REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5043 OF 2009

SHRI RAM MANDIR INDORE                      ….Appellant

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH  AND OTHERS      …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

This appeal  arises out  of  the judgment dated 06.08.2002

passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in and by

which  the  High  Court  dismissed  the  Second  Appeal

No.266  of  2002  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.

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

Shri  Ram  Mandir  is  a  private  temple  of  which  Mahant  and

Manager is Ram Das and that he has been continuing to perform

1

pooja-archana and 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 guru used to offer pooja-archana and

has been in management of the temple.  Case of the appellant is

that the temple is the private temple of which succession is by

descendance according to the rules of Guru Parampara. The suit

property/agricultural land has been allotted for Shri Ram Mandir

in 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 temple and no aid was given by the Government in the

construction,  maintenance  and  repair  of  the  temple.  The

respondents through an administrative order recorded the name

of respondent No.3-District Collector as Manager of the temple

without giving any notice to the appellant which is in violation of

principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of law.

According to the plaintiff, Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple and

the government has no right to interfere in the administration of

the  temple  and  the  possession  and  management  of  the  suit

lands.  On  15.07.1988,  respondents  No.3  and  4-officers  of

Madhya  Pradesh Government  initiated  proceedings  for  leasing

out the disputed lands (Revenue Case No.28B/121-87-88) and

2

fixed 06.10.1988 as the date for auction for leasing of the temple

properties and the same is without any right.  The plaintiff  has

therefore filed the suit for a declaration that:- (i) Shri Ram Mandir

at  Indoukh  is  a  private  mandir  and  the  State  has  no  right  to

interfere  in  the  management,  pooja-archana and  in  the

possession  of  the  agricultural  land;  (ii)  for  grant  of  permanent

injunction restraining the respondent-officials from interfering with

the possession of the suit property by the plaintiff.   

3. The  respondent-State  has  filed  the  written  statement

contending that Shri Ram Mandir is not a private temple but is a

public temple and that the status of the plaintiff  is merely of a

pujari.  The Deity of the temple is owner of agricultural land which

has  been  given  by  the  government  for  the  purpose  of

performance of  pooja-archana etc.  and taking proper care and

meeting the expenses of the temple.  The status of the pujari is

like a servant of the temple appointed by the government and he

does not acquire any right in the property owned by the Deity of

the temple.  District Collector, Ujjain was recorded as Manager 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

3

management of the temple was not being properly and rightfully

done and the income from the land was not being suitably utilised

for the betterment of the temple, the State Government decided

to auction the land in question so as to have resources and raise

income for upkeep of the temple.  The appellant himself got this

land in 1985-86 on lease for Rs.860/- from the government and in

this  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  for  Rs.860/-  out  of  which  he

deposited  Rs.460/-  on  11.11.1987  with  the  government.  The

appellant has thus treated the suit property as the property of the

temple  which  is  under  the  control  and  management  of  the

government.  Having  agreed  to  take  the  same  on  lease,  the

appellant/plaintiff  cannot turn around and contend that  he is in

management of the suit property and challenge the control and

management of the suit property by the government.   

4. On the above pleadings, relevant issues were framed by the

trial  court.   Upon  consideration  of  oral  and  documentary

evidence, the trial court decreed the suit holding that Shri Ram

Mandir is a private temple and not a public temple.  The trial court

4

held  that  the  temple  was constructed  by predecessor  of  Guru

Ram  Das  and  the  temple  is  a  private  temple  of  the  current

Manager  Bajrang  Das  who  has  succeeded  as  the  Manager

according to the Hindu Law.  The trial court held that “entry of

Collector as Manager in the revenue records was without notice

to  the  Manager  of  the  temple  and  the  changes  made  in  the

revenue records for a private temple without hearing the Manager

of the temple, cannot be sustained.”  The trial court further held

that no evidence has been adduced by the State to establish their

plea that the appointment of  pujari was done by the State. On

those  findings,  the  trial  court  granted  permanent  injunction  in

favour of the appellant/plaintiff by 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  the  same  is  without

authority of law.

5. Being aggrieved, the respondents preferred appeal before

the appellate court.  The first appellate court allowed the appeal

holding that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple and not a private

temple.  The appellate court held that all the lands are inam lands

of Shri Ram Mandir and that the title in the disputed lands vests in

the Deity.  The first appellate court further held that the Collector

5

has been rightly recorded as Manager and the status of the pujari

is only to perform pooja-archana and he has no further right in the

temple.  It was held that the possession of the land by the pujari

is only on behalf of the Deity/temple and pujari has no right over

the  suit  lands.   Upon  consideration  of  oral  and  documentary

evidence, the first appellate court set aside the judgment of the

trial court and allowed the appeal by holding that the  pujaris of

Shri Ram Mandir have been continuing according to the Guru-

Shishya tradition of Naga Babas who have no family of their own.

6. Assailing  the  correctness  of  the  judgment  of  the  first

appellate court, the appellant preferred the second appeal.  The

High Court affirmed the findings of the first appellate court holding

that the suit property is recorded in the name of Deity and Ram

Das  and  Bajrang  Das  were  recorded  only  as  pujaris and  the

name of pujari kept on changing and these pujaris do not belong

to  one  family  and  there  is  no  blood  relation  between  those

persons.   The  High  Court  held  that  the  findings  of  the  first

appellate court that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple is based

on  the  facts  and  evidence  adduced  by  the  parties  and  no

substantial  question  of  law  arose  for  consideration  and

accordingly, dismissed the second appeal.

6

7. Contention of the appellant is that Ram Mandir is a private

temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties

had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not

a  mere  pujari but  the  Mahant  of  the  said  temple  entitled  to

manage  and  administer  the  temple  and  the  suit  properties.

According  to  the  appellant,  the  entry  recorded  in  the  revenue

records in the    year 1975 inserting the name of the Collector,

Ujjain as Manager was without notice to the plaintiff and hence,

illegal.   It  was  urged  that  mere  recording  of  the  name of  the

Collector in the revenue records as Manager does not confer any

right  upon the State.   It  was submitted that  since temple was

constructed by late Shri Gulab Das, Guru Sewa Das ji and the

appellant and their Gurus are in administration of the temple and

are in possession of the properties of the temple, the respondents

are  not  justified  in  interfering  with  the  possession  of  the  suit

properties and administration of Shri Ram Mandir.

8. Refuting the abovesaid contention, the learned counsel for

the State submitted that Ram Mandir is a public temple and not a

private temple as contended by the appellant. It was contended

that  several  documents  filed  by  the  appellant/plaintiff  indicates

that  the  suit  property  is  recorded  in  the  name  of  the  Deity

7

whereas the name of the person was recorded as pujari and the

rights were passed from one  pujari to  another on the basis of

Guru-Disciple  relationship.   It  was  urged  that  the  documents

clearly  show  Inam rights of Ram Mandir  and the status of  the

appellant continued to be the pujari and his rights as pujari have

not been affected in any manner whatsoever by the appointment

of the Collector as the Manager.  It was submitted that Shri Ram

Mandir is a public temple and not a private one and in fact even

the appellant Bajrang Das was appointed as pujari only by the

Sub-Divisional Officer.  It was submitted that the lease of the suit

properties was auctioned and the appellant himself participated in

such  auction  in  1985-1986  and  1986-87  and  the  appellant

deposited the lease amount with the authorities and therefore, the

appellant  cannot  turn  around  and  claim  that  he  is  in

administration of the temple. It was submitted that the concurrent

findings of the High Court and the first appellate court are based

upon evidence adduced by the parties and the same warrant no

interference.

9. We have heard Mr.  Puneet  Jain,  learned counsel  for  the

appellant  and Mr.  Vaibhav  Srivastava,  learned  counsel  for  the

State and perused the impugned judgment and the judgment of

8

the First Appellate Court and the evidence and other materials on

record.

10. 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.

11. Even at the outset, it is to be pointed out that 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

respondent-State claims that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple

and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris performing

pooja-archana in the temple.  It is in this context and the auction

conducted  by  the  State  for  leasing  the  temple  properties,  the

appellant-plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration that Shri Ram

Mandir is a private temple and permanent injunction restraining

the respondents/defendants from interfering with the appellant’s

possession of the temple properties.   

9

12. Shri  Ram  Mandir  is  a  public  temple:-  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 another v. Mandir Sri

Laxman Sidh Maharaj (2017) 9 SCC 579, 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.  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 Gulab Das constructed the

temple and whether personal funds were used by Gulab 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 Gulab Das.  On the other hand, Bheru

Lal (PW-2) has stated that the temple was constructed by Sewa

10

Das and Gulab Das.  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.

13. According to the respondent-State,  Shri  Ram Mandir  has

always been a part of the list of public temples. 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.  Be it noted that Bajrang Das

and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris.

14. In  Goswami  Shri  Mahalaxmi  Vahuji  v.  Ranchhoddas

Kalidas and others (1969) 2 SCC 853, 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

11

or  a  private  temple.”  Likewise,  as  held  in  Tilkayat  Shri

Govindlalji  Maharaj  Etc.  v.  State  of  Rajasthan  and  others

[1964] 1 SCR 561, 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.

15. 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

pujari  and  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 Mandir is performed by Satyanarayan-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.  Contention of PW-1 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.

12

16. Another  important  aspect  which  indicates  the  public

character  of  the  temple  is  that  there  is  no  blood-relationship

between the successive pujaris.  In the present case, 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.

17. PW-1 has admitted that  the  pujaris have been continuing

according to Guru-shishya tradition of Naga Babas.  Admittedly,

Naga Babas followed different tradition from family persons i.e.

they followed the tradition that during the period of management

of the temple, they did not have any  grihashtha-household life.

Admittedly, the tradition of Naga Babas of not having a household

life has been broken by Bajrang Das (PW-1).  In his evidence,

PW-1 admitted that the temple is a seat of Nagas; but he is a

13

married person and a householder.  The first appellate court has

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.

18. 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.  In  his

application  before  the  Sub-Divisional  Officer,  Tehsil  Mahidpur,

Bajrang Das (PW-1) stated that  Guru Ram Das is  aged about

eighty years and suffering from paralysis and Bajrang Das has

been performing the  pooja  since last  ten  years  and therefore,

prayed for entering him as pujari of Shri Ram Mandir. Ram Das

had also given statement before the Sub-Divisional Officer stating

that he is suffering from the ailment of paralysis and that he is not

in a position to continue the work of pujari and that Bajrang Das

may be appointed as pujari.   The said application was registered

as 10/98-99 Pujari Nomination and after calling for objection from

the public, Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Mahidpur had passed a

detailed  order  on  01.06.1999  appointing  Bajrang  Das  as  the

pujari  of  Shri  Ram Mandir.  In  the said  order  of  Sub-Divisional

Officer dated 01.06.1999, it is made clear that the Collector is the

14

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.  Ex.-D4 and Ex.-D5 – 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 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.   We found no ground to

interfere 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

Bagh bestowed the land in favour of the temple for Nevaidya etc.

15

Ex.-P20 is of the year 1797 wherein it is mentioned that the land

was bestowed by the Government upon the temple for Nevaidya

etc. of the temple.  The document reads as under:-

“Gulab Das Baba, Shir Setaram.  You have been gifted village

land  by  the  government  for  the  Nevaidya  and  oil  for  lamp

(Deepak)  etc.  for  the  deity  (…  not  readable)  therefore,  by

accepting bhog etc…..(not readable).”

Referring to Ex.-P20, the first appellate court held that the land

was bestowed on the temple for Nevaidya etc. There is nothing to

indicate that Gulab Das has established the temple from out of his

personal funds and that he has become Inamdar of the property.   

20. 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.  According to Ex.-P29, 30 and 31,

lands of village Rabdamiya, Mundala Sondhiya, Pipalya Dhuma

are recorded as Inam lands of Devsthan.  In respect of the land in

village Mundala Sondhiya, Ex.-P24 mentions Inam land of Shri

Ram Mandir.  In Ex.-P23, settlement patta relates to the land of

village Mundala Sondhiya and the name of tenant is recorded as

Shri Ram Mandir through Tulasi Das Guru Bhawa Das and the

type of right “Inam Devsthan” has been written.  As Per Ex.-P21,

patta of village Rabdaniya which was issued by settlement holder

16

state reveals that this land was given to tenant Shri Ram Mandir

through the then pujari Tulasi Das and its right has been shown

as “Shri Ram Mandir Devsthan”.  As per Ex.-P19, land of Mundala

Sondhiya  has  been  given  to  the  pujari of  Shri  Ram  Mandir

Devsthan.  As per Ex.-P18, the land of Pipalya Dhuma is the land

of Inam Devsthan Shri Ram Mandir.  As per Ex.-P17, the land of

village Rabaniya has been given to Devsthan Shri Ram Mandir as

Inam right.  According to Ex.-P16, the land of Bolkheda has been

given to Devsthan as Inam right.   As per Ex.-P15, the land of

village Kankalkhdea has been given to Shri  Ram Mandir  Inam

Devsthan.  As per Ex.-P14, the land of Indoukh has been given to

tenant Shri Ram Mandir  Pujari Kanvsidas on the rights of Inam

Shri Ram Mandir.

21. 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 Ram

Das  and  Bajrang  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

17

recorded only as  pujaris.  In the light of various documents and

the  formidable  entries  made  thereon,  there  is  no  merit  in  the

contention 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.

22. Ex.-P2  is  the  copy  of  Kishtbandi  Khatauni  of  the  year

1971-72 in which, rights of land of Indoukh are recorded as “Shri

Ram Mandir as Bhumiswami”.  Pujari Ram Bali Das, Guru Ganga

Das Bairagi resident of Deh Bhumi Swami have been described

only as pujaris.  Likewise, in Ex.-P4 relating to the land of village

Bolkheda  Ghat,  Shri  Ram  Mandir  has  been  recorded  as

“Bhumiswami” and Ram Bali Das has been mentioned only as a

priest.  For the land of village Pipalya Dhuna, Bhumiswami rights

are recorded in favour of Shri Ram Mandir and Ganpati Mandir of

which Ram Bali Das has been recorded as  pujari.  Likewise, as

per  Ex.-P7,  Shri  Ram Mandir,  Indoukh  has  been  recorded  as

“Bhumiswami” for the land of village Mundala Sondhiya.  Though,

the appellant got certified copies of these documents on various

dates viz. 12.08.1972, 16.09.1970 and 27.09.1970 and in spite of

knowledge of the entry “Ram Mandir as Bhumiswami”, it was not

challenged till the filing of suit.  For the land of Pipalya Dhuma,

18

Ganpati Maruti Mandir has been recorded as “Bhumiswami” along

with Shri Ram Mandir and Collector, Ujjain has been recorded as

Manager.  The appellant did not challenge the rights of Ganpati

Maruti Mandir which was recorded as “Bhumiswami” for the lands

of the village Pipalya Dhuma.  Be it  noted that, Ganpati Maruti

Mandir has not even been impleaded as a party.   

23. 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 learned

counsel appearing for the State submitted that the circular dated

12.04.1974 was upheld by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in

Sadashiv Giri and others v. Commissioner, Ujjain and others

1985 RN 371 insofar as it applied to public temples.   

24. The First Appellate Court has referred to the order of the

High Court  in  LPA No.36/94 (27.07.1995) in  and by which the

High  Court  has  directed  to  cancel  the  executive  orders  dated

18.11.1992 by which the names of the priests were removed from

revenue records.   As pointed out  by the First  Appellate  Court,

19

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.   As  discussed earlier,  appellant  Ram Bali  Das was

continued to be recorded only as pujari of Shri Ram Mandir.  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

on lease for Rs.860/- from the Government and in this respect, he

has  signed  on the  order  sheet  in  case  No.93B/121-85-86.  An

amount of Rs.600/- was deposited on 31.07.1986. 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

11.11.1987 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  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

20

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.

26. 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 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 and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

21

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

…....……………………….J.      [R. BANUMATHI]  

                            ……….....………………………..J.   [R. SUBHASH REDDY]

New Delhi; February 27, 2019  

22