Supreme Court Decides Century Old Hereditary Pujari Right Dispute In Karnataka Temple

The Supreme Court on February 25 dismissed civil appeals in a century-old dispute over hereditary pujari rights at the Amogasidda temple in Karnataka, upholding concurrent findings that the respondents are the hereditary wahiwatdar pujaris entitled to perform puja and conduct temple rituals.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K. Vinod Chandran affirmed the Karnataka High Court judgment recognising the respondents' hereditary rights to perform puja at the Samadhi temple of saint Amogasidda at Mamatti Gudda in Jalgeri village. The dispute between two families over pujari rights and offerings from devotees has been ongoing for over a century.

The bench dismissed the appeals filed by the defendants, who claimed the right to perform puja of the deity Amogasidda in Karnataka based on a 1901 decree. The Court noted that while the defendants relied on this century-old decree, their names found no mention in the revenue records, which instead reflected the names of the respondents/plaintiffs' ancestors in connection with lands granted by the British Government for service rendered to the Amogasidda temple.

“The names of the appellants/defendants find no mention in these revenue records whatsoever. The appellants/defendants and their predecessors have been litigating over this very temple for over a century. They cannot, in these circumstances, feign ignorance of the revenue records or claim that such entries carry no evidentiary weight against them.”, the court observed, stressing that revenue records present long-standing indicators of actual possession, service, and enjoyment of rights connected with the temple.

Background

The appellants relied on a 1901 civil court decree to claim hereditary pujari rights, but their case was weakened by later conduct. In 1944, their predecessor filed a civil suit seeking possession of the temple, implicitly admitting lack of possession. Although liberty was granted in 1946 to institute a fresh suit, none was filed for 36 years, until litigation resumed in 1982.

The respondents asserted continuous performance of puja and temple management, supported by revenue records (RTC) showing service grants by the British Government in favour of their ancestors. Significantly, the appellants' lineage did not appear in these records.

In 1986, the Trial Court partly decreed the suit by recognising both sides as pujaries. On appeal, the First Appellate Court declared the respondents as hereditary pujaries. A second appeal by the appellants succeeded before the High Court on jurisdictional grounds, but in 2003 the Supreme Court remanded the matter for decision on the merits. Upon remand, the High Court again upheld the respondents' hereditary rights, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Decision

Affirming the High Court's order, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra held that the revenue records conspicuously determined the hereditary rights of the plaintiffs over the right to perform puja of the deity.

The Court found contradiction in the stand of the Appellants, noting that when they claimed to have been in possession of a temple and performing the puja, then why was a suit for possession filed long after in 1944? The court treated the appellant's suit as their admission to the fact that the possession of the temple was not with them, nor were they enjoying the right to perform puja.

“A party in settled possession does not sue for possession. The very institution of that suit is a categorical admission by the appellants/defendants' predecessor that possession of the suit temple was not with them at the relevant point in time.”, the court noted.

“…what emerges is this that the respondents/plaintiffs have established their claim throughout, through consistent documentary evidence, revenue records, the admission of the appellants/defendants' own witness, and the testimony of independent witnesses, including the devotees of the temple, that they have been performing puja at the Amogasidda temple as hereditary wahiwatdar pujaries. The appellants/defendants, on the other hand, rest their claim almost entirely on a century-old decree, the effect of which was demonstrably undone by their own predecessor's subsequent conduct in instituting a suit for possession in 1944. The concurrent findings of the First Appellate Court and the High Court reflect a correct and careful appreciation of this entire factual matrix. Hence, we find no perversity in the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 04.10.2012.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Headnote

Civil Law – Hereditary Pujari Rights – Suit for Possession – Effect of Withdrawing Previous Suit – The Appellants claimed hereditary pujariki (priest) rights based on a 1901 decree - noted that the Appellants' predecessor had filed a subsequent suit specifically seeking possession of the temple and an injunction - This subsequent filing constituted a categorical admission that the Appellants were not in possession at that time - held that a party in settled possession does not sue for possession - the Appellants withdrew the 1944 suit with liberty to file a fresh one but failed to do so for 36 years, leading to an "inevitable inference" that they had reconciled with the factual reality of not having possession. [Paras 18–20]

Evidence and Pleadings – Oral Evidence vs. Pleadings – Supreme Court noted that a party asserting a competing claim to hereditary rights must specifically plead material particulars, such as when they entered possession and when obstruction began - The Appellants' written statement was silent on these aspects – Noted that the settled legal principle that oral evidence cannot serve as a substitute for pleadings, and a case not made out in the pleadings cannot be established through evidence alone. [Para 23]

Constitution of India – Article 136 – Concurrent Findings of Fact – The Supreme Court reiterated that its jurisdiction under Article 136 should be exercised sparingly, particularly when dealing with concurrent findings of fact from the courts below - Interference is only warranted if such findings are "manifestly perverse" - In this case, the findings of the First Appellate Court and the High Court in favor of the Respondents were found to be legally sound and based on a careful appreciation of the factual matrix – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 16 - 24]

Cause Title: OGEPPA (D) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS VERSUS SAHEBGOUDA (D) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 198

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. K. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. Mr. Arijeet Shukla, Adv. Mr. Tarun, Adv. Mr. B.k.prasad, Adv. Mrs. Rajini.k.prasaf, Adv. Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR Mr. Akhil Ranganathan S., Adv. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Maurya, Adv.