:^: -<-^°'r L. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIIASPUR, C.G. SECOMD APPEAL N0. _/2003 (Second appeal under section 100 of the Ci¥ilProcedure Code) / APPELLANT /DEFEKTANT Ramau Ram aged about 35 years, S/o Ram SlnghSahu, R/o VlHageChhat^ Tahslland District Dhamtari, (C.G.) VERSU5 RESPONDENT ^(^Shriram Janaki Mandir, Chhati, ^. Registered Trust, through its president :^'"^a.Makhanla{, aged about 50 years, S/o ^^p"" Puran Lal Yadav, R/o Vltlage Chhati, »<>.*^SS^..-" " TahsH & Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) ^•^^oyy'~ T<^ ^ SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ^ of Ram versus Shriram Mandir, Chhatl ^ Postfor 03 ..02-2010 Sd/- PrashantKumarMishra Judge K'i? OF CHHATTSSGARH AT Sinaie Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar of AppeJiant versus Ramau Shriram Janaki Mandir, ChhatE \ • Present: Shrl Vishnu Koshta, counsej for the appeljant. Shri Adhiraj Surana, Advocate on behalf of Shri Vijay Deshmukh, counsei for the respondent. Second under Section 1 00 of the Code of Civil Procedure ORDER (Passed onq3^ February, 2010) The is the defendant in C-MI Suit No.5~A/92, whteh was bytheTespondent/plaJntiffto possesslon and at the rate of Rs.500/- per rnonth with to the suit a two-rooms at of Shriram Janaki Mandir (henceforth !the temple'). The trial Court the suit vide and 17-4-1997, which was affirmed in first (Cjyj! No.48-A/2002) preferred by the appeliant/defendant vide the impugned judgment and 5-3-2003. 2. The of the In sh-ort, is that the p!aintiff is a pubiic trust registration No.25B/13/90-91. The Mahant of the trust \had of the defendant, namely, Ramsingh, as /for and of the and jn !Eeu of the /Q^\^ -z- he to in two-rooms of Gaushala in the temple. After death of Ramsingh, the defendant Ramau along with Prernbati, widoy-f of Ramsingh, as the was the son of Rarnsingh. Later on, !eft the village leaving the to occupy the two-rooms, however, the was not performing the job, whlc.h was by Ramsingh and by Prembati. in and 19-5-1992, the to the and cjaiming that he has the Mahant Sarjudas for Rs.2,000/- on 10-11-1978. According to the plaintiff, since the defendant has challenged the ownership and has to hand over of the sult the suit has 3. The defendant the suit by that the plaintiff is not a pubiic and that he has the !and No.594, on the two-rooms are constructed, on 10-11-1976 and has aiso his tltle by remainjng in for than 12 and the plaintiffs 250 of th-8 Pradesh Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth 'the Code, 1959') has !t in the written statement that one Sonbati is aisQ jn the room, therefore, she is a partyto the suit and that the suit is by llmitation. 4. After the of the the trial Court concluded that the plalntlff is a and the suit to Ramsingh for his In lieu of the job by him for the temple. On No.4, the'triai Court t.--^;^ ;^. - ';i %:^l:t' K ^y -3- the findjng that Prembati has already and the defendant Is not the job for the and jn reply to No.5, the tria! Court that the has to that he h-as the iand or the The tria! Court ateo found that Is not In of any part of th? premises and 3s not a 5. The first Court has the of the tria! Coiirt on a!! and has the first by the Q. Having for the and the and as we!S as the by the Courts be!ow, it is that is on record on the of which the tria! Court and the Court has the findlngs in favour of the and the the CQurts that the Is a trust, the not any right, titie or in the suit the is not the job for the was to hls Ramsingh, In !ieu of which the suit premfees to Sonbati Is not in the sult she is not a the has not his tltie by and the is not to of the suit 7. The by the Courts.beiow are and concurrent of whlch be with in this 100 of CIvi! -<^- 8. In the is no ofiaw Involved In this for and the fails and is hereby at the however, !ooking to the by for the that in the the Is the be time to the'suit and oyer to the ptejntiff, this' Court that the the ©uit and over Its to the respondent/plajntiff posltlveiy by 1 of May, 2010. ___-- prasbanit^marMisbra judge Qo'-;^!