Supreme Court Dismisses Suit Claiming Ownership of Ancient Temple: State of Uttarakhand vs. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj (2017)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: September 12, 2017
Citation: Not Available in the source.
Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Can an individual claim ownership of an ancient temple and its surrounding land merely by asserting possession, without providing concrete evidence of ownership? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this question, in a case where a person claiming to be the ‘Mahant’ and ‘Manager’ of an ancient temple sought a declaration of ownership and an injunction against the State of Uttarakhand. The Court found that the plaintiff’s claim lacked necessary pleadings and evidence, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with the opinion authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The case revolves around a civil suit filed by Bharat Bhushan Bharati, who claimed to be the “Mahant” and “Manager” of the “Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj” temple. The temple is located in a forest area near Harawala village in Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Bharati asserted that the temple was ancient, with a history of 5,000 to 6,000 years, and contained a deity of Lord Shiva, shrines of saints, and a “Kund” with a continuous fire. He claimed that a previous “Mahant,” Basant Bharatji, had nominated him as his successor in 1982. Bharati also stated that the temple and a “Dharamshala” (rest house) were surrounded by 5 acres of land. When Bharati began repairs on the Dharamshala, the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) objected, leading Bharati to file a suit seeking a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction against the State to prevent interference with his possession and construction activities.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly regarding the requirements for pleadings in a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction. The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff sought exemption from serving notice to the State under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court also mentioned the Heritage Property Act and the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, but did not delve into their specific provisions.

Arguments

The respondent (plaintiff), Bharat Bhushan Bharati, argued that:

• He was the rightful “Mahant” and “Manager” of the temple, having been nominated by the previous Mahant, Basant Bharatji.
• The temple was ancient and had been in existence for thousands of years.
• The temple and its surrounding land were under his possession, and he had the right to carry out repairs.

The appellants (defendants), the State of Uttarakhand and the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), argued that:

• The plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to prove his ownership or right to manage the temple and its property.
• The plaintiff had not shown any legal basis for his claim of ownership, such as a grant, patta, or lease.
• The plaintiff’s claim of adverse possession was not supported by proper pleadings or evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the issues that the court addressed can be summarized as follows:

1. Whether the plaintiff had established a legal right to claim ownership of the temple and the surrounding land.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s claim of adverse possession was valid, given the lack of pleadings and evidence.
3. Whether the lower courts were justified in granting a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

• Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & Anr., (2014) 1 SCC 669 – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to emphasize that a declaration of ownership cannot be granted on the basis of adverse possession without proper pleadings and evidence.

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – regarding the requirement of notice to the State before filing a suit.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, and dismissed the suit filed by the respondent. The Court held that the plaintiff’s suit was misconceived and an abuse of the process of law.

The following table shows how the authorities were viewed by the court:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the lack of proper pleadings and evidence from the plaintiff. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff did not provide any documentary evidence to support his claim of ownership, “Mahantship,” or “Managership.” The Court was also critical of the lower courts for granting relief beyond what was claimed in the pleadings and for decreeing ownership based on adverse possession without any proper basis.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court stated, “To begin with, in our considered opinion, 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.” The Court further added, “By no stretch of imagination, in our view, such a declaration of ownership over the suit property and right of easement over a well could be granted by the Trial Court in plaintiff’s favour because even the plaintiff did not claim title in the suit property on the strength of “adverse possession”.” The Court also noted, “The Courts below also should have seen that courts can grant only that relief which is claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint and such relief can be granted only on the pleadings but not beyond it.”

Key Takeaways

• Proper pleadings and evidence are essential in property disputes, especially when claiming ownership of heritage sites.
• A claim of adverse possession must be explicitly pleaded and supported by evidence.
• Courts cannot grant relief beyond what is claimed in the pleadings.
• The State must take steps to preserve and manage heritage sites effectively.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State of Uttarakhand to take suitable measures to preserve, control, and manage heritage sites, not only the temple in question, but also several alike, for the benefit of the public. The Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the plaintiff, Bharat Bhushan Bharti, to be deposited with the State Legal Services Office.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable as no specific amendment was discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a claim of ownership over a heritage property cannot be sustained without proper pleadings and evidence. The Court reiterated that a claim of adverse possession must be explicitly pleaded and supported by evidence. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts cannot grant relief beyond what is claimed in the pleadings. This judgment clarifies that mere possession is not sufficient to establish ownership, especially in cases involving ancient and heritage properties.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Uttarakhand & Anr. vs. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj emphasizes the importance of proper legal procedures and evidence in property disputes. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, highlighting the lack of necessary pleadings and evidence to support his claim of ownership over an ancient temple and surrounding land. The judgment serves as a reminder that mere possession is not sufficient to establish ownership, especially in cases involving heritage sites. The Court also directed the State to take measures to preserve and manage such sites effectively.