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 of the defendant's case or by conflating management/custodial rights with proprietary ownership.

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel for the appellant, and Shri Ajay Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- defendant, Hereinafter, being referred to as “appellant-defendant”. against the final judgment dated 28th September, 2007, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, Hereinafter, being referred to as “High Court”., in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 36 of 1988, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 6th January, 1988, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota, Digitally signed by Signature Not Verified SONIA BHASIN Date: 2026.05.05 Reason:

3 Hereinafter, being referred to as “Trial Court”.

in Civil Suit No. 36 of 1978, decreeing the suit for injunction and possession filed by the respondents, Hereinafter, being referred to as “respondent-plaintiffs”.

3. Brief facts, essential for the disposal of the present appeal, are as follows: -

3.1. The suit was instituted by the respondent-plaintiffs, comprising a registered society and its members. According to the plaint, an ancient temple, namely “Moorti Swarup Shri Govardhan Nath Ji”, situated at Rampura Bazar in Kota town, is the property of the Gurjar Goud Brahmin Rampura Society, Kota, and forms the subject matter of the present suit. It is further averred that the respondent-plaintiffs are entrusted with the management and administration of the temple, including the idols installed therein, along with their ornaments, articles, and other appurtenant properties. For this purpose, the society appoints an individual⁵ to act as a custodian or caretaker, who manages the affairs of the temple on its behalf.

3.2. On 28th October, 1926, a meeting of the respondent-

plaintiffs was held, wherein it was resolved to appoint one Gordhan Ji as the caretaker of the suit property in place of the previous caretaker, Ganga Bishan Ji, who had expressed his desire to relinquish the

5 While the term “Priest” is used in the plaint, it is also interchangeably referred

to as “pujari”, “custodian”, “manager” and “caretaker”.

position. Pursuant thereto, possession and control of the temple articles were handed over to Gordhan Ji.

3.3. Subsequently, on 20th June, 1951, Gordhan Ji expressed his inability to continue as caretaker on account of his circumstances, and proposed that the responsibility be entrusted to the present appellant- defendant. Accordingly, on 24th June, 1951, the respondent-plaintiffs resolved to appoint the appellant-defendant as the caretaker and handed over the management of the suit property to him. The appellant-defendant was also paid remuneration from the income generated by the shops situated on the suit property.

3.4. Thereafter, on 3rd May, 1963, respondent No. 1 came to be registered as a trust with the Devasthan Department, State of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

3.5. In or about November, 1976, the appellant–defendant asserted ownership over the suit property. In response, respondent No. 1 issued a legal notice calling upon the appellant-defendant to cease acting as the pujari and relinquish control over the temple.

3.6. Ultimately, on 3^rd October, 1977, a civil suit, Civil Suit No. 36 of 1978. was instituted seeking the removal of the appellant- defendant from the position of “pujari” and for restoration of possession and control of the suit

property,