Supreme Court

Shri Ram Mandir, Indore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

MANU/SC/0287/2019

27.02.2019

Civil

In absence of any pleadings and evidence that, pujari built the temple, same cannot be claimed as private temple

Present appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the High Court in and by which the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal 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.

The question falling for consideration is whether Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple or a private temple as claimed by the Appellant. Further, question falling for consideration is whether the Appellant is the Mahant of Shri Ram Mandir and whether he is in control and administration of the temple and the suit properties as claimed by him.

The onus of proving that the Appellant-Shri Ram Mandir falls within the description of private temple is on the Appellant who is asserting that the temple is a private temple and that he is the Mahant of the temple. In State of Uttarakhand and Anr. v. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj, it was held that "the necessary material pleadings ought to have been made to show as to how and on what basis, the Plaintiff claimed his ownership over such a famous heritage temple and the land surrounding the temple. Thus, in the absence of any pleadings in the plaint that, the pujari built the temple, they cannot claim the temple to be a private temple."

In the case in hand, plaint lacks pleadings regarding who constructed the temple and how he raised the funds. In the absence of pleadings and evidence that the temple was constructed by Gulab Das, the First Appellate Court rightly held that, based on the evidence of PW-1, it cannot be held that Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple.

In Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. Ranchhoddas Kalidas and Ors., the Supreme Court held that, "the origin of the temple, the manner in which its affairs are managed, the nature and extent of gifts received by it, rights exercised by the devotees in regard to worship therein, are relevant factors to establish whether a temple is a public temple or a private temple." Likewise, as held in Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj Etc. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., the participation of the members of the public in the Darshan in the temple and in the daily acts of worship or in the celebrations may be a very important factor to consider in determining the character of the temple. In the present case, the Appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that, there is restricted participation of the public for darshan.

Plaintiff Ram Das himself got the land in the year 1985-86 on lease for Rs. 860 from Government and in this respect, he has signed on the order sheet. An amount of Rs. 600 was deposited on 31st July, 1986. Thereafter, in the year 1986-87, pujari Ram Das got the lease renewed for one year at Rs. 860 out of which he has deposited Rs. 460 on 11th November, 1987 for which a receipt has been issued to pujari Ram Das. The fact that the Appellant having taken the Mandir lands on lease from the Government clearly show that, the properties were never owned by the pujaris in their individual capacity.

Having taken the Mandir property on lease from the Government, the Appellant is estopped from denying that the temple properties are under the management and control of the Government. The suit lands have been given in the name of Shri Ram Mandir and few other lands in the name of Ganesh Mandir for the arrangement of pooja, archana, naivedya, etc. for the public temple and the pujari has no right to interfere in the management of these lands as his status is only that of pujari.

The finding of the first appellate Court and the High Court that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple and not a private one is based upon the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Bajrang Das (PW-1) himself has been appointed as pujari by the Government and the Appellant/Plaintiff has not adduced any evidence showing that the temple belonged to one particular family. By oral and documentary evidence, it is clearly established that, the suit lands are recorded in the name of Shri Ram Mandir.

The High Court rightly held that, no substantial question of law arose in the Second Appeal. Based upon oral and documentary evidence, the First Appellate Court and the High Court have recorded the 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. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. The appeal is dismissed.

Relevant

State of Uttarakhand and Anr. v. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj MANU/SC/1180/2017
, Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. Ranchhoddas Kalidas and Ors. MANU/SC/0466/1969
, Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj Etc. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. MANU/SC/0028/1963

Tags : Temple Ownership Proof

Share :