The Supreme Court on February 25 dismissed civil appeals in a century-old dispute over hereditary pujari rights at the Amogasidda temple in Karnataka. Upholding concurrent findings, the Court held that the respondents are the hereditary wahiwatdar pujaris and are entitled to perform puja and conduct temple rituals.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K. Vinod Chandran affirmed the Karnataka High Court judgment recognising the respondents’ hereditary right to perform puja at the Samadhi temple of saint Amogasidda, situated at Mamatti Gudda in Jalgeri village.
The litigation involved two families, both claiming pujari rights and offerings from devotees. Over time, the dispute has continued for more than a century.
1901 decree claim rejected; RTC entries supported respondents’ lineage
To support their case, the appellants (defendants) relied on a 1901 civil court decree, contending that it conferred on them the right to perform puja of the deity Amogasidda. However, the Supreme Court found that the revenue records (RTC) did not support their claim.
Instead, the RTC entries reflected the respondents’ ancestors and linked them to lands granted by the British Government. Those grants, the Court noted, were connected to services rendered to the Amogasidda temple.
In this backdrop, the Bench observed:
“The names of the appellants/defendants find no mention in these revenue records whatsoever. The appellants/defendants and their predecessors have been litigating over this very temple for over a century. They cannot, in these circumstances, feign ignorance of the revenue records or claim that such entries carry no evidentiary weight against them.”
Moreover, the Court treated the RTC entries as long-standing indicators of possession, service, and enjoyment of temple-linked rights.
1944 possession suit treated as admission of non-possession
The Court also examined the parties’ subsequent conduct. Significantly, it found that the appellants’ later actions weakened their reliance on the 1901 decree.
In 1944, the appellants’ predecessor instituted a civil suit seeking possession of the temple. The Supreme Court read this as an implied admission that the predecessor was not in possession at the time. Although liberty was granted in 1946 to file a fresh suit, no suit followed, and the appellants waited for 36 years before litigation resumed in 1982.
Meanwhile, the respondents maintained a consistent case: they asserted continuous performance of puja and management of temple affairs, relying on RTC entries and other supporting material, including service grants in their ancestors’ favour.
Procedural history: multiple rounds, one conclusion
The dispute travelled through several stages before reaching finality:
- In 1986, the Trial Court partly decreed the suit and recognised both sides as pujaries.
- On appeal, the First Appellate Court declared the respondents as hereditary pujaries.
- Thereafter, the appellants succeeded in a second appeal on jurisdictional grounds.
- However, in 2003, the Supreme Court remanded the matter for a decision on merits.
- After remand, the High Court again upheld the respondents’ hereditary rights.
- Consequently, the present civil appeals were filed before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court: possession suit contradicted appellants’ stand
In a judgment authored by Justice Mishra, the Court relied heavily on the revenue records and flagged a clear contradiction in the appellants’ case. If the appellants were in settled possession and performing puja, the Court reasoned, they would not have filed a suit for possession in 1944.
“A party in settled possession does not sue for possession. The very institution of that suit is a categorical admission by the appellants/defendants’ predecessor that possession of the suit temple was not with them at the relevant point in time.”
Ultimately, the Court held that the respondents established their claim through consistent documentary evidence, revenue records, admissions, and witness testimony. The appellants, on the other hand, rested their case largely on a century-old decree, the effect of which was undermined by their own predecessor’s later conduct.
Finding no perversity in the High Court’s appreciation of evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.
Cause Title: Ogeppa (D) through LRs & Ors v Sahebgouda (D) through LRs & Ors
Appearance
For Appellant(s): Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv.; Mr. S. K. Kulkarni, Adv.; Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR; Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Adv.; Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv.; Mr. Arijeet Shukla, Adv.; Mr. Tarun, Adv.; Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv.; Mrs. Rajini K. Prasad, Adv.; Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR.
For Respondent(s): Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR; Mr. Akhil Ranganathan S., Adv.; Mr. Rajendra Prasad Maurya, Adv.
