SHRI RAM MANDIR INDORE versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS on 27 February 2019

[2019] 4 S.C.R. 899

SHRI RAM MANDIR INDORE

v.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

(Civil Appeal No. 5043 of 2009)

FEBRUARY 27, 2019

[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]

Trusts and Charities:Shri Ram Mandir, Indoukh – Nature of– Mandir, a public temple or a private temple – Held: Shri RamMandir, Indoukh is a public temple and that the said property isvested in the Deity and not the pujari – Ram Mandir is mentioned inthe directory containing names of all public temples in the district –There was participation of the public for darshan – There is noblood relationship between the successive pujaris –Pujaris werenever inamdars of the temple properties – Lands are inam lands ofShri Ram Mandir – Mandir property has been taken on lease fromthe government – Thus, temple properties are under managementand control of the government – Pujari is not Mahant-Manager ofthe 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 iscouched in such a manner as if Shri Ram Mandir is representedby its Manager Ram Das. The onus of proving that the appellant-Shri Ram Mandir falls within the description of private temple ison the appellant who is asserting that the temple is a privatetemple and that he is the Mahant of the temple. In the instantcase, plaint lacks pleadings regarding who constructed the templeand how he raised the funds. The name of Gulab Das who allegedlyconstructed the temple is not mentioned in the plaint. Noevidence was adduced by the appellant to show as to how GopalDas constructed the temple and whether personal funds wereused by Gopal Das to establish the temple or whether there wascontribution from the public. In his evidence, Bajrang Das PW-1has stated that the temple was constructed by Sewa Das. On theother hand, Bheru Lal PW-2 has stated that the temple was

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Aconstructed by Sewa Das and Gulab Das. In the absence ofpleadings and evidence that the temple was constructed by GopalDas, the first appellate court rightly held that based on theevidence of Bajrang Das, PW-1, it cannot be held that Shri RamMandir is a private temple. [Para 11, 12] [908-E, F-H; 909-A-C]

B1.2 In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published aDirectory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjainupdating till 31.12.2012. Shri Ram Mandir is mentioned thereinin the List as Entry 135 which clearly shows that the temple hasbeen recognized as a public temple. Though, this document –List of public temples is subsequent to the suit, the entry of ShriCRam Mandir as the public temple in the register is a strong pieceof evidence to hold that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple. BDand RD are only shown to be the pujaris. [Para 13] [909-D-E]

1.3 The participation of the members of the public in theDarshan in the temple and in the daily acts of worship or in theDcelebrations may be a very important factor to consider indetermining the character of the temple. In the instant case, theappellant has not adduced any evidence to show that there isrestricted participation of the public for darshan.[Para 14] [909-G-H]

E

1.4 In the same premises, apart from, Shri Ram Mandir,there is a Ganesh temple which has a different pujari and there isalso a Maruthi Mandir. The pooja at Ganesh Mandir is performedby the brother of Bheru Lal PW-2. There are thus two differentpujaris who perform pooja for two separate idols situated in theFsame premises and they have been so performing pooja forgenerations. The submission that no outsider can come andperform pooja and archana in the premises of Shri Ram Mandirwas rightly rejected by the first appellate court as the verypremises has three Deities. [Para 15] [910-A-C]

G1.5 There is no blood-relationship between the successivepujaris. No evidence has been adduced to show that the templebelonged to one family and that there was blood-relations betweenthe successive pujaris. If the temple was a private temple, thesuccession would have been hereditary and would be governedby the principles of Hindu succession i.e. by blood, marriage andH

adoption. In the case in hand, succession is admittedly governedby Guru-shishya relationship. Each pujari is not having bloodrelation with his predecessor pujari. When the pujariship is nothereditary, as rightly held by the High Court, Shri Ram Mandircannot be held to be a private temple. [Para 16] [910-C-E]

1.6 PW-1 has admitted that the pujaris have been continuingaccording to Guru-shishya tradition of Naga Babas and that thetemple is a seat of Nagas; but he is a married person and ahouseholder. The first appellate court rightly held that the templeestablished by Naga Babas cannot be treated as a private templeas 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 ofShri Ram Mandir was done by the Sub-Divisional Officer, TehsilMahidpur, on the application filed by Bajrang Das. The Sub-Divisional Officer in the order made clear that the Collector isthe administrator in respect of lands entered in the name of ShriRam Mandir situated in villages Indokh, Mundla Sodhya, PipaliyaBhooma, Rajdhani and Bolkheda Dhar. The said order containsthe Khata numbers of the lands and the extent of the lands. TheSub-Divisional Officer had passed further order dated 08.06.1999mutating the name of Ram Das and entering the name of BajrangDas as pujari. The statements of Bajrang Das and Ram Das andthe order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer clearly show thatShri Ram Mandir is a public temple and that the Mandir and theproperties are under the control and administration of the Statethrough District Collector. Having been appointed the pujari ofthe temple appointed by the Government, Bajrang Das and RamDas are estopped from contending that Shri Ram Mandir is aprivate temple. Considering the evidence and the fact that BajrangDas himself has been appointed as pujari by the State, the firstappellate court and the High Court rightly held that Shri RamMandir is a public temple. [Para 18] [910-G-H; 911-A-E]

2.1 Bajrang Das PW-1 relies upon a document of the year1797 through which the Government bestowed the land in favourof the temple for Nevaidya etc. Referring to the said document,the first appellate court held that the land was bestowed on the A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Atemple for Nevaidaya etc. There is nothing to indicate that GopalDas has established the temple from out of his personal fundsand that he has become Inamdar of the property. [Para 19][911-F; 912-A-B]

2.2 Number of documents produced by the appellant clearlyBshow that the Inam rights have been conferred on Shri RamMandir and not on the pujaris. The first appellate court referredto various documents in particular pattas and held that all thelands have been given to Shri Ram Mandir Devsthan by way ofInam. The number of documents produced by the appellant clearlyshow that the lands are Inam lands of Shri Ram Mandir and thatCthe status of Bajrang Das and Ram Das were only pujaris. Innumber of other documents also, Shri Ram Mandir is recordedas “Bhumiswami” for the suit property and the names of specificindividuals are recorded only as pujaris. In the light of variousdocuments and the formidable entries made thereon, there is noDmerit in the submission of the appellant that they have becomeMahant of Shri Ram Mandir and that they are entitled to managethe affairs of the temple and the Mandir’s properties. [Para 20-21] [912-B, F-H]

2.3 The Collector was recorded as Manager for the landsEof Shri Ram Mandir since the year 1975 and the same was notchallenged. According to the respondent-State, the entry of thename of the District Collector as Manager of the templeproperties dated 12.04.1974 has been done to curb themismanagement of the temple properties at the hands of thepujaris. The said circular has been upheld by the High Court ofFMadhya Pradesh in Sadashiv Giri case insofar as it applied topublic temples. [Para 23] [913-E-F]

2.4 The first appellate court referred to the order of theHigh Court in LPA, by which the High Court has directed tocancel the executive orders by which the names of the priestsGwere removed from revenue records. As pointed out by the firstappellate court, pendency of such matters would not in any wayaffect the rights of Deity of Shri Ram Mandir in the suit propertiesas Shri Ram Mandir has been recorded as “Bhumiswami” forthe suit properties. Ram Bali Das was continued to be recordedHonly as pujari of Shri Ram Mandir. On the application filed by pujari Ram Das, Bajrang Das has been appointed as pujari bySDO. [Para 24] [914-C-E]

2.5 The fact that the appellant having taken the Mandirlands on lease from the Government clearly shows that theproperties were never owned by the pujaris in their individualcapacity. Having taken the Mandir property on lease from theGovernment, the appellant is estopped from denying that thetemple properties are under the management and control of theGovernment. The suit lands have been given in the name of ShriRam Mandir and few other lands in the name of Ganesh Mandirfor the arrangement of pooja, archana, naivedya, etc. for the publictemple and the pujari has no right to interfere in the managementof 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 HighCourt that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple and not a privateone is based upon the appreciation of oral and documentaryevidence. Bajrang Das-PW-1 himself has been appointed as pujariby the Government and the appellant/plaintiff has not adducedany evidence showing that the temple belonged to one particularfamily. By oral and documentary evidence, it is clearly establishedthat the suit lands are recorded in the name of Shri Ram Mandir.Having regard to the findings of the first appellate court, the HighCourt rightly held that no substantial question of law arose in theSecond Appeal. Based upon oral and documentary evidence, thefirst appellate court and the High Court recorded the concurrentfindings of fact that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple and not aprivate temple and that the agricultural lands were given to theDeity and not to the pujaris. The impugned judgment does notsuffer from any infirmity warranting interference.[Para 26] [914-E-H]

State of Uttarakhand and Another v. Mandir Sri LaxmanSidh Maharaj(2017) 9 SCC 579;Goswami ShriMahalaxmi Vahuji v. Ranchhoddas Kalidas and Others(1969) 2 SCC 853 : [1970] 2 SCR 275;Tilkayat ShriGovindlalji Maharaj Etc. v. State of Rajasthan andOthers [1964] 1 SCR 561 – referred to.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5043of 2009.

From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2002 of the High Courtof Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Second Appeal No. 266 ofC2002.

Puneet Jain, Ms. Christi Jain, Ms. Ankita Gupta, Abhinav Gupta,Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advs. for the Appellant.

Vaibhav Srivastava, Dy. AG, Pradyuman Kaistha, Harsh Parashar,DAdvs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgmentdated 06.08.2002 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indorein and by which the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal No.266 ofE2002 thereby affirming the findings of the First Appellate Court that ShriRam Mandir, Indoukh is a public temple and that the suit property isvested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujarisand not Mahant-Manager of the temple.

2. Briefly stated case of the appellant is as follows:- F

Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple of which Mahant and Manageris Ram Das and that he has been continuing to perform pooja-archanaand management of the temple since the time of his guru. Earlier to him,his Guru Shri Shiromani Das Ji and still earlier to him, his ancestor guruused to offer pooja-archana and has been in management of the temple.GCase of the appellant is that the temple is the private temple of whichsuccession is by descendance according to the rules of Guru Parampara.The suit property/agricultural land has been allotted for Shri Ram Mandirin Inam and in its name and the land is in possession of Shri Ram Mandir.The temple is a private temple and government has no right in the templeand no aid was given by the Government in the construction, maintenanceH

and repair of the temple. The respondents through an administrativeorder recorded the name of respondent No.3-District Collector asManager of the temple without giving any notice to the appellant whichis in violation of principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisionsof law. According to the plaintiff, Shri Ram Mandir is a private templeand the government has no right to interfere in the administration of thetemple and the possession and management of the suit lands. On15.07.1988, respondents No.3 and 4-officers of Madhya PradeshGovernment initiated proceedings for leasing out the disputed lands(Revenue Case No.28B/121-87-88) and fixed 06.10.1988 as the datefor auction for leasing of the temple properties and the same is withoutany right. The plaintiff has therefore filed the suit for a declarationthat:- (i) Shri Ram Mandir at Indoukh is a private mandir and the Statehas no right to interfere in the management, pooja-archana and in thepossession of the agricultural land; (ii) for grant of permanent injunctionrestraining the respondent-officials from interfering with the possessionof the suit property by the plaintiff.

3. The respondent-State has filed the written statement contendingthat Shri Ram Mandir is not a private temple but is a public temple andthat the status of the plaintiff is merely of a pujari. The Deity of thetemple is owner of agricultural land which has been given by thegovernment for the purpose of performance of pooja-archana etc.and taking proper care and meeting the expenses of the temple. Thestatus of the pujari is like a servant of the temple appointed by thegovernment and he does not acquire any right in the property owned bythe Deity of the temple. District Collector, Ujjain was recorded asManager in the revenue records in 1975-76, in accordance with law.That a “Bbu Adhikar and Rina Patrika” was issued to the appellant/plaintiff. According to respondents since the management of the templewas not being properly and rightfully done and the income from the landwas not being suitably utilised for the betterment of the temple, the StateGovernment decided to auction the land in question so as to have resourcesand raise income for upkeep of the temple. The appellant himself gotthis land in 1985-86 on lease for Rs.860/- from the government and inthis respect has also signed in the order sheet in Case No.93B/121-85-86. An amount of Rs.600/- was deposited on 31.07.1986 in this account.Thereafter, again in 1986-87 appellant got lease of said land forRs.860/- out of which he deposited Rs.460/- on 11.11.1987 with the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Agovernment. The appellant has thus treated the suit property as theproperty of the temple which is under the control and management ofthe government. Having agreed to take the same on lease, the appellant/plaintiff cannot turn around and contend that he is in management of thesuit property and challenge the control and management of the suitproperty by the government.B

4. On the above pleadings, relevant issues were framed by thetrial court. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, thetrial court decreed the suit holding that Shri Ram Mandir is a privatetemple and not a public temple. The trial court held that the temple wasconstructed by predecessor of Guru Ram Das and the temple is a privateCtemple of the current Manager Bajrang Das who has succeeded as theManager according to the Hindu Law. The trial court held that “entryof Collector as Manager in the revenue records was without noticeto the Manager of the temple and the changes made in the revenuerecords for a private temple without hearing the Manager of theDtemple, cannot be sustained.” The trial court further held that noevidence has been adduced by the State to establish their plea that theappointment of pujari was done by the State. On those findings, thetrial court granted permanent injunction in favour of the appellant/plaintiffby holding that the State has no authority to auction the land vested in the appellant/plaintiff in his capacity as Mahant of the temple and theEsame is without authority of law.

5. Being aggrieved, the respondents preferred appeal before theappellate court. The first appellate court allowed the appeal holding thatShri Ram Mandir is a public temple and not a private temple. Theappellate court held that all the lands are inam lands of Shri Ram MandirFand that the title in the disputed lands vests in the Deity. The first appellatecourt further held that the Collector has been rightly recorded as Managerand the status of the pujari is only to perform pooja-archana and hehas no further right in the temple. It was held that the possession of theland by the pujari is only on behalf of the Deity/temple and pujari hasGno right over the suit lands. Upon consideration of oral and documentaryevidence, the first appellate court set aside the judgment of the trialcourt and allowed the appeal by holding that the pujaris of Shri RamMandir have been continuing according to the Guru-Shishya tradition ofNaga Babas who have no family of their own.

H

6. Assailing the correctness of the judgment of the first appellatecourt, the appellant preferred the second appeal. The High Court affirmedthe findings of the first appellate court holding that the suit property isrecorded in the name of Deity and Ram Das and Bajrang Das wererecorded only as pujaris and the name of pujari kept on changing andthese pujaris do not belong to one family and there is no blood relationbetween those persons. The High Court held that the findings of thefirst appellate court that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple is based onthe facts and evidence adduced by the parties and no substantial questionof law arose for consideration and accordingly, dismissed the secondappeal.

7. Contention of the appellant is that Ram Mandir is a privatetemple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties hadbeen given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a merepujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administerthe temple and the suit properties. According to the appellant, the entryrecorded in the revenue records in the year 1975 inserting the name ofthe Collector, Ujjain as Manager was without notice to the plaintiff andhence, illegal. It was urged that mere recording of the name of theCollector in the revenue records as Manager does not confer any rightupon the State. It was submitted that since temple was constructed bylate Shri Gulab Das, Guru Sewa Das ji and the appellant and their Gurusare in administration of the temple and are in possession of the propertiesof the temple, the respondents are not justified in interfering with thepossession of the suit properties and administration of Shri Ram Mandir.

8. Refuting the abovesaid contention, the learned counsel for theState submitted that Ram Mandir is a public temple and not a privatetemple as contended by the appellant. It was contended that severaldocuments filed by the appellant/plaintiff indicates that the suit propertyis recorded in the name of the Deity whereas the name of the personwas recorded as pujari and the rights were passed from one pujari toanother on the basis of Guru-Disciple relationship. It was urged that thedocuments clearly show Inam rights of Ram Mandir and the status ofthe appellant continued to be the pujari and his rights as pujari havenot been affected in any manner whatsoever by the appointment of theCollector as the Manager. It was submitted that Shri Ram Mandir is apublic temple and not a private one and in fact even the appellant Bajrang A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ADas was appointed as pujari only by the Sub-Divisional Officer. It wassubmitted that the lease of the suit properties was auctioned and theappellant himself participated in such auction in 1985-1986 and 1986-87and the appellant deposited the lease amount with the authorities andtherefore, the appellant cannot turn around and claim that he is inadministration of the temple. It was submitted that the concurrent findingsBof the High Court and the first appellate court are based upon evidenceadduced by the parties and the same warrant no interference.

9. We have heard Mr. Puneet Jain, learned counsel for theappellant and Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, learned counsel for the State andperused the impugned judgment and the judgment of the First AppellateCCourt and the evidence and other materials on record.

10. The question falling for consideration is whether Shri RamMandir is a public temple or a private temple as claimed by the appellant.Further question falling for consideration is whether the appellant is theMahant of Shri Ram Mandir and whether he is in control andDadministration of the temple and the suit properties as claimed by him.

11. Even at the outset, it is to be pointed out that the very causetitle of the plaint is misleading. The description of the appellant templeShri Ram Mandir is couched in such a manner as if Shri Ram Mandir isrepresented by its Manager Ram Das. The respondent-State claims thatEShri Ram Mandir is a public temple and Ram Das and then Bajrang Dasare only pujaris performing pooja-archana in the temple. It is in thiscontext and the auction conducted by the State for leasing the templeproperties, the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration thatShri Ram Mandir is a private temple and permanent injunction restrainingFthe respondents/defendants from interfering with the appellant’spossession of the temple properties.

12. Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple:- The onus of provingthat the appellant-Shri Ram Mandir falls within the description of privatetemple is on the appellant who is asserting that the temple is a privateGtemple and that he is the Mahant of the temple. In State of Uttarakhandand another v. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj (2017) 9 SCC579, it was held that “the necessary material pleadings ought to havebeen made to show as to how and on what basis, the plaintiff claimedhis ownership over such a famous heritage temple and the landsurrounding the temple. Thus, in the absence of any pleadings in H

the plaint that the pujari built the temple, they cannot claim thetemple to be a private temple.” In the case in hand, plaint lacks pleadingsregarding who constructed the temple and how he raised the funds.The name of Gulab Das who allegedly constructed the temple is notmentioned in the plaint. No evidence was adduced by the appellant toshow as to how Gulab Das constructed the temple and whether personalfunds were used by Gulab Das to establish the temple or whether therewas contribution from the public. In his evidence, Bajrang Das (PW-1)has stated that the temple was constructed by Gulab Das. On the otherhand, Bheru Lal (PW-2) has stated that the temple was constructed bySewa Das and Gulab Das. In the absence of pleadings and evidencethat the temple was constructed by Gulab Das, the First Appellate Courtrightly held that based on the evidence of PW-1, it cannot be held thatShri Ram Mandir is a private temple.

13. According to the respondent-State, Shri Ram Mandir hasalways been a part of the list of public temples. In 2013, Madhya PradeshGovernment published a Directory containing names of all public templesin District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012. Shri Ram Mandir is mentionedtherein in the List as Entry 135 which clearly shows that the temple hasbeen recognized as a public temple. Though, this document – List ofpublic temples is subsequent to the suit, the entry of Shri Ram Mandir asthe public temple in the register is a strong piece of evidence to hold thatShri Ram Mandir is a public temple. Be it noted that Bajrang Das andRam Das are only shown to be the pujaris.

14. In Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. RanchhoddasKalidas and others (1969) 2 SCC 853, the Supreme Court held that“the origin of the temple, the manner in which its affairs aremanaged, the nature and extent of gifts received by it, rights exercisedby the devotees in regard to worship therein, are relevant factors toestablish whether a temple is a public temple or a private temple.”Likewise, as held in Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj Etc. v. Stateof Rajasthan and others [1964] 1 SCR 561, the participation of themembers of the public in the Darshan in the temple and in the daily actsof worship or in the celebrations may be a very important factor toconsider in determining the character of the temple. In the present case,the appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that there is restrictedparticipation of the public for darshan.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A15. It is to be pointed out that in the same premises, apart from,Shri Ram Mandir, there is a Ganesh temple which has a different pujariand there is also a Maruthi Mandir. In their evidence, Bheru Lal (PW-2) and Poor Singh (PW-3) have stated that the pooja at Ganesh Mandiris performed by Satyanarayan-brother of Bheru Lal (PW-2). There arethus two different pujaris who perform pooja for two separate idolsBsituated in the same premises and they have been so performing poojafor generations. Contention of PW-1 that no outsider can come andperform pooja and archana in the premises of Shri Ram Mandir wasrightly rejected by the first appellate court as the very premises hasthree Deities.

A

C

A

C

16. Another important aspect which indicates the public characterof the temple is that there is no blood-relationship between the successivepujaris. In the present case, no evidence has been adduced to showthat the temple belonged to one family and that there was blood-relationsbetween the successive pujaris. If the temple was a private temple,Dthe succession would have been hereditary and would be governed bythe principles of Hindu succession i.e. by blood, marriage and adoption.In the case in hand, succession is admittedly governed by Guru-shishyarelationship. Each pujari is not having blood relation with his predecessorpujari. When the pujariship is not hereditary, as rightly held by theHigh Court, Shri Ram Mandir cannot be held to be a private temple.E

17. PW-1 has admitted that the pujaris have been continuingaccording to Guru-shishya tradition of Naga Babas. Admittedly, NagaBabas followed different tradition from family persons i.e. they followedthe tradition that during the period of management of the temple, theydid not have any grihashtha-household life. Admittedly, the tradition ofFNaga Babas of not having a household life has been broken by BajrangDas (PW-1). In his evidence, PW-1 admitted that the temple is a seatof Nagas; but he is a married person and a householder. The firstappellate court has rightly held that the temple established by Naga Babascannot be treated as a private temple as there was no interest of aGparticular person in the temple.

18. Even the appointment of Bajrang Das (PW-1) as pujari ofShri Ram Mandir was done by the Sub-Divisional Officer, TehsilMahidpur, on the application filed by Bajrang Das. In his applicationbefore the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Mahidpur, Bajrang Das (PW-H1) stated that Guru Ram Das is aged about eighty years and suffering from paralysis and Bajrang Das has been performing the pooja sincelast ten years and therefore, prayed for entering him as pujari of ShriRam Mandir. Ram Das had also given statement before the Sub-DivisionalOfficer stating that he is suffering from the ailment of paralysis and thathe is not in a position to continue the work of pujari and that BajrangDas may be appointed as pujari. The said application was registeredas 10/98-99 Pujari Nomination and after calling for objection from thepublic, Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Mahidpur had passed a detailedorder on 01.06.1999 appointing Bajrang Das as the pujari of Shri RamMandir. In the said order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 01.06.1999, itis made clear that the Collector is the administrator in respect of landsentered in the name of Shri Ram Mandir situated in villages Indokh,Mundla Sodhya, Pipaliya Bhooma, Rajdhani and Bolkheda Dhar. Thesaid order contains the Khata numbers of the lands and the extent of thelands. The Sub-Divisional Officer had passed further order dated08.06.1999 mutating the name of Ram Das and entering the name ofBajrang Das as pujari. Ex.-D4 and Ex.-D5 – statements of BajrangDas and Ram Das and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officerclearly show that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple and that the Mandirand the properties are under the control and administration of the Statethrough District Collector. Having been appointed the pujari of the templeby the Government, Bajrang Das and Ram Das are estopped fromcontending that Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple. Considering theevidence and the fact that Bajrang Das himself has been appointed aspujari by the State, the first appellate court and the High Court rightlyheld that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple. We found no ground tointerfere with the said concurrent finding.

19. Pujaris were never Inamdars of the temple properties:-PW-1 relies upon Ex.-P20 – a document through which Raja Baghbestowed the land in favour of the temple for Nevaidya etc. Ex.-P20 isof the year 1797 wherein it is mentioned that the land was bestowed bythe Government upon the temple for Nevaidya etc. of the temple. Thedocument reads as under:-

“Gulab Das Baba, Shir Setaram. You have been gifted villageland by the government for the Nevaidya and oil for lamp (Deepak)etc. for the deity (… not readable) therefore, by accepting bhogetc…..(not readable).”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AReferring to Ex.-P20, the first appellate court held that the landwas bestowed on the temple for Nevaidya etc. There is nothing to indicatethat Gulab Das has established the temple from out of his personal fundsand that he has become Inamdar of the property.

20. Number of documents produced by the appellant clearly showBthat the Inam rights have been conferred on Shri Ram Mandir and noton the pujaris. According to Ex.-P29, 30 and 31, lands of villageRabdamiya, Mundala Sondhiya, Pipalya Dhuma are recorded as Inamlands of Devsthan. In respect of the land in village Mundala Sondhiya,Ex.-P24 mentions Inam land of Shri Ram Mandir. In Ex.-P23, settlementpatta relates to the land of village Mundala Sondhiya and the name ofCtenant is recorded as Shri Ram Mandir through Tulasi Das Guru BhawaDas and the type of right “Inam Devsthan” has been written. As PerEx.-P21, patta of village Rabdaniya which was issued by settlementholder state reveals that this land was given to tenant Shri Ram Mandirthrough the then pujari Tulasi Das and its right has been shown as “ShriDRam Mandir Devsthan”. As per Ex.-P19, land of Mundala Sondhiyahas been given to the pujari of Shri Ram Mandir Devsthan. As perEx.-P18, the land of Pipalya Dhuma is the land of Inam Devsthan ShriRam Mandir. As per Ex.-P17, the land of village Rabaniya has beengiven to Devsthan Shri Ram Mandir as Inam right. According to Ex.-P16, the land of Bolkheda has been given to Devsthan as Inam right. AsEper Ex.-P15, the land of village Kankalkhdea has been given to ShriRam Mandir Inam Devsthan. As per Ex.-P14, the land of Indoukh hasbeen given to tenant Shri Ram Mandir Pujari Kanvsidas on the rights ofInam Shri Ram Mandir.

21. The First Appellate Court referred to various documents inFparticular pattas and held that all the lands have been given to Shri RamMandir Devsthan by way of Inam. The number of documents producedby the appellant clearly show that the lands are Inam lands of Shri RamMandir and that the status of Ram Das and Bajrang Das were onlypujaris. In number of other documents also, Shri Ram Mandir is recordedGas “Bhumiswami” for the suit property and the names of specificindividuals are recorded only as pujaris. In the light of various documentsand the formidable entries made thereon, there is no merit in the contentionof the appellant that they have become Mahant of Shri Ram Mandir andthat they are entitled to manage the affairs of the temple and the Mandir’sproperties.H

22. Ex.-P2 is the copy of Kishtbandi Khatauni of the year1971-72 in which, rights of land of Indoukh are recorded as “Shri RamMandir as Bhumiswami”. Pujari Ram Bali Das, Guru Ganga DasBairagi resident of Deh Bhumi Swami have been described only aspujaris. Likewise, in Ex.-P4 relating to the land of village BolkhedaGhat, Shri Ram Mandir has been recorded as “Bhumiswami” and RamBali Das has been mentioned only as a priest. For the land of villagePipalya Dhuna, Bhumiswami rights are recorded in favour of Shri RamMandir and Ganpati Mandir of which Ram Bali Das has been recordedas pujari. Likewise, as per Ex.-P7, Shri Ram Mandir, Indoukh hasbeen recorded as “Bhumiswami” for the land of village MundalaSondhiya. Though, the appellant got certified copies of these documentson various dates viz. 12.08.1972, 16.09.1970 and 27.09.1970 and in spiteof knowledge of the entry “Ram Mandir as Bhumiswami”, it was notchallenged till the filing of suit. For the land of Pipalya Dhuma, GanpatiMaruti Mandir has been recorded as “Bhumiswami” along with ShriRam Mandir and Collector, Ujjain has been recorded as Manager. Theappellant did not challenge the rights of Ganpati Maruti Mandir whichwas recorded as “Bhumiswami” for the lands of the village PipalyaDhuma. Be it noted that, Ganpati Maruti Mandir has not even beenimpleaded as a party.

23. The Collector was recorded as Manager for the lands of ShriRam Mandir since the year 1975 and the same was not challenged.According to the respondent-State, the entry of the name of the DistrictCollector as Manager of the temple properties dated 12.04.1974 hasbeen done to curb the mismanagement of the temple properties at thehands of the pujaris. The learned counsel appearing for the Statesubmitted that the circular dated 12.04.1974 was upheld by the HighCourt of Madhya Pradesh in Sadashi v Giri and others v.Commissioner, Ujjain and others 1985 RN 371 insofar as it applied topublic temples.

24. The First Appellate Court has referred to the order of theHigh Court in LPA No.36/94 (27.07.1995) in and by which the HighCourt has directed to cancel the executive orders dated 18.11.1992 bywhich the names of the priests were removed from revenue records.As pointed out by the First Appellate Court, pendency of such matterswould not in any way affect the rights of Deity of Shri Ram Mandir inthe suit properties as Shri Ram Mandir has been recorded as“Bhumiswami” for the suit properties. As discussed earlier, appellant AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ARam Bali Das was continued to be recorded only as pujari of Shri RamMandir. As discussed infra, on the application filed by pujari Ram Das,Bajrang Das has been appointed as pujari by SDO.

25. Plaintiff Ram Das himself got the land in the year 1985-86 onlease for Rs.860/- from the Government and in this respect, he has signedon the order sheet in case No.93B/121-85-86. An amount of Rs.600/-Bwas deposited on 31.07.1986. Thereafter, in the year 1986-87, pujariRam Das got the lease renewed for one year at Rs.860/- out of whichhe has deposited Rs.460/- on 11.11.1987 for which a receipt has beenissued to pujari Ram Das. The fact that the appellant having taken theMandir lands on lease from the Government clearly shows that theCproperties were never owned by the pujaris in their individual capacity.Having taken the Mandir property on lease from the Government, theappellant is estopped from denying that the temple properties are underthe management and control of the Government. The suit lands havebeen given in the name of Shri Ram Mandir and few other lands in theDname of Ganesh Mandir for the arrangement of pooja, archana,naivedya, etc. for the public temple and the pujari has no right tointerfere in the management of these lands as his status is only that ofpujari.

26. The finding of the first appellate court and the High Court thatShri Ram Mandir is a public temple and not a private one is based uponEthe appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Bajrang Das(PW-1) himself has been appointed as pujari by the Government andthe appellant/plaintiff has not adduced any evidence showing that thetemple belonged to one particular family. By oral and documentaryevidence, it is clearly established that the suit lands are recorded in theFname of Shri Ram Mandir. Having regard to the findings of the FirstAppellate Court, the High Court rightly held that no substantial questionof law arose in the Second Appeal. Based upon oral and documentaryevidence, the First Appellate Court and the High Court have recordedthe concurrent findings of fact that Shri Ram Mandir is a public templeand not a private temple and that the agricultural lands were given to theGDeity and not to the pujaris. The impugned judgment does not sufferfrom any infirmity warranting interference and this appeal is liable to bedismissed.

27. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

HNidhi Jain

Appeal dismissed.