Pujari Has No Proprietary Right Over Temple Land, Can't Claim Adverse Possession: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a temple priest's appeal against an order rejecting his claim for adverse possession over the religious structure situated on a public access road, holding that a priest had no proprietary right over the land was only "servant to a deity" and thus could not make such a claim. Justice JC Doshi was hearing a dispute which arose from a civil suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent seeking removal of a Ganesh temple allegedly constructed on a public access road abutting her property. She claimed title to the adjoining plots through a registered sale deed and asserted that the construction obstructed her right of ingress and egress.Alleging that the structure had been raised without authority on the access road, she sought injunctive and mandatory reliefs before the civil court.The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent, restraining further construction and directed removal of the structure from the access road. The first appellate court affirmed the decree, agreeing with the findings of the trial court on encroachment and obstruction. Against this, the appellant-Pujari of the temple moved the high court in second appeal.The court said:"During the course of argument, a specific question is put to learned advocate Mr. Desai that as to whether the defendant No.6 being Pujari holds any proprietary right over the suit property or the land upon which the temple is constructed, learned advocate Mr. Desai answered that the defendant Pujari since was a disciple of Lord Ganesha and has been appointed as pujari by devotees and that he is performing puja of Lord Ganesh for more than 12 years, he has proprietary right over suit property as well as Ganesh temple. However, such submision has no legs to stand. Thus, it is established that status of the defendant Pujari is no more than Pujari... the pujari is merely a servant or appointee of a shebait and gains no independent right""In view of above proposition, the defendant Pujari has no right to file second appeal challenging order directing removal of the unauthorized construction in form of temple. This finding has also relevancy to the argument that the defendant pujari has matured the title on the principle of adverse possession. This Court noticed growing tendency of claiming title on the basis of adverse possession by the litigant to avoid dispossession," the court added. It however said that a person who claims adverse possession is required to show on what date he came into possession, what was the nature of his possession, whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, how long his possession has continued, and that his possession was open and undisturbed."the defendant was just 'pujari', he has no proprietary right over the suit property, he is not holding any possession being notorious possession adverse to the title of the owner. He is not Bhumiswami, he is just servant of deity. A servant thus, has no right to claim that his possession over the suit property is on behalf of his master and matured into title on principle of adverse possession," the court said. The appellant-Pujari contended that the temple had existed for several decades and that he had been performing religious duties and residing in connection with the temple for more than twelve years without interruption. It was argued that the respondent had full knowledge that the Pujari is living in the house attached to Ganesh temple and offering puja to Lord Ganesh for more than 12 years i.e. prior to institution of the suit. Therefore, the appellant has perfected the title to the suit property by application of principle of adverse possession. The Court however said that it was unequivocally proved that the construction carried out in the form of temple is on public road approaching to the suit property is completely illegal and unauthorized. It observed that the appellant-Pujari had failed to make out any case to entertain second appeal.Noting that the second appeal did not raise any substantial question of law, the court dismissed the same. Case title: RAMESHBHAI UMAKANT SHARMA v/s ASHABEN KAMLESHKUMAR MODI & ORS.R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 10 of 2026Click Here To Read/Download Order

Pujari Has No Proprietary Right Over Temple Land, Can't Claim Adverse Possession: Gujarat High Court

Preet Luthra

Tags