Payment Of Property Tax Doesn't Establish Ownership To Sue On Behalf Of Temple Without Written Authority: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court held that a suit instituted by someone in their personal capacity, asserting rights on behalf of a community or any deity, could not be sustained in the absence of any resolution, power of attorney or other written authority from the trust of the concerned temple or the community. The bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma further opined that payment of municipal taxes or...
Rajasthan High Court held that a suit instituted by someone in their personal capacity, asserting rights on behalf of a community or any deity, could not be sustained in the absence of any resolution, power of attorney or other written authority from the trust of the concerned temple or the community.
The bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma further opined that payment of municipal taxes or issuance of receipt for such payment, only constituted proof of possession, without itself conferring any right, title, or interest of the payee over the concerned property.
“…mere issuance of a payment receipt bearing the name of a particular depositor neither creates nor extinguishes title to immovable property, nor does it constitute evidence of ownership or lawful management.”
For context, the Court was hearing a second appeal against dismissal of a suit that was filed by the appellant in relation to the Temple Shri Laxman Ji Maharaj (the “Temple”).
It was contended by the appellant that the temple was established by the Chhipa community and the land on which it was built belonged to the temple. As per the record of the Nagar Parishad too, it was in the name of “Ram Laxman Temple”.
However, as argued, when the house tax was deposited by the appellants, the State issued the receipt in the name of “Agrawal Panchayat Ghaseti Dhara”, with a wrongful and malicious intent. Despite making representations, no rectification was made by the Nagar Parishad.
The appellants further submitted that the Agrawal Panchayat Ghaseti Dhara encroached upon the suit property and collected rents from the tenants of the temple without any authority.
In this background, it was argued that all of this caused mental agony to the appellants, and thus a suit was filed seeking compensation of Rs. 5000/- and mandatory injunction. This was dismissed, both by the trial court, as well as the appellate court. Hence, the present second appeal was filed.
On the contrary, it was argued, the defendants denied that the temple was established by the Chhipa community while agreeing that it was registered in the name of “Ram Laxman Temple”. Further it was pointed out that the mere deposit of tax and issuance of a receipt conferred no right, title or ownership.
After hearing the contentions, the Court opined that the appellants had no locus to file the suit in the first place.
“…suit was instituted by the plaintiffs in their personal capacity, purportedly asserting rights on behalf of the Chhipa community and the deity Shri Ram-Laxman Ji Maharaj. However, the plaintiffs placed no resolution, power of attorney, or other written authority from the Temple Trust or the Chhipa community on record to establish their authority to institute the proceedings. In the absence of any document demonstrating that the plaintiffs were vested with administrative control or authorized by a competent body, the plaintiffs remain unauthorized individuals with no legal character or personal entitlement to maintain the suit.”
Further, it aligned with the argument of the defendants and highlighted that dispute regarding management and trusteeship of the temple was already pending before the competent authority, and mere issuance of payment receipt did not create nor extinguished right over an immovable property, neither it was evidence of ownership or lawful management.
“Such payment is merely a fiscal arrangement between the municipal authority and the person making the payment and cannot, by itself, confer any right, title or interest over the property concerned.”
The Court further observed that the contention regarding suffering mental agony, based on which compensation was sought, was devoid of any merit.
“…foundation of any civil action for damages is the violation of a legal right resulting in a legal injury. Unless the plaintiffs establish that a legal right vested in them has been violated, no claim for compensation can be sustained merely on the basis of a subjective dissatisfaction.”
In this background, it was concluded that no illegality was committed by the lower courts. Accordingly, the second appeal was dismissed.
Title: Ramrakh Chhipa & Ors. v Municipal Council
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 337