Supreme Court Reverses High Court Decision on Temple Property Dispute: Chairman, Board of Trustee vs. S. Rajyalaxmi (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 10 December 2018
Citation: [Not Available in the source]
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can a High Court overrule a trial court’s decision without sufficient evidence to support its reversal? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a property dispute between a temple trust and private individuals. The core issue revolved around the ownership of a house adjacent to a temple, with both parties claiming rights based on historical records and possession. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with Justice N.V. Ramana authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over a house, identified as suit schedule ‘A’ property, located in Jagtial, Karimnagar District, Andhra Pradesh. The original plaintiffs, S. Rajyalaxmi and another, claimed ownership of the house, asserting that they had been residing there since their ancestors’ time and had been paying taxes for it. They also contended that the suit schedule ‘B’ properties did not exist and did not belong to the nearby Ram Mandir. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of their ownership and a permanent injunction against the defendants, preventing them from interfering with their possession. The defendants included the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Ram Mandir, along with officials from the Endowments Department.

The plaintiffs stated that the Ram Mandir was situated to the west of their property. They also highlighted a permission granted by the municipality in 1977 for re-roofing their house. Further, the plaintiffs stated that they had an oral partition of the suit ‘A’ property in 1983.

The dispute arose when the Deputy Commissioner of the Endowments Department passed an ex-parte order in 1986, declaring the suit ‘A’ house and other properties as belonging to the Ram Mandir. Following this, the temple trust filed a petition for possession of the properties. The plaintiffs, fearing dispossession, filed a suit for declaration of title and a permanent injunction.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title to the property. The trial court noted that although the suit was not barred by res judicata, the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to claim a permanent injunction. Aggrieved by this decision, the plaintiffs appealed to the High Court.

The High Court reversed the trial court’s decision, stating that the trial court had not considered the facts and law correctly. The High Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, relying on documentary and oral evidence, noting that the suit property was not included in the book of endowments and that the plaintiffs had been paying taxes for it. The High Court concluded that the defendants could not claim the premises based on a certificate. This High Court order was then challenged in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (referred to as “the Act”). Specifically, the case refers to Section 93(2) of the Act, under which the temple trust filed a petition for delivery of possession. The Act deals with the administration and management of charitable and Hindu religious institutions and endowments in Andhra Pradesh.

Section 93(2) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 states:

“93(2) Where the Executive Officer or the Trustee or the Board of Trustees is resisted in or prevented from obtaining possession of any immovable property or of any movable property forming part of the endowment, by any person, the Executive Officer or the Trustee or the Board of Trustees may apply to the Judicial Magistrate of the first class within whose jurisdiction such property is situate, for the delivery of possession of such property to him and the Magistrate shall, after such enquiry, if any, as he thinks fit, direct the delivery of possession of such property to him.”

Arguments

Appellant (Temple Trust) Arguments:

• The High Court erred in decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs merely by relying on the entry in the book of endowments regarding boundaries.
• Plaintiff no. 1 manipulated records to show himself as the owner, while he was actually a pujari and custodian of the temple.
• The certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner in O.A. No. 70 of 1985 is still valid, and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from Schedule ‘A’ property and recovering Schedule ‘B’ property.
• The suit schedule ‘A’ house was constructed from the funds donated by the devotees.
• The plaintiffs, being priests, got the suit property mutated in their favor during the pendency of the proceeding.
• The plaintiffs have exhausted all remedies and filed the suit to prolong the litigation.
• The Schedule B properties are in existence and are in the custody of the plaintiff no. 1.

Respondents (Plaintiffs) Arguments:

• The suit property was never recorded as an endowment.
• The suit property was earlier recorded in the name of the ancestors of the plaintiffs and now devolves in the name of the plaintiffs.
• The permission granted by the municipality on 14.10.1977 to construct the re-roofing strengthens the presumption in their favor.
• The High Court correctly decreed the suit in their favor by relying on the documentary and oral evidence placed on record.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument that the plaintiffs, being priests, had manipulated records to show themselves as owners, despite their role as custodians, was a key point of contention. This argument was innovative in highlighting the potential conflict of interest and misuse of their position.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The trial court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration that the suit property belongs to them and the schedule “B” properties are not in existence and whether they are not the properties of the Ram Mandir?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the permanent injunction?
3. Whether the suit is barred by the res judicata?
4. Whether the court fee paid is not correct?
5. To what relief?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Corporation of City of Bangalore vs. Zulekha Bi and Ors. (2008) 11 SCC 306: The Supreme Court followed this authority to highlight that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove ownership.
• Parimal vs. Veena (2011) 3 SCC 545: The Supreme Court relied on this authority to emphasize that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the facts in issue.
• Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act: The court used this provision to support its position that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting a fact.
• Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act: The court used this provision to support its position that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of substantial evidence presented by the plaintiffs to prove their ownership of the suit property. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, and in this case, the plaintiffs failed to discharge that burden. The Court also noted inconsistencies in the plaintiffs’ claims and the fact that they were primarily functioning as priests of the temple, which raised doubts about their claim of ownership.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, such as the lack of evidence and inconsistencies in the plaintiffs’ claims, rather than purely legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the plaintiffs’ reliance on municipal permissions and tax receipts, but it concluded that these documents only implied possession and did not confer title. The court also considered the book of endowments, but it found that this document was intended to demarcate the temple premises and not to confer title. The court rejected the High Court’s interpretation of the evidence, stating that the High Court had erroneously appreciated the evidence. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, and the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the case put forth by the defendant.

The Supreme Court stated, “In the present case, the respondents­ plaintiffs failed to discharge their burden of proof by being unable to furnish necessary documentary and oral evidence to prove their claim.”

The Supreme Court also stated, “But, the High Court without appreciating the aforesaid evidences and claims made by the appellant (defendant no.4) , decreed the suit in favour of the respondents­plaintiffs by solely relying on the entry made in the book of endowments department stating the boundaries of the temple.”

Further, the Supreme Court stated, “The aforesaid judgment of the High Court is untenable in law as it is based on erroneous appreciation of evidence.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The burden of proof to establish ownership of a property lies with the plaintiff.
• Municipal permissions and tax receipts are not sufficient to prove title; they only indicate possession.
• Entries in the book of endowments are meant to demarcate boundaries and do not confer title.
• High Courts should not reverse trial court decisions without proper appreciation of evidence.
• Inconsistencies in claims and lack of credible evidence can weaken a party’s case.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Jagtial, in O.S 69 of 1987, dismissing the suit. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the burden of proof to establish ownership of a property lies with the plaintiff, and mere possession or entries in the book of endowments are not sufficient to prove title. This judgment reinforces the importance of providing substantial evidence to support claims of ownership in property disputes. There was no change in the previous position of law, but rather a reaffirmation of existing legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in this case, reversed the High Court’s decision and upheld the trial court’s order, emphasizing that the plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership of the disputed property. The judgment underscores the importance of the burden of proof in property disputes and clarifies that mere possession or entries in the book of endowments are not sufficient to establish title. The decision highlights the need for a thorough appreciation of evidence by the courts and serves as a reminder that the burden of proof lies with the party asserting a claim.