LexSHRI RAM MANDIR INDORE versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
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 Ram
Mandir, Indoukh is a public temple and that the said property is
vested in the Deity and not the pujari – Ram Mandir is mentioned in
the directory containing names of all public temples in the district –
There was participation of the public for darshan – There is no
blood relationship between the successive pujaris –Pujaris were
never inamdars of the temple properties – Lands are inam lands of
Shri Ram Mandir – Mandir property has been taken on lease from
the government – Thus, temple properties are under management
and control of the government – Pujari is not Mahant-Manager of
the 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 is
couched in such a manner as if Shri Ram Mandir is represented
by its Manager Ram Das. 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 the instant
case, 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 Gopal
Das constructed the temple and whether personal funds were
used by Gopal 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 Sewa Das. On the
other hand, Bheru Lal PW-2 has stated that the temple was
[2019] 4 S.C.R. 899
899
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
900
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
constructed by Sewa Das and Gulab Das. In the absence of
pleadings and evidence that the temple was constructed by Gopal
Das, the first appellate court rightly held that based on the
evidence of Bajrang Das, PW-1, it cannot be held that Shri Ram
Mandir is a private temple. [Para 11, 12] [908-E, F-H; 909-A-C]
1.2 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. BD
and RD are only shown to be the pujaris. [Para 13] [909-D-E]
1.3 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 instant case, the
appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that there is
restricted participation of the public for darshan.
[Para 14] [909-G-H]
1.4 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. The pooja at Ganesh Mandir is performed
by the 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. The submission 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. [Para 15] [910-A-C]
1.5 There is no blood-relationship between the successive
pujaris. 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
901
adoption. In the case in hand, succession is admittedly governed
by Guru-shishya relationship. Each pujari is not having blood
relation with his predeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.