SRIDRAR SUAR & ANR. versus SHRI JAGAN NATH TEMPLE & OTHERS

Citation: [1976] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 101 · Decided: 21-04-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
SRIDRAR SUAR & ANR. 
v. 
SHRI JAGAN NATH TEMPLE & OTHERS 
April 21, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
101 
Transfer of Property Act, l.882-Sec. 105-lndian Easenzent Acr, 1882, 
Sec. 52-Distinction between lease and licence Lis Pendens-Puri Shri Jagan .. 
.... • 
not.It Ten1ple (Administration) Act 1952--Sec. 2(d)~.~eaning of. 
Hindu Law-Whether i.\1ohant of a Hindu Te1nple can grant a Vl!.*!id pcnna-
nent lease. 
, 
The appellant's great grandfather was granted a Sanad in respect Of 2 rooms 
in the J agannath temple by the Superintendent of temple at the annual rent of 
Rs. 7 /-. The Sanad provided that the grantee wo1~d be entitled to enjoy the 
said 2 rooms from generation to generation and iu case a permanent structure 
was constructed thereon the rent \vould be enhanced to Rs. 14/- per year. 
After the death of great-grand-father of the appellant the grand father and 
thereafter the father of the appellant continued storing and selling dry 'lvfaha-
prasad' in the said property and continued to pay Rs. 14/- per year. 
The 
respondents who have the ·management of Jagannath temple at present under 
the Puri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1952, called upon the appel-
lants' father to close and to hand over the possession of the two rooms to the 
management on the ground . that the storage and sale of Mahaprasad in the 
Bihar Bedha of the temple affected adversely the discipline and dignity of the 
temple. The appellant's father was threatened with imposition of a penalty of 
Rs. 100/- per day in case he did not vacate the premises in question. The 
appellant's father, therefore, filed the suit in the CiVil Court which after his 
death has been continued by the present appellant for permanent injunction 
restraining the respondents fron1 interfering with his right of storing and selling 
dry Mahaprasad in the suit premises. According to the plaintiff the perma-
nent lease was grahted to him by the Raja DibyaSingba and tnat since he was 
continuing to pay the rent regularly he was entitled to continue in the suit 
premises from generation to generation. The respondents contested the suit o~ 
the ground that it was beyond the eompetence' of Raja of Puri as, Manager ot 
the temple to grant a permanent lease and that, therefore, the Sanad was ineffec-
tual, invalid and inoperative. and conferred no rights on the appellant and 
his ancestors which W<Juld bind the present respohdents. 
Secondly, since the 
act of storing and selling Mahaprasad at the suit premises constitute a breach 
of order and discipline, the respondents under the above statute had right to 
ask the appellant to vacate. Thirdly what was granted by the Sanad was a 
licence and not a lease. 
The triai court dismissed the suit. However, an appeal was allowed. 
The 
High Court accepted the second appeal and dismissed the suit. 
In an appeal by special leave it was contended by the appellants :-
(!) The suit property did not form part of the temple. 
(2) The Sanad granted a permanent lease of the suit property and not 
merely a licence, and therefore the _appellant had an indefeasible 
right of storing and selling Mahaprasad. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (1) Section 2(d) of the Puri Sri Jagannath Temple (Administra· 
tion) Act, 1952, defines temple as including the temple of Lord Jagannath of 
Puri, other temples within its premises and all other appurtenants and subordi-
nate shrines, other sacred places and tanks and any additions which may be 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
I 02 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1976] SUPPLEMENTARY 
made thereto after commencement of the Act. Records of ri&hi! prepared 
under the said Act also include the suit premises within the meaning of temple. 
[!04 HJ 
(~) .It is ~ow ':"ell settle<:\. by a c~te~a of decisions of the Supre111e Court 
that 1t is the creation of an interest 1n immovable property that distinguishes 
a lease from a licence. The intention of the parties is the real test for ascer-
taining the character of a document. At one time it was thought that the 
test of exclusive possession was infallible and if a person \Vas given exclusive 
possession of a premises it would conclusively establish that he was a lessee. 
However, the result of the subsequent cases is that although a person who is 
let into exclusive possession in prima facie to be considered to be a tenant. 
nevertheless he will not be held to be so if the circumstances negative anv 
intention to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.