Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
OGEPPA (D) Through Lrs. And Others – Appellants
Versus
Sahebgouda (D) Through Lrs. And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.7181-7182 of 2016
Decided On : 25-02-2026
(A) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal by Special Leave – Jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution should be used sparingly, more particularly when dealing with concurrent findings of fact – Unless and until findings rendered by Courts below are manifestly perverse, Supreme Court should be reluctant to intervene in the same. (Para 16)
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 38 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 1 – Suit seeking permanent injunction restraining appellants/defendants from interfering with respondents/plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property as Pujaries and Pujariki rights – A party in settled possession does not sue for possession – Very institution of suit is a categorical admission by appellants/defendants’ predecessor that possession of suit temple was not with them at relevant point in time – This inference drawn by both, First Appellate Court and High Court, is legally sound – A party setting up a competing claim to hereditary Pujari rights is obligated to plead specifically-when they came into possession of suit temple; when they commenced performing Puja; when and how respondents/plaintiffs began obstructing them; and what steps they took to vindicate their rights during long intervening period – Written statement of appellants/defendants is reticent on each of these material particulars – Oral evidence cannot be a substitute for pleading, and a case not made out in pleadings cannot be erected on evidence alone – Respondents/plaintiffs have established their claim throughout, that they have been performing puja at Temple as hereditary Wahiwatdar Pujaries – Civil appeals dismissed. (Paras 19, 23, 24 and 25)
Facts of the case:
The core controversy centres on who amongst these feuding families constitutes the hereditary Wahiwatdar pujari entitled to conduct the religious ceremonies, receive the offerings from devotees, and hold the annual Jatra celebrations at the said temple.
Findings of Court:
The concurrent findings of First Appellate Court and High Court reflect a correct and careful appreciation of this entire factual matrix. No perversity in impugned judgment of High Court dated 04.10.2012.
Result : Civil Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature and background of the dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. progression of the litigation history. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. court's analysis and observations. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. final decision and dismissal of appeals. (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1) The present lis before us is a protracted dispute spanning over a century, wherein the respondents/plaintiffs and the appellants/defendants lay competing claims to the ancestral pujari rights and the right to perform puja of the deity Amogasidda – a saint who passed away 600 years ago and his Samadhi was built as a reverence at the temple situated in Mamatti Gudda, Jalgeri, Arkeri, Karnataka. The core controversy centres on who amongst these feuding families constitutes the hereditary wahiwatdar pujari entitled to conduct the religious ceremonies, receive the offerings from devotees, and hold the annual Jatra celebrations at the said temple. For convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their original status before the Principal Munsiff at Bijapur in Original Suit No.56/1982.
2) The trail of facts before us unfolds as thus: The genesis of this longstanding dispute dates back to 1944, when deceased Ogeppa Biradar/predecessor-in-interest of the appellants/defendants along with others filed Original Suit No. 88 of 1944 for possession of the suit temple and other properties, contending that the plaintiffs had entered into possession of the temple property by force and had asserted the right to perform puja. The Trial Court dismissed the above suit vide judgment and order dated 28.03.1945. The appellants/defendants preferred First Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1945, but during its pendency, they filed an application to withdraw the said suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, to which the plaintiffs/respondents’ counsel consented. The Appellate Court accordingly set aside the judgments of the Trial Court vide order dated 15.06.1946 and permitted the withdrawal.
3) In 1967, it was alleged by the respondents/plaintiffs that the appellants/defendants started obstructing the puja in the suit temple and consequently, the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit being O.S No.347/1967 for permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from interfering with the respondents/plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as pujaries and pujariki rights. In the said suit, an ex-parte decree was granted in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. However, the said suit was later dismissed for non-prosecution.
4) Later, on 24.03.1982, the present respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 56 of 1982 before the Court of the learned Principal Munsiff at Bijapur for a declaration that they are the ancestral wahiwatdar pujargi possessing puja rights at the suit temple, along with consequential prayers for permanent injunction.
5) The respondents/plaintiffs asserted their status as ancestral wahiwatdar pujaries with pujariki rights to perform puja of the deity Amogasidda, with respondent/plaintiff No. 1 possessing eight annas of such rights whilst the remaining rights were distributed amongst the other respondents/plaintiffs and exercised in rotation. They claimed continuous performance of puja at the Samadhi, constructed approximately 600 years ago and receipt of offerings from devotees during the year- round puja and the annual jatra held at chaity amavasya. Having sought to register the temple as a public trust with the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum (enquiry No. 321/1980), plaintiffs/respondents alleged that since 20.03.1982, the appellants/defendants with police assistance obstructed daily puja, attempted forcible night entry, removed puja articles, necessitating a police complaint for trespass and a suit seeking declaration of their rights as the pujaris of the suit temple.
6) The appellants/defendants denied any
(1) A party setting up a competing claim to hereditary Pujari rights is obligated to plead specifically-when they came into possession of suit temple and when they commenced performing Puja.(2) Oral ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a dispute over temple rights, the courts may determine the issue of title in a suit for injunction if the matter involved is simple and str....
Civil courts lack jurisdiction over disputes involving religious properties when necessary parties, specifically deities, are absent; such matters should be resolved under the relevant endowment act.
A pujari's role does not confer ownership rights over temple property, which vests in the deity and is managed by the State.
Amended S.55 TN HR&CE Act abolishes hereditary pujari rights; civil declaration unavailable.
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof lies squarely on the plaintiff to establish their own title through cogent evidence; the plaintiff cannot succeed based purely on the weakness ....
The amendment to Section 56 of the Tamil Nadu Act abolishes hereditary priesthood, affecting claims to perform pooja based on lineage.
Section 133 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 reads as suits, proceedings, etc., involving questions required to be decided by Tribunal.
Civil courts cannot adjudicate matters related to poojariship and associated rights, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner as per the HR & CE Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
