Summary
The Court upheld the finding that Shri Ram Mandir at Indoukh was a public temple and its agricultural lands belonged to the deity. The claimants were pujaris, not private owners or Mahants entitled to exclude State management. The documentary record, appointment of the pujari through the authorities and prior leases taken from the Government supported dismissal of the declaration and injunction suit.
Issues
- Whether the temple was private and the claimants had established independent management or ownership rights over its lands.
Held
- The claimant asserting a private temple bore the burden of supporting that claim. The plaint and evidence did not establish construction from personal funds or restricted public worship; the evidence concerning the temple’s origin, use and succession supported its public character. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- Bajrang Das had applied for and received appointment as pujari from the Sub-Divisional Officer after public objections were invited. The appointment records recognized the Collector’s administration of the temple lands and contradicted the claimed private status. (¶ 18)
- The grants, pattas and revenue records conferred Inam and Bhumiswami rights on the temple or deity. The individuals were entered as pujaris; the documents did not establish their personal ownership or independent Mahantship. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- Taking the temple lands on lease from the Government and paying lease amounts acknowledged the Government’s management. The claimant could not then deny that management or assert individual ownership of those lands. (¶ 25)
- The first appellate court’s findings, affirmed by the High Court, were supported by oral and documentary evidence. No substantial question of law or other basis for interference was established. (¶¶ 26, 27)
Result
Appeal dismissed; findings of public-temple status, deity’s title and the claimants’ limited status as pujaris affirmed. No costs.