Trusts and Charities: Shri Ram Mandir, Indoukh – Nature of – Mandir, a public temple or a private temple – Held: Shri Ram Mandir, Indoukh is a public temple and that the said property is vested in the Deity and not the pujari – Ram Mandir is mentioned in the directory containing names of all public temples in the district – There was participation of the public for darshan – There is no blood relationship between the successive pujaris –Pujaris were never inamdars of the temple properties – Lands are inam lands of Shri Ram Mandir – Mandir property has been taken on lease from the government – Thus, temple properties are under management and control of the government – Pujari is not Mahant-Manager of the temple – His status is of pujari to perform pooja-archana.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The very cause title of the plaint is misleading. The description of the appellant temple Shri Ram Mandir is couched in such a manner as if Shri Ram Mandir is represented by its Manager Ram Das. The onus of proving that the appellantShri 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 the instant case, plaint lacks pleadings regarding who constructed the temple and how he raised the funds. The name of Gulab Das who allegedly constructed the temple is not mentioned in the plaint. No evidence was adduced by the appellant to show as to how Gopal Das constructed the temple and whether personal funds were used by Gopal Das to establish the temple or whether there was contribution from the public. In his evidence, Bajrang Das PW-1 has stated that the temple was constructed by Sewa Das. On the other hand, Bheru Lal PW-2 has stated that the temple was constructed by Sewa Das and Gulab Das. In the absence of pleadings and evidence that the temple was constructed by Gopal Das, the first appellate court rightly held that based on the evidence of Bajrang Das, PW-1, it cannot be held that Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple. [Para 11, 12] [908-E, F-H; 909-A-C]
1.2 In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012. Shri Ram Mandir is mentioned therein in the List as Entry 135 which clearly shows that the temple has been recognized as a public temple. Though, this document – List of public temples is subsequent to the suit, the entry of Shri Ram Mandir as the public temple in the register is a strong piece of evidence to hold that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple. BD and RD are only shown to be the pujaris. [Para 13] [909-D-E]
1.3 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 instant case, the appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that there is restricted participation of the public for darshan. [Para 14] [909-G-H]
1.4 In the same premises, apart from, Shri Ram Mandir, there is a Ganesh temple which has a different pujari and there is also a Maruthi Mandir. The pooja at Ganesh Mandir is performed by the brother of Bheru Lal PW-2. There are thus two different pujaris who perform pooja for two separate idols situated in the same premises and they have been so performing pooja for generations. The submission that no outsider can come and perform pooja and archana in the premises of Shri Ram Mandir was rightly rejected by the first appellate court as the very premises has three Deities. [Para 15] [910-A-C]
1.5 There is no blood-relationship between the successive pujaris. No evidence has been adduced to show that the temple belonged to one family and that there was blood-relations between the successive pujaris. If the temple was a private temple, the succession would have been hereditary and would be governed by the principles of Hindu succession i.e. by blood, marriage and adoption. In the case in hand, succession is admittedly governed by Guru-shishya relationship. Each pujari is not having blood relation with his predecessor pujari. When the pujariship is not hereditary, as rightly held by the High Court, Shri Ram Mandir cannot be held to be a private temple. [Para 16] [910-C-E]
1.6 PW-1 has admitted that the pujaris have been continuing according to Guru-shishya tradition of Naga Babas and that the temple is a seat of Nagas; but he is a married person and a householder. The first appellate court rightly held that the temple established by Naga Babas cannot be treated as a private temple as there was no interest of a particular person in the temple. [Para 17] [910-E-G]
1.7 Even the appointment of Bajrang Das PW-1 as pujari of Shri Ram Mandir was done by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Mahidpur, on the application filed by Bajrang Das. The SubDivisional Officer in the order made clear that the Collector is the administrator in respect of lands entered in the name of Shri Ram Mandir situated in villages Indokh, Mundla Sodhya, Pipaliya Bhooma, Rajdhani and Bolkheda Dhar. The said order contains the Khata numbers of the lands and the extent of the lands. The Sub-Divisional Officer had passed further order dated 08.06.1999 mutating the name of Ram Das and entering the name of Bajrang Das as pujari. The statements of Bajrang Das and Ram Das and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer clearly show that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple and that the Mandir and the properties are under the control and administration of the State through District Collector. Having been appointed the pujari of the temple appointed by the Government, Bajrang Das and Ram Das are estopped from contending that Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple. Considering the evidence and the fact that Bajrang Das himself has been appointed as pujari by the State, the first appellate court and the High Court rightly held that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple. [Para 18] [910-G-H; 911-A-E]
2.1 Bajrang Das PW-1 relies upon a document of the year 1797 through which the Government bestowed the land in favour of the temple for Nevaidya etc. Referring to the said document, the first appellate court held that the land was bestowed on the temple for Nevaidaya etc. There is nothing to indicate that Gopal Das has established the temple from out of his personal funds and that he has become Inamdar of the property. [Para 19] [911-F; 912-A-B]
2.2 Number of documents produced by the appellant clearly show that the Inam rights have been conferred on Shri Ram Mandir and not on the pujaris. The first appellate court referred to various documents in particular pattas and held that all the lands have been given to Shri Ram Mandir Devsthan by way of Inam. The number of documents produced by the appellant clearly show that the lands are Inam lands of Shri Ram Mandir and that the status of Bajrang Das and Ram Das were only pujaris. In number of other documents also, Shri Ram Mandir is recorded as “Bhumiswami” for the suit property and the names of specific individuals are recorded only as pujaris. In the light of various documents and the formidable entries made thereon, there is no merit in the submission of the appellant that they have become Mahant of Shri Ram Mandir and that they are entitled to manage the affairs of the temple and the Mandir’s properties. [Para 2021] [912-B, F-H]
2.3 The Collector was recorded as Manager for the lands of Shri Ram Mandir since the year 1975 and the same was not challenged. According to the respondent-State, the entry of the name of the District Collector as Manager of the temple properties dated 12.04.1974 has been done to curb the mismanagement of the temple properties at the hands of the pujaris. The said circular has been upheld by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Sadashiv Giri case insofar as it applied to public temples. [Para 23] [913-E-F]
2.4 The first appellate court referred to the order of the High Court in LPA, by which the High Court has directed to cancel the executive orders by which the names of the priests were removed from revenue records. As pointed out by the first appellate court, pendency of such matters would not in any way affect the rights of Deity of Shri Ram Mandir in the suit properties as Shri Ram Mandir has been recorded as “Bhumiswami” for the suit properties. Ram Bali Das was continued to be recorded only as pujari of Shri Ram Mandir. On the application filed by pujari Ram Das, Bajrang Das has been appointed as pujari by SDO. [Para 24] [914-C-E]
2.5 The fact that the appellant having taken the Mandir lands on lease from the Government clearly shows 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. [Para 25] [914-C-E]
2.6 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. Having regard to the findings of the first appellate court, 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 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. [Para 26] [914-E-H]
State of Uttarakhand and Another v. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj (2017) 9 SCC 579; Goswami Shri
Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. Ranchhoddas Kalidas and Others (1969) 2 SCC 853 : [1970] 2 SCR 275; Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj Etc. v. State of Rajasthan and Others [1964] 1 SCR 561 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.