The Supreme Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s decision in a temple title dispute from Kota, holding that managerial control or participation in appointment of pujaris cannot establish ownership without proof of title.
The Supreme Court has clarified the law on title over temple property.
The Court held that a person or society does not get title merely by managing a temple. Similarly, participation in the appointment of pujaris does not, by itself, prove ownership.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the observation while setting aside a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court.
The case concerned the temple “Moorti Swarup Shri Govardhan Nath Ji” in Kota, Rajasthan.
Rajasthan High Court Had Upheld Respondents’ Claim
The Rajasthan High Court had affirmed the trial court’s decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.
The courts below relied mainly on the respondents’ role in temple management.
They noted that the respondents had supervised the temple and had also taken part in appointing priests.
While dismissing the defendant’s appeal, the High Court also relied on another factor. It held that the defendant had failed to prove his own title.
Appellant Approached Supreme Court
The appellant challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court.
He claimed that he had become the temple caretaker through a long line of succession. He also asserted ownership over the property.
The appellant argued that the decree in favour of the respondent could not stand in law.
According to him, the respondent had not independently proved title over the temple property.
He also argued that his failure to prove title could not automatically help the plaintiff-respondent. This was especially so when the respondent had not produced proof of ownership.
Supreme Court Finds Error In Courts’ Approach
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Justice Vikram Nath authored the judgment.
The Court held that the courts below had applied the law incorrectly.
It said the plaintiff had the burden to prove title. However, the courts shifted the focus to weaknesses in the defendant’s case.
The Supreme Court said such an approach was legally wrong.
It held that the respondent-plaintiff could not claim ownership only on the basis of supervision or control over temple administration.
No Document Showing Ownership Produced
The Supreme Court noted that the respondent-plaintiffs had not produced any title document.
The Court said there was no deed of dedication. There was also no document of endowment.
Further, the respondents had not produced legally admissible evidence to show that the property vested in the respondent-society.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court judgment.
Case Details
Cause Title: Kishan Chand (Dead) Through LRs. v. Gautam Gaur Hitkarak Sabha, Kota & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Key Issue: Whether temple management or appointment of pujaris can confer title over temple property
