Mere Exercise Of Supervisory Role Over Temple & Appointment Of Pujaris Won't Confer Title Upon It : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that the mere fact that a group exercised a managerial or supervisory control over the temple would not ipso facto confer title of the temple upon them.

“The mere fact that the society exercised certain supervisory or managerial functions over the temple or participated in the appointment of “pujaris” would not ipso facto confer title upon it.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Rajasthan High Court's decision, which had upheld the title of the Respondents over the temple 'Moorti Swarup Shri Govardhan Nath Ji' in Kota, Rajasthan, despite their failure to produce any document showing their title over the temple.

The High Court affirmed the trial court's decree declaring title in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, primarily on the ground that they exercised managerial and supervisory control over the temple, including the appointment of priests. In doing so, the Court dismissed the defendant's appeal, holding that the defendant's failure to establish title operated to the benefit of the respondent.

Challenging the High Court's order, the appellant—appointed as the temple caretaker through a long line of succession and claiming ownership over the property—approached the Supreme Court contending that the decree in favour of the respondent was legally unsustainable. It was argued that the respondent had failed to establish title to the temple, and that the appellant's inability to prove his own title could not, by itself, enure to the benefit of the plaintiff-respondent, particularly in the absence of proof of their independent title.

Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Nath observed that the court below had misdirected itself in law by shifting the focus from the requirement of proof of title to the alleged infirmities in the defendant's case. The Court asserted that in the absence of producing any documents proving their title over the temple, the Respondent-plaintiff cannot assert ownership and title merely on account of their supervision and control over the temple administration.

“Such an approach is contrary to the settled principles governing adjudication of title suits and cannot be sustained.”, the court observed, pointing out that the appellant-defendant's failure to prove title over the temple would not enure to the respondent-plaintiff's benefit, particularly when no document was shown by them to prove their title over the temple.

“A careful examination of the material on record would indicate that the respondent-plaintiffs have failed to produce any document of title evidencing ownership of the suit property in their favour. There is no deed of dedication, no document of endowment, nor any legally admissible evidence to show that the property stood vested in the respondent-society.”, the court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed.

Headnote

Civil Suit for Declaration of Title and Possession — Burden of Proof — Management vs. Ownership — Shifts of Burden — In a suit for declaration of title and restoration of possession, the burden of proof lies squarely upon the plaintiff to establish a clear and cogent title to the suit property on the strength of their own case, and not on the weakness of the defense - The mere fact that a society exercises certain supervisory or managerial functions over a temple, participates in the appointment of pujaris (priests/caretakers), or maintains periodic control over temple articles does not ipso facto confer proprietary title or ownership of immovable property upon it - The distinction between the management of a religious institution and the ownership of its properties is well-recognized in law, and the two cannot be conflated - Even if the defendant fails to conclusively establish their claim of independent title or hereditary succession, such an infirmity does not enure to the benefit of the plaintiff - The plaintiff must independently discharge the burden under Sections 101, 102, and 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by producing legally admissible documents of title, deeds of dedication, or endowments evidencing ownership - Courts below cannot misdirect themselves in law by shifting the focus from the requirement of proof of title onto the weaknesses of the defense. [Relied on Union of India v. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 269; Paras 12 - 19]

Cause Title: KISHAN CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. VERSUS GAUTAM GAUR HITKARAK SABHA, KOTA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 463

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Adv. Mr. Aditya Jain, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv. Mr. Yogit Kamat, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Choudhary, AOR