RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

                         Moorti Shri Adeshwar Bhagwan

                         Vs.

                         Shimbhunath Singh

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 209 of 1984
          (Narendra Kumar Jain, J.)

                         23.08.2006

                         JUDGMENT

Narendra Kumar Jain, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a Civil Suit No. 269/66 (50/76) for declaration and
permanent injunction in the lower court in respect of the property, in dispute, which
was decreed by the court of Additional Munsif No. 2, Bharatpur, (for short, 'the lower
court') vide its judgment and decree dated 10.5.1977. Being aggrieved with the same,
an appeal was preferred by the defendant before the District Judge, Bharatpur, which
was transferred for its decision to the Additional District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur (for
short, 'the first appellate court'). The first appellate court vide its judgment dated
24.4.1984 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the
lower court. Hence, this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.

3. This court, vide its order dated 31.10.1985, admitted this second appeal and
formulated the following substantial questions of law:

       "(i) Whether the learned Judge misconstrued the document marked Ex.3 and
       erred in holding that the same being unregistered can be looked into only for
       collateral purposes ?
       (ii) Whether the finding of the learned judge regarding ownership of the
       respondent on the disputed land is based on no evidence?
       (iii) Whether the finding regarding adverse possession of Sri Padam Singh is
       also based on no evidence. ?"
4. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for both the parties agreed that
Exhibit-3, gift-deed dated 16.2.1908, executed by Mst. Koka Devi in favor of the
plaintiff-appellant, was not required to be registered and the same was admissible in
evidence and was rightly marked as Exhibit in the case in view of the judgments in the
following cases ­

       1. Idol of Shri Narsinghji Maharaj and Others v. Prabhati Vaish, 1
       2. Tangella Narasimhaswami, Dharmakartha of Shri Kodanda Ramchandra
       Moorty Versus Madini Venkatalingam and Others, 2

5. In above referred both the cases it has been held that the dedication of property to
God by a Hindu does not require any document and property can be validly dedicated
without any registered instrument.

6. In view of above decisions the question No. 1 formulated by this court is answered
that Exhibit-3, gift-deed dated 16.2.1908 executed by Mst.Koka Devi in favor of
plaintiff Moorti Sri Adeshwar Bhagwan, is a document whereby disputed property was
dedicated to God and was not required to be registered and was admissible in evidence
for all purposes and not only for collateral purposes.

7. The learned counsel for both the parties contended that the judgment and decree
passed by both the courts below be set side and the case be remitted back to the first
appellate court for deciding the first appeal filed by the defendant afresh on merits.

8. In view of the fact that both the parties have agreed for remit of the matter back for
its decision afresh by the first appellate court, it is not necessary to decide the
questions No. 2 and 3 formulated by this court vide its order dated 31.10.1985.

9. Consequently, this second appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree
dated 24th of April, 1984 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur, in
Civil Regular Appeal No. 59/77, are set aside and the case is remitted back to the
court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur, with a direction to decide afresh
the Civil Appeal No. 59/77 filed by the defendant Shimbhunath Singh, on merits, on
all the issues and keeping in mind that Ex.3, gift-deed, is admissible in evidence for
all purposes.
Both the parties are directed to maintain the status quo in respect of the disputed
property during the pendency of the appeal before the first appellate court.
10. The registry is directed to remit the record of both the courts below immediately to
the Court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur. Both the parties are directed
to appear before the said court on 9th of October, 2006.
There will be no order as to costs.

.Cases Referred.

1. 1986 RLR 561
2. AIR 1927 Mad 636