STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. versus MANDIR SRI LAXMAN SIDH MAHARAJ

Citation: [2017] 14 S.C.R. 257 · Decided: 12-09-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 14 S.C.R. 257 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. 
v. 
MANDIR SRI LAXMAN SIDH MAHARAJ 
(Civil Appeal No. 4096 of2008) 
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Suit - Declaration of ownership and permanent injunction -
Respondent described himself as "Mahant '·' and "Manager" of a 
temple situated in the midst of a forest - Respondent (plaintiff) tried . C 
to carry out some repair work in Dhannshala siti1ated along with 
temple but the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) of the concerned 
area objected to respondent carrying out any repairs - Civil suit 
filed by the respondent seeking decl~ration of ownership·over the, 
suit lands and permanent il'!iunction restraining the State and its 
authorities not'to interfere in the respondent-plaintiff's possession D 
over the lands - Trial Court held that the plaintiff is the owner of 
the land by virtue of adverse possession and also issue(/ permanent 
injunction against the State and their authorities not to interfere in 
plaintiff's possession ~ High Court affinned the judgment of trial 
Court - On appeal, held: Plaint completely lacked necessary E 
material pleadings and particulars for claiming a declaration of 
title over the .suit property and permanent il'!iunction - Since, the 
plaint did not contain material facts which ought to have been 
pleaded to establ.ish prima facie the legal right over the Sl!it property! · 
land. the .suit was liable for rejection at the threshold - Neither 
there were any pleadings nor any issue much less evidence to prove 
F 
. the adverse possession on land and for grant of any· easementry 
right - Courts below should have seen that no declaration of 
ownership rights over the suit property could be granted to the 
plaintiff on the strength of "~dverse possession" - Further, Courts 
below also should have seen that courts can grant only that relief G 
which is claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint and such relief can be 
granted only on the pleadings but not beyond it - Suit by the plaintiff 
was wholly misconceived and was nothing but abuse of the process 
of law - Plaintiff was neither in possession of the suit property 
much less in its legal possession nor he had any authority to remain 
in its possession for want of any lawful authority. 
· H 
257 
258 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1 The plaint completely lacked of necessary 
material pleadings and particulars for claiming a declaration of 
title over the suit property (temple and land) and permanent 
injunction. [Para 20)(264-A] 
1.2 Secondly, the necessary material pleadings in such case 
ought to have been as to how and on what basis, the plai.ntiff 
claimed his ownership over such a famous heritage temple and 
the land surrounding the temple. The plaintiff who had styled 
himself as 'Mahant" and "Manager" of the temple, ought to have 
C pleaded necessary details such as, whether he claimed the right 
of ownership through his forefathers and, if so, who were they 
and whether they constructed the temple with their own resources 
and, if so, in which year? [Para 21)(264-B-C] 
1.3 Thirdly, whether the plaintiff's forefathers were allotted 
D the land fo question pursuant to any grant or patta or lease or 
license or any kind of written permission for constructing the 
temple on such land by the State and, if so, its details ought to 
have been pleaded. [Para 22)(264-D] 
1.4 Fourthly, whether the plaintiff's forefathers ensured 
E compliances of such grant etc. if grant was made and whether the 
construction of the temple was for the family as a private temple 
or for the benefit of public at large as the case may. These facts 
also ought to have been pleaded. [Para 23)(264-E] 
F 
1.5 Fifth,y, how and in what manner, the present plaintiff 
claims to be or/and is related to the forefathers, who constructed 
the temple around 5000-6000 years back for tracing the plaintiff's 
right of inheritance through family pedigree. These facts also 
ought to have been pleaded. [Para 24][264-F] 
1.6 Sixthly, when the plaintiff claimed a right of management 
G of the temple and its property as "Mahant/Pujari" or "Manager", 
then he ought to have pleaded as to on what basis, he was claiming 
the post of "Mahant/Pujari" or "Manager" - was it through his 
forefathers or through any other channel and who, according to 
him, was the owner of the temple; and who nominated him as 
Mahant/Pujari; and whether it was by 

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