CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEE, SRI RAM MANDIR JAGTIAL KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT, A.P versus S. RAJYALAXMI (DEAD) & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1172 · Decided: 10-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1172                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEE, SRI RAM MANDIR
JAGTIAL KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT, A.P
v.
S. RAJYALAXMI (DEAD) & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7843 of 2009)
DECEMBER 10, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Suit – Declaration of title and perpetual injunction –
Respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit against the appellants-defendants
seeking declaration that they were the owners of the suit property –
Trial Court dismissed the suit preferred by the respondents-plaintiffs
as they failed to prove the source of their title – However, High
Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs placing
reliance on the book of endowments as maintained by the Endowment
Department which showed the boundaries of a Temple adjacent to
the suit property – On appeal, held: After perusing evidence on
record, the respondents-plaintiffs in order to prove their title had
relied upon several permissions of the municipality and tax receipts
to prove their title – But the aforesaid documents might imply
possession but they cannot be relied to confer title upon the holder
– Further, book of Endowment alone was not sufficient to claim the
title over the suit premises as it was only intended to demarcate the
temple premises – On the contrary, appellant had put forth an earlier
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner involving the same suit
property – It was categorically held therein, that the suit property
was related to the temple, and plaintiff no.1 (predecessor-in-interest
of respondent no.1 to 6) was staying therein to perform his duty as
“pujari” – Aggrieved, Plaintiff no.1 had filed O.S. No. 134/77 which
was dismissed for default, hence earlier order had attained finality
– Therefore, instant suit involving the same property seeking similar
relief as O.S. No.134/77 was barred by time – Respondents-plaintiffs
had failed to discharge their burden of proof by being unable to
furnish necessary documentary and oral evidence to prove their
claim – Thus, Judgment of the High Court untenable in law as it is
based on erroneous appreciation of evidence.
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1172
1172
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1173
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The plaintiffs in order to substantiate their claims
placed on record documentary evidences comprising of
permissions granted by the municipality, property tax assessment
papers, tax receipts and extract of the Book of Endowments of
Ram Mandir. After perusing evidence on record, the respondents-
plaintiffs in order to prove their title has relied upon several
permissions of the municipality and tax receipts. But while, the
aforesaid documents might imply possession but they cannot be
relied to confer title upon the holder. Further, the respondents-
plaintiffs have strongly relied upon the book of endowments as
maintained by the Endowment Department which shows the
boundaries of the temple. In any case, this document alone is not
sufficient to claim the title over the suit premises as it was only
intended to demarcate the temple premises. [Para 17]
[1178-G-H; 1179-A-C]
2. On the contrary, the appellant-defendant no.4 has put
forth the earlier order  passed by the Deputy Commissioner,
involving the same suit property. It was categorically held therein,
that the suit property is related to the temple, and the plaintiff
no.1 is staying therein to perform his duty. The earlier order also
stated that, the suit property was originally granted as Inam to
the forefathers of the plaintiffs for the conducting pooja and to
feed the brahmins. In the aforesaid order, it also noted that, the
plaintiff had removed the idols from the suit temple to meet his
personal needs.  Aggrieved, by the aforementioned order of
Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff no.1 thereafter had filed O.S.
No.134/77, before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court which came
to be dismissed for default, hence has attained finality. Therefore,
the present suit involving the same property seeking similar relief
as O.S. No.134/77 is barred by time. However, the defence has
also clearly averred that since the plaintiffs and their forefathers
were working as pujaris in the Ram Temple, the endowment
department in order to demarcate the Ram Mandir itself,
mentioned the suit property as the adjoining premises. Keeping
in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs have
failed to produce any evidence to counter the case put forth by
the appellant-defendant no.4. [P

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.