2013 Supreme(Raj) 1463
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vineet Kothari, J.
Shri Geeta Mandir Trust and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
LR’s. of late Dwarka Das - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4236 of 2013.
Decided On : 8-07-2013
For the Respondents-Plaintiff:Mahesh Thanvi and Vinit Sanadhya, Advocates.
The pujari of a temple has no inheritable right to worship and, therefore, the right to sue cannot devolve upon his legal heirs.
Headnote:
RIGHT TO SUE - PUJARI - INHERITABLE RIGHT - ABSENCE - SUIT ABATEMENT - TRUSTEES - NO AUTHORITY TO CONFER INHERITABLE RIGHTS - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED PUJARI - NO RIGHT TO CONTINUE SUIT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a temple trust and two of its trustees, challenged an order of the trial court allowing the legal representatives of the deceased pujari (priest) to be brought on record and continue a suit filed by the pujari for injunction against the temple trust. The petitioners argued that the pujari had no inheritable right to worship and, therefore, the right to sue could not devolve upon his legal heirs.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the pujari had no inheritable right to worship and, therefore, the right to sue could not devolve upon his legal heirs. The court also held that the trustees of the temple trust could not confer any inheritable rights upon the pujari, as they were not the owners of the property and the real owner of the property was the deity or the idol.
Issues: 1. Whether the pujari had an inheritable right to worship. 2. Whether the trustees of the temple trust could confer inheritable rights upon the pujari.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on its previous decision in Shri Pratapmal Dharewa Dhadabari Trust v. Ganpat Das and ors., where it held that the pujari of a temple has no inheritable right of worship. 2. The court also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Gopal and ors. v. Idol of Shri Radha Krishna Mandir, where it was held that the Poojari of a temple does not have any right to live in the property belonging to the temple and he can use the property only under the permission from the management of the temple only so long as he continues to discharge his duty as Poojari and once his services as poojari are dispensed with, no further right remains with poojari and he has to vacate the property of the temple without any demur or objection.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of the trial court. The suit filed by the pujari was dismissed as having abated.
"14. This Court is also constrained to note that the present suit is being contested by the legal representatives of deceased Poojari Kalu Das. The Poojari of the temple has admittedly no inheritable right of worship and his appointment as Poojari and duties to perform `seva pooja' is governed by the terms of his appointment by the Trust or the Trustees managing the affairs of the deity. The Poojari cannot claim any independent right over the property of the Deity in any case. They are neither the owners nor the managers of the property of the Deity, therefore, right to sue cannot be said to have devolved to their legal representatives of deceased Poojari with the death of Poojari appointed by the Trust. Assuming that his appointment continued through his life time, but with his death the same comes to an end and his legal representatives cannot claim any inheritable right even of `seva puja', much less any right in the property of the Deity, which is managed by the registered Public Trust or the Trustees managing the affairs of the said temple and they are duly registered with the Devasthan Department. Therefore, this aspect of the matter that the respondent-defendants being legal representatives of the deceased Poojari Kalu Das were not even entitled to contest the suit of the plaintiffs deserves to be taken note of by