New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on a man who had made Lord Hanuman his co-plaintiff in a petition related to the possession of a private land containing a temple of the deity.
The petition, which was an appeal against the order of the lower court dismissing the "objection petition" regarding transfer of the land to another party, claimed that since there was a public temple on the property, the plot belonged to Lord Hanuman and the appellant. Is of. Man was before the court as his next friend and worshipper.
Terming it a case of "collusion with intent to expropriate" the property, Justice C Hari Shankar dismissed the appeal and ruled that the person making the appeal had entered into "abusive collusion" with the present owners of the land to allow another party to gain possession. Can be prevented from. A settlement was reached after the trial."The defendants (present owners) usurped the plaintiff's (other party's land). The plaintiff filed a suit to get back the possession. The defendants pleaded for eviction of possession. Ultimately, the defendants demanded Rs. 11 lakhs from the plaintiff to vacate the possession. The terms of the case were pronounced against him.“Subsequently, the plaintiff actually paid a sum of Rs 6 lakh but the defendants still did not vacate.
"The plaintiff filed for execution. In execution, the present appellant, who is a third party, filed an objection stating that there is a public temple dedicated to Lord Hanuman on the property and, therefore, the land belongs to Lord Hanuman and that he He was entitled to protect the interests of Lord Hanuman as his closest friend, as the deity is a minor in law,'' the court said in an order passed on May 6.
The court said, "I never thought that God would one day become a litigant before me. However, thankfully, this appears to be a case of divinity in disguise.,
The court said that there is no concept of the public having a right to worship in a private temple unless the owner of the temple provides such a right or the private temple is converted into a public temple with the passage of time.
It says that mere worship by the public in a private temple does not convert it into a public temple as it would have disastrous consequences, which a civilized system of law can deal with.
"As has happened in the present case, a person can usurp the property of another, take possession of it, construct a temple on the property, allow the public to worship there occasionally, and This could permanently hinder the return of the property to its rightful owner. Allowing such a dangerous practice would be the final nail in the coffin of justice."
“The fact that the public worships in a private temple, even with free access, does not actually indicate that the temple is a public temple.Nor does the land on which a private temple has been constructed vest in the deity, as the public is permitted to worship there. The essence is the purpose for which the temple was constructed and dedicated to the deity enshrined therein, and the purpose for which the temple has been opened to the public,'' the court said.
In the present case, the court said, there is nothing to show, even prima facie, that the temple was a public temple and therefore the appellant claims that he was entitled to defend Lord Hanuman because His next friend is not alive for thought. ,
Dismissing the appeal, the court directed the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs 1 lakh to the other party.
The court clarified, "In order to avoid now putting forward the contention by the Appellant No. 1 that the cost was to be shared by Lord Hanuman, it is made clear that the cost will be borne entirely by him - with a small With 'H'."
The petition, which was an appeal against the order of the lower court dismissing the "objection petition" regarding transfer of the land to another party, claimed that since there was a public temple on the property, the plot belonged to Lord Hanuman and the appellant. Is of. Man was before the court as his next friend and worshipper.
Terming it a case of "collusion with intent to expropriate" the property, Justice C Hari Shankar dismissed the appeal and ruled that the person making the appeal had entered into "abusive collusion" with the present owners of the land to allow another party to gain possession. Can be prevented from. A settlement was reached after the trial."The defendants (present owners) usurped the plaintiff's (other party's land). The plaintiff filed a suit to get back the possession. The defendants pleaded for eviction of possession. Ultimately, the defendants demanded Rs. 11 lakhs from the plaintiff to vacate the possession. The terms of the case were pronounced against him.“Subsequently, the plaintiff actually paid a sum of Rs 6 lakh but the defendants still did not vacate.
"The plaintiff filed for execution. In execution, the present appellant, who is a third party, filed an objection stating that there is a public temple dedicated to Lord Hanuman on the property and, therefore, the land belongs to Lord Hanuman and that he He was entitled to protect the interests of Lord Hanuman as his closest friend, as the deity is a minor in law,'' the court said in an order passed on May 6.
The court said, "I never thought that God would one day become a litigant before me. However, thankfully, this appears to be a case of divinity in disguise.,
The court said that there is no concept of the public having a right to worship in a private temple unless the owner of the temple provides such a right or the private temple is converted into a public temple with the passage of time.
It says that mere worship by the public in a private temple does not convert it into a public temple as it would have disastrous consequences, which a civilized system of law can deal with.
"As has happened in the present case, a person can usurp the property of another, take possession of it, construct a temple on the property, allow the public to worship there occasionally, and This could permanently hinder the return of the property to its rightful owner. Allowing such a dangerous practice would be the final nail in the coffin of justice."
“The fact that the public worships in a private temple, even with free access, does not actually indicate that the temple is a public temple.Nor does the land on which a private temple has been constructed vest in the deity, as the public is permitted to worship there. The essence is the purpose for which the temple was constructed and dedicated to the deity enshrined therein, and the purpose for which the temple has been opened to the public,'' the court said.
In the present case, the court said, there is nothing to show, even prima facie, that the temple was a public temple and therefore the appellant claims that he was entitled to defend Lord Hanuman because His next friend is not alive for thought. ,
Dismissing the appeal, the court directed the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs 1 lakh to the other party.
The court clarified, "In order to avoid now putting forward the contention by the Appellant No. 1 that the cost was to be shared by Lord Hanuman, it is made clear that the cost will be borne entirely by him - with a small With 'H'."
