Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G. S.AHLUWALIA, J.
State of M.P. Through Collector – Appellant
Versus
Mandir Shri Ganeshji Situated And Others – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 194 of 2006
Decided On : 05-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condoning delay and setting aside abatement applications permitted. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. facts of the case involving temple property claimed by bhalchandra rao. (Para 14 , 15 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. arguments regarding the nature of rights over temple property. (Para 16 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. court's reasoning on the role and rights of pujari in temple matters. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 41 , 42) |
| 5. conclusion: ownership and management of temple vest with the state. (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
JUDGMENT
G. S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Heard on I.A. No. 5512/2025, an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for setting aside abatement of appeal qua respondent No. 1(i) Sudhakar Rao Dixit, as well as on I.A No. 5505/2025, an application under Order 22 Rule 4, 9, 11 of CPC for setting aside abatement as well as for taking legal representatives of respondent No. 1(i) Sudhakar Rao Dixit, who expired on 11.5.2002, on record.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 5512/2025 is allowed and delay in filing an application for setting aside abatement of appeal qua respondent No. 1(i) is hereby condoned.
3. As a consequence thereof, I.A. No. 5505/2025 is also allowed and abatement of appeal qua respondent No. 1(i) Sudhakar Rao Dixit is hereby set aside and his legal representatives are taken on record.
4. Heard on I.A. No. 5508/2025, an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for setting aside abatement of appeal qua respondent No. 1(c) Narain Das Dixit, as well as on I.A No. 5506/2025, an application under Order 22 Rule 4, 9, 11 of CPC for setting aside abatement as well as for taking legal representatives of respondent No. 1(c) Narain Das Dixit, who expired on 12.3.2010, on record.
5. For the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 5508/2025 is allowed and delay in filing an application for setting aside abatement of appeal qua respondent No. 1(c) is hereby condoned.
6. As a consequence thereof, I.A. No. 5506/2025 is also allowed and abatement of appeal qua respondent No. 1(c) Narain Das Dixit is hereby set aside and his legal representatives are taken on record.
7. Heard on I.A. No. 5510/2025, an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for setting aside abatement of appeal qua respondent No. 1(d) Suresh Rao, as well as on I.A No. 5507/2025, an application under Order 22 Rule 4, 9, 11 of CPC for setting aside abatement as well as for taking legal representatives of respondent No. 1(d) Suresh Rao, who expired on 8.5.2023, on record.
8. For the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 5510/2025 is allowed and delay in filing an application for setting aside abatement of appeal qua respondent No. 1(d) is hereby condoned.
9. As a consequence thereof, I.A. No. 5507/2025 is also allowed and abatement of appeal qua respondent No. 1(d) Suresh Rao is hereby set aside and his legal representatives are taken on record.
10. Heard on I.A. No. 5509/2025, an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for setting aside abatement of appeal qua respondent No. 1(a) B.B. Dixit, as well as on I.A No. 5511/2025, an application under Order 22 Rule 4, 9, 11 of CPC for setting aside abatement as well as for taking legal representatives of respondent No. 1(a) B.B. Dixit, who expired on 29.12.2010, on record.
11. For the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 5509/2025 is allowed and delay in filing an application for setting aside abatement of appeal qua respondent No. 1(a) is hereby condoned.
12. As a consequence thereof, I.A. No. 5511/2025 is also allowed and abatement of appeal qua respondent No. 1(a) Sudhakar Rao Dixit is hereby set aside and his legal representatives are taken on record.
13. Necessary amendments were carried out by counsel for appellant in the Court itself after taking due permission.
14. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against judgment and decree dated 31/03/2005 passed by First Addit
A pujari's role does not confer ownership rights over temple property, which vests in the deity and is managed by the State.
(1) Right to alienate properties of temple – Pujari cannot be treated as a Bhumiswami. Pujari does not have any right in land and his status is only that of a manager. Rights of Pujari do not stand o....
The character of a temple as public or private is determined by its use for public worship and community management, not solely by registration status.
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.
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....
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
