STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.versusMANDIR SRI LAXMAN SIDH MAHARAJ

                           [2017] 14 S.C.R. 257


                STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.                                  A

                                     v.
             MANDIR SRI LAXMAN SIDH MAHARAJ
                     (Civil Appeal No. 4096 of2008)
                         SEPTEMBER 12, 2017                                  B

    [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
         Suit - Declaration of ownership and permanent injunction -
  Respondent described himself as "Mahant '·' and "Manager" of a
  temple situated in the midst of a forest - Respondent (plaintiff) tried . C
  to carry out some repair work in Dhannshala siti1ated along with
  temple but the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) of the concerned
  area objected to respondent carrying out any repairs - Civil suit
  filed by the respondent seeking decl~ration of ownership·over the,
  suit lands and permanent il'!iunction restraining the State and its
  authorities not'to interfere in the respondent-plaintiff's possession D
  over the lands - Trial Court held that the plaintiff is the owner of
  the land by virtue of adverse possession and also issue(/ permanent
  injunction against the State and their authorities not to interfere in
  plaintiff's possession ~ High Court affinned the judgment of trial
  Court - On appeal, held: Plaint completely lacked necessary E
  material pleadings and particulars for claiming a declaration of
  title over the .suit property and permanent il'!iunction - Since, the
  plaint did not contain material facts which ought to have been
  pleaded to establ.ish prima facie the legal right over the Sl!it property! ·
  land. the .suit was liable for rejection at the threshold - Neither
  there were any pleadings nor any issue much less evidence to prove F
. the adverse possession on land and for grant of any· easementry
  right - Courts below should have seen that no declaration of
  ownership rights over the suit property could be granted to the
  plaintiff on the strength of "~dverse possession" - Further, Courts
  below also should have seen that courts can grant only that relief G
  which is claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint and such relief can be
  granted only on the pleadings but not beyond it - Suit by the plaintiff
  was wholly misconceived and was nothing but abuse of the process
  of law - Plaintiff was neither in possession of the suit property
  much less in its legal possession nor he had any authority to remain
  in its possession for want of any lawful authority.                        ·H
                                     257
258           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2017] 14 S.C.R.


A          Allowing the appeal, the Court
             HELD: 1.1 The plaint completely lacked of necessary
      material pleadings and particulars for claiming a declaration of
      title over the suit property (temple and land) and permanent
      injunction. [Para 20)(264-A]
 B       1.2 Secondly, the necessary material pleadings in such case
   ought to have been as to how and on what basis, the plai.ntiff
   claimed his ownership over such a famous heritage temple and
   the land surrounding the temple. The plaintiff who had styled
   himself as 'Mahant" and "Manager" of the temple, ought to have
 C pleaded necessary details such as, whether he claimed the right
   of ownership through his forefathers and, if so, who were they
   and whether they constructed the temple with their own resources
   and, if so, in which year? [Para 21)(264-B-C]
         1.3 Thirdly, whether the plaintiff's forefathers were allotted
 D the land fo question pursuant to any grant or patta or lease or
   license or any kind of written permission for constructing the
   temple on such land by the State and, if so, its details ought to
   have been pleaded. [Para 22)(264-D]
            1.4 Fourthly, whether the plaintiff's forefathers ensured
 E    compliances of such grant etc. if grant was made and whether the
      construction of the temple was for the family as a private temple
      or for the benefit of public at large as the case may. These facts
      also ought to have been pleaded. [Para 23)(264-E]
            1.5 Fifth,y, how and in what manner, the present plaintiff
 F    claims to be or/and is related to the forefathers, who constructed
      the temple around 5000-6000 years back for tracing the plaintiff's
      right of inheritance through family pedigree. These facts also
      ought to have been pleaded. [Para 24][264-F]
          1.6 Sixthly, when the plaintiff claimed a right of management
 G of the temple and its property as "Mahant/Pujari" or "Manager",
   then he ought to have pleaded as to on what basis, he was claiming
   the post of "Mahant/Pujari" or "Manager" - was it through his
   forefathers or through any other channel and who, according to
   him, was the owner of the temple; and who nominated him as
   Mahant/Pujari; and whether it was by any written order; and, if
 H so, on what terms and conditions and whether such person had
      STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. MANDJR SRI LAXMAN SIDH                        259
                        MAHARAJ

     any such authority to nominate the plaintiff or was it by way of any A
     custom prevalent etc. These facts ought to have been pleaded
(.
     with details. [Para 25)(264-G-H]
           1.7 Seventhly, whether the plaintiff as "owner" or "Mah ant"
     or "Manager" ever asserted his right of ownership, Mahantship
     or Managership against public at large without there being any         B
     objection from anyone from public at large. [Para 26] [265-A]
           1.8. The aforesaid material facts were necessarily to be
     pleaded to establish prima facie the legal right of the plaintiff in
     such type of suit property. Since the plaint did not contain
     aforementioned pleadings, the suit was liable for rejection at the      c
     threshold. [Paras 27, 28][265-B; 265-C]
           2. By no stretch of imagination, a declaration of ownership
     over the suit property and right of casement over a well could be
     granted by the Trial Court in plaintiff's favour because even the
     plaintiff did not claim title in the suit property on the strength of D
     "adverse possession". Neither there were any pleadings nor
     any issue much less evidence to prove the adverse possession
     on land and for grant of any easemcntry right over the well. The
     Courts below should have seen that no declaration of ownership
     rights over the suit property could be granted.to the plaintiff on
     the strength of "adverse possession". The Courts below also E
     should have seen that courts can grant only that relief which is
     claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint and such relief can be granted
     only on the pleadings but not beyond it. In other words; courts
     cannot travel beyond the pleadings for granting any relief. This
     principle is fully applied to the facts of this case against the F
     plaintiff. [Para 31)(265-F-H; 266-A]
             3. The Trial Court committed several jurisdictional and
     legal errors by not applying any legal provisions and just on mere
     asking, decreed the suit, at least, the High Court (Division BencIU
     in its first appellate jurisdiction in an appeal filed by the defendants G
     against the judgment of Trial Court should have taken note of
     relevant legal provisions applicable to the case and then decided
     the appeal accordingly. There is no reasoning much less judicial
     reasoning of the Courts below which is capable of being upheld.
     [Paras 32, 34)(266-B, F] .
                                                                              H
260            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017] 14 S.C.R.


A       4. The filing of the suit by the plaintiff was wholly
  misconceived and was nothing but it was abusing the process of
  law. The plaintiff was neither in possession of the suit property
  much less in its legal possession nor he had any authority to
  remain in its possession for want of any liJ,wful authority. The
B plaintiff thus has failed in every respect. [Para 35)(266-G]
            Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala &
            Am: (2014) 1 SCC 669 - referred to.
                               Case Law Reference
            (2014) 1 sec 669           referred to               Para 31
c
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4096
      of2008.
        From the final Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2007 passed by
  the High Court of. Uttarakhand at Nainital in First Appeal No. 51 of
D 2005.
           Ms. Shilpi Satya Priya Satyam, Ms.Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Rahul
      Kaushik, Advs. for the Appellants
            Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Akshay K.
      Ghai, Brahma Prakash, Advs. for the Respondent
 E
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the
      defendants against the final judgment and order dated 17 .04.2007 passed
      by the High Court ofUttarakhand at Nainital in First Appeal No.51 of
      2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants
 F    herein and affinned the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2002 passed
      by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/X F.T.C., Dehradun in O.S. No. 318
      of 1996.
            2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, it is
      necessary to set out the relevant facts infra.
 G
             3. Appellant No. I is defendant No. I-State ofUttarakhand (earlier
      part of State of UP) and appellant No. 2 is defendant No.2 - Divisional
      Forest Officer (DFO) whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in the civil
      suit out of which this appeal arises.

H
   STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. MANDIR SRI LAX.MAN SIDH                               261
          MAHARAJ [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

         4. The respondent (plaintiff) is one-Bharat Bhushan Bharati. He         A
  has described himself as "Mahant" and "Manager" of one temple known
  as "Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj" situated in the midst of thick forest near
  one village named "Harawala" Pargana, Pachwa District, Dehradun
  (Uttarakhand).
         5. On 27.05.1996, the respondent filed a civil suit (0.S.No.318/        B
  1996) in the name of "Temple Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj" describing
  himself in the cause title of the plaint as "Mahanf' and "Manager" of
  the temple.
        6. In Paras 1 and 2 of the plaint, the respondent averred that the
  temple in question is located in the thick forest near Harawala. It is an      C
  ancient temple wherein the deity of Lord Shiva is installed from time
  immoral (5-6 thousand years). It has shrines of some saintly persons,
  who attained Godhood and also has one "Kund" where there exists
  continuous fire.
        7. In Para 3, it is averred that there was one person by name            D
  Basant Bharatji who was ear.lier "Mahant" of the temple. He died in
  1982. During his lifetime, he had nominated the respondent (plaintiff) as
  "Mahant" as his successor. This is how the respondent became "Mahant"
  and "Manager" of the temple in question for managing the affairs of the
  temple.
                                                                                 E
         8. In Paras 4 and 5, it is averred that thousand of devotees visit
  the temple every year and perform puja and other religious ceremonies
 ·of the deity and the shrines.
    , ._, 9, In Paras 6 and 7, it.is averred that the temple along with
   Dharmshala for the benefit of devotees and "Kund'.'. is surrounded by 5
                                                                                 F
   acres of land. Since the Dharamshala is quite old (200 years or so) arid
l .required extensive repairs, the respondent (plaintiff) started to carry out
   some repair work but the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) - defendant
   No.2 of the concerned area, on 05.04.199_6, objected the respondent
   from carrying out the repairs in the Dharamshala saying that the
   respondent cannot do any kind of repair work and hence the respondent         G
. became aggrieved and filed the civil suit seeking for a declaration that,
, 'o) the plaintiff (respondent) - temple is the owner ~fthe land specified
   in Schedule to the plaint; and (2) permanent injunction restraining the
   State and its authorities not to interfere in the respondent-plaintiff's
   possession over th:e lands and the constructions made thereon.
                                                                                 H
262             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 14 S.C.R.


A            10. In Para 8, it was averred that due to urgency, the respondent
      (plaintiff) seeks exemption from serving notice to the State under Section
      80 of the Code of Civil Proci:dure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the
      Code". The suit was valued at Rs.20,00,000/-on payment of fixed court
      fees and was filed in the Court of Civil Judge (senior division), Dehradun.
B           11. Appellant No.l (State) as defendant No.I along with DFO
      (defendant No.2)-respondent No.2 herein filed their written statement
      and denied all avennents of the plaint set out above.
             12. The Trial Court framed 7 issues, which read as under:
            "1) Is the temple Sri.Laxman Sidh Ji Maharaj is in actual
c           physical possession of the piece of land admeasuring 5 acres
            situated at Village Harrawala, District Dehradun without any
            let or hindrance for the last thousands of years?
            2) Has the plaintiff got right to raise the construction on
            the disputed land?
D
            3) Can the permission for raising the construction over the
            disputed land not be given to the plaintiff as has been
            mentioned in paras 6 and 7 of the plaint of the plaintiff?
            4) Relief.
E           5) Is years old well belonging to the plaintiff situated at a
            short distance from the temple, feeds the temple precincts
            through a pipe line?
            6) Is the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable?
            7) Has the suit been undervalued and insufficient court free
 F          has been paid?"
          13. After framing the aboverrientioned issues and recording the
  evidence, the Trial Court by judgment/decree dated 30.03.2002, partly
  decreed the suit. It was held that the plaintiff is the owner of the land
  admeasuring 3.573 acres mentioned in the schedule to the plaint by virtue
G of their adverse possession but the plaintiff is not the owncrof one well
  except to the extent that he will have a right to enjoy the easementary
  rights over the well to take water from the well. The Trial Court also
  issued permanent injunction against the State and their authorities not to
  interfere in the plaintiff's possession and also not to interfere in their
H right to undertake construction work in the temple and Dharmshala.
 STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. MANDIR SRI LAXMAN SIDH                                 263
        MAHARAJ [ABBAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      14. It is apposite to reproduce the operative part of the decree          A
passed by the Trial Court hcreinbelow in verbatim which reads as under:
      "The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs in favour
      of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the piaintiff
      shrine Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj is declared as an owner by
      virtue of adverse posse·ssion in respect of property B
      admeasuri.ng 3.573 acres, as depicted in red colour in Site
      Plan 49-A attached with the plaint, but the plaintiff is not
      the owner of the property of well, as depicted in red colour
      in Site Plan 49-A, but the plaintiff/temple has the
      easementary rights to take water from the said well and
      the defendants are permanently restrained from interfering C
      in the possession or construction being raised by the
      Mahant in the property of temple and from creating
      obstruction in the way of plaintiff in taking water from the
      well as depicted in Site Plan 49-A attached with the plaint.
      The Site Plan 49-A-1/3 attached with the plaint shall form D
  ·   part of the judgment and decree."
 ' · · ' 15. The State, felt aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment/decree,
filed first appeal before the High Court ofUttarakhand. The Division
Bench of the High Court by impugned order dismissed the appeal and
affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court quoted supra which
                                                                                E
has given rise to filing of the appeal by the defendants byway of special
leave before this Court.
       16. Heard Ms. Shilpi Satya Priya Satyam, learned counsel forthe
appeJ\ants and Ms. V. Mahana, learned senior counsel for the respondent.
       17. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal
                                                                                F
of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal and
while setting aside of the impugned order dismiss the suit filed by the
respondent as being wholly misconceived.
       18. At the outset, we are eonstrained to express our total displeasure
on the casual manner in which both, the Trial Court and the High Court,
decided the suit and the appeal. If we may say so, it only shows total          G
non-application of their judicial mind while deciding the case. It will be
clear from the discussion made hereinbelow.
       19. We have set out the averments of the plaint supra to show
that a relief of declaration of ownership over the suit properties and
injunction was sought on these averments.                                       H
264             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] I4 S.C.R.


A             20. To begin with, in our considered opinion, the plaint completely
      lacked of necessary material pleadings and particulars for claiming a
      declaration of title over the suit property (temple and land) and.permanent
      iitjunction.
             2 J. Secondly, the necessary material pleadings in such case ought
B     to have been as to how and on what basis, the plaintiff claimed his
      ownership over such a famous heritage temple and the land surrounding
      the temple. The plaintiff, i.e., Sri Bharat Bhushan Bharti, who had styled
      himselfas 'Mahant'' and "Manager" of the temple, ought to have pleaded
      necessary details such as, whether he claimed the right of ownership
      through his forefathers and, if so, who were they and whether they
c     constructed the temple with their own resources and, if so, in which
      year?
         22. Thirdly, whether the plaintiff's forefathers were allotted the
  land in question pursuant to any grant or patta or lease or license or any
  kind of written pennission for constructing the temple on such land by
D the State and, if so, its details ought to have been pleaded.
            23. Fourthly, whether the plaintiff's forefathers ensured
      compliances of such grant etc. if grant was made and whether the
      construction of the temple was for the family as a private temple or for
      the benefit of public at large as the case may. These facts also ought to
E     have been pleaded.
             24. Fifthly, how and in what manner, the present plaintiff claims to
      be or/and is related to the forefathers, who constructed the temple around
      5000-6000 years back for tracing the plaintiffs right of inheritance
      through family pedigree. These facts also ought to have been pleaded.
 F
         25. Sixthly, when the plaintiff claimed a right of management of
   the temple and its property as "Mahant/Pujari" or "Manager", then he
   ought to have pleaded as to on what basis, he was claiming the post of
   "Mahant/Pujari" or "Manager" -was it through his forefathers or through
   any other channel and who, according to him, was the owner of the
 G temple; and who nominated him as Mahant/Pujari; and whether it was
   by any written order; and, if so, on what terms and conditions and whether
   such person had any such authority to nominate the plaintiff or was it by
   way ofany custom prevalent etc. These facts ought to have been pleaded
   with details.
 H
    'STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. MANDIR SRI LAXMAN SIDH                               265
            MAHARAJ [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

    . •J. "
          26. Seventhly, whether the plaintiff as "owner" or "Mahant" or          A
    "Manager" ever asserteg his right of ownership, Mahantship or
    Managership against public at large without there being any objection
    from anyone from public at large.
     ;r ·27. In our considered opinion, a case with which we are dealing
  here, the aforesaid material facts were necessarily to be pleaded to            B
  establish prima facie the legal right of the plaintiff in such type of suit
  property.
t      .
          28. As mentioned above, since the plaint did not contain
  aforementioned pl~adings, the suit was liable for rejection at the threshold.
  That apart, there was absolutely no evidence (documentary) adduced              C
  by the plaintiff to prove and establish his legal ownership rights over the
  temple and the land and nor did he adduce any documentary evidence to
  show his so-called "Mahantship" or "Managership", except making bald
  avennents in the plaint running in four pages and that too with no material
  de'tails set out above.
                                                                                  D
,        29. We are, therefore, really at a loss to understand as to how and
    on what basis such suit could be entertained much less decreed.
    , , . 30. What was more a matter of serious concern that the Trial
    Court proceeded to decree the plaintiff's suit by conferring· an ownership
    of the Temple/land with a right ofeasei;nent over the use of well to drink    E
    water from the well on the basis of their "adverse possession" over the
    suit property.
    . . :,_ 31. By no stretch of imaginatio11, in our view, such a declaration
     of ownership over the suit property and right of easement over a well
     could be granted by the Trial Court in plaintiff's favour because even F
     the plaintiff did not claim title in the suit property on the strength of
     "adverse possession". Neith~r there were any pleadings nor any issue
     much less evidence to prove the adverse possession on land and for
     grant of any easementry right over the well. The Courts below should
     have seen that no declaration of ownership rights over the suit property
     could he granted to the plaintiff on the strength of"adverse possession" G
     (see Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & Anr.,
     (2014) 1 SCC 669. The Courts below also should have seen that courts
     can grant only that relief which is claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint
     and such relief can be granted only on the pleadings but not beyond it.
     In other._words, courts cannot travel beyond the pleadings for granting H
266            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 14 S.C.R.


A any relief. This principle is fully applied to the facts of this case against
  the plaintiff
          32. In our considered opinion, if the Trial Court committed several
   jurisdictional and legal errors by not applying any legal provisions and
   just on mere asking, decreed the suit, at least, the High Court (Division
 B Bench) in its first appellate jurisdiction in an appeal filed by the defendants
   against the judgment of Trial Court should have taken note of relevant
   legal provisions applicable to the case and then de.cided the appeal
   accordingly.
         33. Unfortunately, the High Court also cursorily dismissed the
 cdefendants' appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial
  Court without entering into any discussion on any issues much less
  relevant legal issues. Indeed, while examining the issue, the provisions
  of Heritage Property Act and the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act,
  1904 could also have been taken note of with a view to find out as to
  whether the structure which is 5000 years old is governed by the
D provisions of these two Acts or not and if it is governed, then its effect.
  We, however, do not wish to examine this issue in this appeal, because,
  in our view, the suit is otherwise liable to be dismissed on other grounds
  set out above.
            34. As held above, we cannot, therefore, countenance the approach
 E    and the manner in which the suit and the appeal were decided by the
      respective Courts and nor can we concur with their respective so-called
      reasoning and the conclusion. Indeed, if we may say so, there is no
      reasoning much less judicial reasoning of the Courts below which is
      capable of being upheld.
 F        35. In the light of foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation to
   hold that the filing of the suit by the plaintiff was wholly misconceived
   and was nothing but it was abusing the process oflaw. In any event, we
   also hold that the plaintiff was neither in possession of the suit property
   much less in its legal possession nor he had any authority to remain in its
 G possession for want of any lawful authority. The plaintiff thus has failed
   in every respect.
         36. Before parting, we consider it apposite to state that several
   cases of this nature have come to our notice which are either pending in
   courts or they remain unnoticed. Unfortunately, it appears that the State
 H did not take up such cases seriously nor has taken any steps to preserve,
 STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. MANDIR SRI LAXMAN SIDH                              267
        MAHARAJ [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

control and manage effectively such priceless heritage culture of our        A
country with the result, the precious heritage of our country is being
misused by handful of private persons for their personal benefits.
       37. We hope that the State (appellant herein) would pay serious
attention not confining to the temple in question but to several alike and
take suitable measures as may deem fit and proper after taking into B
account the pattern followed by other Stat.es in such type of cases, if
any, and relevant provisions of the Acts applicable to such structures for
the benefit of public at large so that heritage of our country is preserved,
managed and controlled in letter and spirit for coming generations.
       38. As a result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned     c
judgment/decree of both the Courts below are set aside and the suit filed
by the respondent is dismissed with cost ofRs.25,000/- payable by the
plaintiff-Bharat Bhushan Bharti personally. The cost shall be deposited
by the respondent-plaintiff with the State Legal Services Office.

                                                                             D
Ankit Gyan                                                 Appeal allowed.

 ,•