Case: CHAIRMAN,BD.OF TRUSTEE SR.R.M.J, A.P Vs. S. RAJYALAXMI (DEAD)

2. A brief reference to the facts may be necessary for the disposal of the. The original plaintiff no.1(predecessor-in- interest of respondent nos. 1 to 6 herein) and original plaintiff no.2 (respondent no.7 herein) preferred a suit against the defendants (appellantng adeclaration that they are the owners of the suit schedule ‘A? house bearing H. No. 5-6-69 (old), 6-1-7 (old), reassigned new nos. 6-1- 81 and 6-1-81/1 situated at Brahminwadi, Jagtial.The original plaintiffs had also prayed for a declaration that the suit schedule ‘B? properties are not in existence and the said properties do not belong to the temple.y also sought a consequential reliefof permanent injunctionagainst the defendantsfrom interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit3. The respondents-plaintiffsclaimed to be the owners of the suit schedule?A? house and further contended that they have been residing in the suit property since the time of their ancestors. Hence it is recorded in their name and they have been paying taxest to theam Mandir, situated to the west of the suit property bearing H.Nos.5- 6-70ng to(new), which is shown as Endowments property by the Endowments department.stated thatand southern boundaries of the temple are shown to be the house of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alsoice of the court, the permission dated 14.10.1977, granted in their favour by the municipality, forThe original plaintiff no.1and plaintiff no.2 effectuated an oral partition of the suiton 27.6.1983.The cause of action in the present suit arose when respondent no.9ty CommissionerEndowments Department) allegedly passed anorder on 24.10.1986 declaringthe suit schedule ‘A? houseproperties shown in schedule ‘B? and other properties belonged to the Ram Mandir, Jagtial in O.A. No.70 of 1985.me, the appellantam Mandir) filed a Petition in the court of Judicial Magistrate, under Section 93(2) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1966 (hereinafter referred to as?the Act?) for the delivery of possession of suit schedule ‘A? and the suit scheduleother propertiesof the Ram Mandirin Cr. M. P No. 173 of 1987.t interference in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, preferred this suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction concerning suit schedule ‘A? and ‘B? properties in O.S. no.69 of 1987.e appellant (defendant no.4)le grounds. Althoughappellant (defendant no.4)admitted that the ancestors of theam? at the Ram Mandir, he particularly denied that the ancestors of the plaintiffs had constructedthe suit schedule ‘A? houseabout 100 years back along with H. No. 6-2-21. The suit schedule ‘A? house was constructed from the funds donated by the devotees.It was further alleged that the plaintiff no.1 had filed O.A no.2 of 1973 under Section 77 of the Act before thets Departmentfor declaration that the Ram Mandir is not an endowment property, but the same was dismissed by thede order dated 26.12.1976.ld that the temple is a public institution which is registered and entered in thes. Aggrieved,the plaintiff no.1 had34 of 1977of theet aside theed by the. This suit was also dismissed on 19.08.1981 and has now attained finality. However, the plaintiffs being the priests got the suit property mutated in their favour during the pendencyg. Since, plaintiff no.1 was the pujari and wasrs ofted the matter before the Assistant Commissioner(defendant no.3) at the time of preparing the list of propertiesthe Ram Mandirand got his name illegally recorded. The plaintiff no.1 had also concocted several documents, such as municipal permission for re-roofing. Further, all the mutations and entries made or done in the municipality are in his capacity ofri and custodianthe temple, andnot as the ownery. The appellant further submitted that the Schedule B properties are in existence and are in the custodythe plaintiff no.1ed thisted that theall remedies and have filed the suit to prolong the litigation and hence is liable to be dismissed.n the aforesaides and the dispute in the present case, framed the followingWhether the plaintiffs are entitled for the declaration that the suit property areem and the scheduleproperties are not in existence andwhether they are not the propertiesi. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the permanentWhether the suit isv. Whether the court fee paid is notThe trialry evidenceed the suitrt held that the instant suit is not barred under the principle of res-judicata, as the earlier suit in O.S. No.was dismissed only for the default, as therespondents-plaintiffs failed toprove the sourcer title they will not be entitled to claim the relief. Aggrievedby the aforesaidt, the respondents- plaintiffspreferred an appeal before the High Court in Appeal Suit no. 1964 of 1993. The High Courtof thetrial court stating that the same was passed without considering the facts and law in the correct perspective.the High Courtvide order dated 18.11.2006 allowed the appealeed thesuit in their favour byplacing reliance on the documentary and oral evidence placed onThe High Court

Court's reasoning:
14. The plaintiffs had examined P.W.3 (Purohith) to prove that the suit property was partitioned in the year 1914 vide Arbitration Award dated 21.12.1914. But this document was never placed on record in the earlier rounds of litigation.plaintiff no.1 in the earlier litigation in O.A. No. 2 of 1973 hadthat, the suit property wasnot a Mandir but a house which was built by his father after obtaining due permission from the local tehsil in 1927. The aforesaid contradiction draws suspicion as to the credibilitys, as regards to the buildingit house and temple in 1927 and fact of partitionion agreement in 1914, which are inconsistent.The plaintiffs in order to substantiate their claims furthers placed oned by themunicipality, property tax assessment papers, tax receipts and extractok of Endowments of Ram Mandir. Afterthat, therespondents-plaintiffs in order to prove their title has relied upon several permissionsty and tax receipts to prove hise, theimply possession but they cannot be relied to confer title upon the holder. Further, the respondents-plaintiffs have strongly relied upon the book of endowments asby the EndowmentDepartment which shows the boundariese. In any case, this document alone is not sufficient to claim the title over the suit premises as it was only intended to demarcate the temple premises.y, theno.4 has put forth the earlierorder dated 26.12.1976r in O.A. No. 2 in 1973,involving the same suit property. It was categorically held therein, that the suit property is related tothe temple, andthe plaintiff no.1is staying therein to performed that,the suit property wasoriginally granted as Inam to the forefathersfs for the conducting pooja and toIn theorder, it also notedff had removed the idols from the suit temple to meet his personal needs.Aggrieved, by ther in O.A. No. 2 in 1973,plaintiff no.1 thereafter had filed O.S. No.134/77, before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court which came to be dismissed on 19.08.1981 for default, hence has attained finality.the present suitinvolving the same property seeking similar relief as O.S. No.134/77 is barred by time. However, the defence has also clearly averred that since the plaintiffs and their forefathers weres pujaris in thein order toe Ram Mandird the suitproperty as the adjoining premises. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence to counter the case put forth by the appellant-defendant no.4.It is an established position of lawen to prove ownershipover the suits on the(See Corporation of City of Bangalore vs. Zulekha Bi and Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 306 ). This court in the case of Parimal vs. Veena (2011) 3 SCC 545 , heldof Section 101the Evidence Act provide that the burden of proof ofon the party whosubstantially asserts it and noton the party whodenies it. In fact, burden of proof means that a party has to prove an allegation before he is entitled to a judgment in his favour. Section 103en of proofny particular fact lies on that person who wishes the courtit isprovided by any special law that the proof of that factThe provisional ruleof Section 101en of proofson who asserts the affirmative. Inthe present case,s failed toen of proofle tonecessary documentary and oral evidence to prove their claim. But, the Highng theand claims made byd the suitof therespondents-plaintiffs by solely relying on the entry made in the book of endowments departmentof thetemple. The aforesaid judgmentle ined onerroneous appreciation of evidence.