Supreme Court clarifies private temple ownership: Ramesh Das vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: July 22, 2019

Citation: (2019) 4 SCALE 302

Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can an individual claim ownership of a temple and its land based on family history and revenue records? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent civil appeal, clarifying the evidentiary requirements for establishing private ownership of religious properties. The Court examined the claims of a plaintiff asserting ownership over a temple and its land, ultimately ruling against the plaintiff due to lack of sufficient evidence of title. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna, with the opinion authored by Justice A.S. Bopanna.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute over the ownership of Shri Ram Mandir, located in Dedla Village, Dhar Tehsil, Madhya Pradesh, and the land associated with it. The plaintiff, Ramesh Das, claimed that the temple was a private family temple built by his forefathers, who also installed the idol. He stated that his family had been performing pooja for generations. According to Ramesh Das, the village was a Jagir village, and the Jagirdar, a devotee of Shri Ram Mandir, had gifted 25 bighas of land, including the land in question (Survey No. 442), to the temple. Before 1974, the government records listed Shri Ram Mandir and Laxmandas, the plaintiff’s father, as the pujari. Ramesh Das, as the son of Laxmandas, claimed succession to the temple and land, asserting his possession and cultivation of the land. The dispute arose when the Sub-Divisional Officer issued a notice on April 29, 1992, to auction the land for one year. The plaintiff’s revision petition against this was rejected by the Collector on September 1, 1992, leading to the filing of the suit for declaration of title and injunction against dispossession.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, accepting the claim that the temple was private. However, the lower appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the temple’s private status. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the lower appellate court’s decision, stating that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of evidence related to ownership and the significance of revenue entries. The High Court noted that the second appeal was filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, which pertains to appeals to the High Court from appellate decrees. The Supreme Court also referred to Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, in the context of a previous case, which deals with the procedure for correcting entries in land records.

Arguments

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

• The plaintiff claimed that Shri Ram Mandir was a private temple built by his forefathers using their own funds.
• He argued that the Jagirdar, a devotee, gifted 25 bighas of land to the temple, including the land in question.
• The plaintiff asserted that his family had been performing pooja for generations and that he had succeeded to the temple and land as the son of the previous pujari, Laxmandas.
• He highlighted that before 1974, the revenue records listed Shri Ram Mandir and his father, Laxmandas, as the pujari.
• He contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no right to auction the land and that the change in revenue entries to the District Collector was illegal.
• The plaintiff relied on the revenue entries marked in Exhibit P series, to claim ownership.

Defendants’ Arguments:

• The defendants disputed the plaintiff’s claim that the temple was a private family temple.
• They argued that the pujari of the temple is appointed by the Government and that the plaintiff was not the appointed pujari.
• They contended that the revenue entries were in the name of the temple, with Laxmandas listed only as the manager, not the owner.
• The defendants stated that the District Collector’s name was recorded as the manager in 1974, following a State Government order, and that Laxmandas did not object to this change.
• They justified the auction of the land, arguing that the plaintiff had no right to the property and that the auction was for the benefit of the temple.
• The defendants produced Bandobasti Khasra (Ex.D-1), showing the land as “Inam Devasthan” owned by the temple, with the pujari as the manager.

Innovativeness of the argument: The plaintiff’s argument innovatively combined family history with revenue records to assert private ownership, while the defendants emphasized the government’s role in managing temple properties and the lack of formal title documents with the plaintiff.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the assessment of the evidence made by the lower appellate court, which was accepted by the High Court in the Second Appeal, is based upon evidence or as to whether the consideration made by the trial court is appropriate.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Shri Ram Mandir Indore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (2019) 4 SCALE 302, Supreme Court of India: The Court referred to this case, which involved a similar claim regarding a temple’s private status, where the claim was rejected. The Court noted that in the present case, the claim was not even by the temple or deity, but by an individual asserting private ownership.
• State Government of Madhya Pradesh. & Ors. vs. Narsingh Mandir Chikhalda and Ors. (C.A.No.8554 of 2015), Supreme Court of India: The plaintiff’s counsel relied on this case, which emphasized the need to provide an opportunity to the person whose name is in revenue records before making any changes. However, the Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that the plaintiff in the present case did not have any document of title and the revenue entry was not individually in his name.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code: This section pertains to appeals to the High Court from appellate decrees, which was the basis for the High Court’s jurisdiction in the case.
• Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959: This provision, discussed in the Narsingh Mandir case, deals with the procedure for correcting entries in land records.

Authority Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Shri Ram Mandir Indore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (2019) 4 SCALE 302* to negate the claim of private ownership of the temple. The Court noted that a similar claim had been rejected in that case and that the present claim was even weaker as it was made by an individual and not the temple itself.
• The Supreme Court distinguished State Government of Madhya Pradesh. & Ors. vs. Narsingh Mandir Chikhalda and Ors. (C.A.No.8554 of 2015)*, stating that it was not applicable in the present context due to the lack of title documents with the plaintiff. The Court noted that in the cited case, the temple itself was the plaintiff and had relied on a registered gift deed, unlike the present case where the plaintiff had no such document.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of documentary evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim of private ownership. The Court emphasized that revenue entries do not create title and that the plaintiff had not produced any document to establish his ownership of the temple and its land. The Court also noted that the temple was recorded as the owner of the land, with the pujari as manager, and later the District Collector as manager. The Court thus upheld the findings of the lower appellate court and the High Court that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the temple was a private temple.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was more heavily influenced by the factual aspects of the case, specifically the lack of documentary evidence, than by purely legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered the plaintiff’s claim of private ownership, the lower courts’ findings, and the legal principle that revenue entries do not create title. The Court’s reasoning was based on the lack of documentary evidence, which led to the dismissal of the appeal.

The Court considered the argument that the change in revenue entries to the District Collector should have been preceded by a notice to the plaintiff’s father. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the plaintiff had failed to establish ownership and that the cited case was not applicable in the present context.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish ownership. The Court found that the plaintiff had failed to meet this burden, and therefore, the lower courts’ decisions were upheld. The Court also emphasized that revenue entries do not create title and that the plaintiff had not produced any document to establish his ownership of the temple and its land.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “no document of title to acquire right and title over the land has been relied upon by the plaintiff.”
• “the revenue documents do not create title.”
• “the claim is not even by the temple or the deity but the individual has made claim over the property as if it is privately owned.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna, with the opinion authored by Justice A.S. Bopanna.

Key Takeaways

• Revenue entries do not create title to a property.
• Individuals claiming ownership of religious properties must provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove their title.
• The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish their claim of ownership.
• Government authorities can manage temple properties to curb mismanagement, and such actions are valid if done in accordance with law.
• The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that mere possession or family history is not sufficient to claim private ownership of a temple and its associated land.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that revenue entries do not create title, and individuals claiming ownership of religious properties must provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove their title. This case reinforces the existing legal position that mere possession or family history is not sufficient to claim private ownership of a temple and its associated land. There is no change in the previous position of law, rather the court has reiterated the settled legal position.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ramesh Das, upholding the decisions of the lower appellate court and the High Court. The Court found that the plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to establish his claim of private ownership over the Shri Ram Mandir and its associated land. The judgment reinforces the principle that revenue entries do not create title and that individuals claiming ownership of religious properties must provide concrete evidence to support their claims.