1. Dispute over the status of a temple as public or private and the resulting right to manage its properties and perform pooja. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 217
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
SHRI RAM MANDIR INDORE – Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5043 OF 2009
Decided On : 27-02-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
When Pujariship is not hereditary, Shri Ram Mandir cannot be held to be a private temple.
When Pujariship is not hereditary, Shri Ram Mandir cannot be held to be a private temple.
Subject
Religious Property - Temple
Act Referred
HINDU LAW: .
Headnote
Hindu Law – Worship – Declaration as Public Temple – Onus of proving that appellant-Shri Ram Mandir falls within description of private temple is on appellant who is asserting that temple is a private temple and that he is Mahant of temple – Plaint lacks pleadings regarding who constructed temple and how he raised funds – Name of person who allegedly constructed temple is not mentioned in plaint – Another important aspect which indicates public character of temple is that there is no blood-relationship between successive Pujaris – No evidence has been adduced to show that temple belonged to one family and that there was blood-relations between the successive pujaris. If the temple was a private temple, the succession would have been hereditary and would be governed by principles of Hindu succession i.e. by blood, marriage and adoption – In case in hand, succession is admittedly governed by Guru-Shishya relationship – Each Pujari is not having blood relation with his predecessor pujari – When Pujariship is not hereditary, Shri Ram Mandir cannot be held to be a private temple – Finding of first appellate court and High Court that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple and not a private one is based upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 12, 16, 25, 26 and 27)
Facts of Case:
Present appeal arises out of judgment dated 06.08.2002 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in and by which High Court dismissed Second Appeal No.266 of 2002 thereby affirming findings of First Appellate Court that Shri Ram Mandir, Indoukh is a public temple and that suit property is vested in Deity.
Findings of Court:
Having regard to findings of First Appellate Court, High Court rightly held that no substantial question of law arose in Second Appeal. Based upon oral and documentary evidence, First Appellate Court and High Court have recorded concurrent findings of fact that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple and not a private temple and that the agricultural lands were given to the Deity and not to the pujaris. Impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR,
For the Respondent:Mr. Harsh Parashar, Advocate
For the Appellant : Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR,
For the Respondent:Mr. Harsh Parashar, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims temple is private with succession via Guru Parampara; State contends it is a public temple with the Deity as owner and Collector as Manager. (Para 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 )
3. Lack of evidence on private construction, non-hereditary succession, public access, and the appellant's acceptance of government-appointed pujariship and land leases indicate a public temple. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
4. A temple's public character is determined by its origin, management, nature of gifts, public participation in worship, and non-hereditary succession of pujaris. (Para 14 , 16 )
5. Appeal dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings that the temple is public and the suit property vests in the Deity. (Para 26 , 27 )
6. How is the character of a temple determined as public or private?
Factors include the temple's origin, the manner in which its affairs are managed, the nature and extent of gifts received, the rights exercised by devotees regarding worship, and the participation of the public in darshan and daily celebrations. (Para 14 )
7. Does non-hereditary succession of pujaris indicate a public temple?
Yes. If succession is governed by Guru-shishya relationships rather than blood, marriage, or adoption, and the pujaris do not belong to one family, the temple cannot be held to be private. (Para 16 , 17 )
8. What is the effect of a pujari accepting a government appointment or leasing temple land from the state?
Such actions create an estoppel, preventing the pujari from later claiming the temple is private or that they have an individual right to manage the properties. (Para 18 , 25 )
9. Who bears the burden of proof to establish a temple is private?
The onus is on the party asserting that the temple is private to provide material pleadings and evidence regarding who constructed the temple and the source of funds used to establish it. (Para 12 )
JUDGMENT
R. BANUMATHI, J.
This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 06.08.2002 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in and by which the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal No.266 of 2002 thereby affirming the findings of the First Appellate Court that Shri Ram Mandir, Indoukh is a public temple and that the suit property is vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple.
2. Briefly stated case of the appellant is as follows:-
Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple of which Mahant and Manager is Ram Das and that he has been continuing to perform pooja-archana and management of the temple since the time of his guru. Earlier to him, his Guru Shri Shiromani Das Ji and still earlier to him, his ancestor guru used to offer pooja-archana and has been in management of the temple. Case of the appellant is that the temple is the private temple of which succession is by descendance according to the rules of Guru Parampara. The suit property/agricultural land has been allotted for Shri Ram Mandir in Inam and in its name and the land is in possession of Shri Ram Mandir. The temple is a private temple and government has no right in the temple and no aid was given by the Government in the construction, maintenance and repair of the temple. The respondents through an administrative order recorded the name of respondent No.3-District Collector as Manager of the temple without giving any notice to the appellant which is in violation of principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of law. According to the plaintiff, Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple and the government has no right to interfere in the administration of the temple and the possession and management of the suit lands. On 15.07.1988, respondents No.3 and 4-officers of Madhya Pradesh Government initiated proceedings for leasing out the disputed lands (Revenue Case No.28B/121-87-88) and fixed 06.10.1988 as the date for auction for leasing of the temple properties and the same is without any right. The plaintiff has therefore filed the suit for a declaration that:-
(i) Shri Ram Mandir at Indoukh is a private mandir and the State has no right to interfere in the management, pooja-archana and in the possession of the agricultural land; (ii) for grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondent-officials from interfering with the possession of the suit property by the plaintiff.
3. The respondent-State has filed the written statement contending that Shri Ram Mandir is not a private temple but is a public temple and that the status of the plaintiff is merely of a pujari. The Deity of the temple is owner of agricultural land which has been given by the government for the purpose of performance of pooja-archana etc. and taking proper care and meeting the expenses of the temple. The status of the pujari is like a servant of the temple appointed by the government and he does not acquire any right in the property owned by the Deity of the temple. District Collector, Ujjain was recorded as Manager in the revenue records in 1975-76, in accordance with law. That a “Bbu Adhikar and Rina Patrika” was issued to the appellant/plaintiff. According to respondents since the management of the temple was not being properly and rightfully done and the income from the land was not being suitably utilised for the betterment of the temple, the State Government decided to auction the land in question so as to have resources and raise income for upkeep of the temple. The appellant himself got this land in 1985-86 on lease for Rs.860/-from the government and in this respect has also signed in the order sheet in Case No.93B/121-85-86. An amount of Rs.600/-was deposited on 31.07.1986 in this account. Thereafter, again in 1986-87 appellant got lease of said land for Rs.860/-out of which he deposited Rs.460/-on 11.11.1987 with the government. The appellant has thus treated the suit property as the property of the temp
