'Pujari Merely Servant Of Deity': MP High Court Rejects Pujari's Ownership Claim Over Property Of Temple

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected the claim of Pujari of Mandir Ganesh Ji located in Ashoknagar District over the agricultural lands attached to the mandir. The bench of Justice G.S Ahluwalia held that a pujari is merely the servant of the deity and that the land of the temple and attached properties thereby belong to the Deity of the temple. It observed; "Manager or Pujari is the servant of Deity and property of temple belongs to Deity and not Manager/Pujari. Therefore, even if predecessors of plaintiff were appointed as Pujari or Manager, then plaintiff cannot claim property of the temple as his private property or his predecessors". The Mandir had filed a civil suit through Bhalchandra Rao, claiming to be the pujari, seeking a declaration of title and a permanent injunction over extensive agricultural lands located in Villages Shadora, Nagukhedi and Piprauli. The Pujari asserted that the temple was constructed 200 years ago by Subedar Chimanji, and his predecessors were given the rights to manage the temple and its properties. It was claimed that the temple was a private temple of his family and that the disputed land belonged to the deity under his management. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ruled in favour of the temple, prompting the State government to approach the High Court. The bench emphasised that a pujari is merely the servant of the Deity and that the property of the temple belonged to the Deity. The bench further observed that even if the predecessors of the plaintiff were appointed as pujari, the plaintiff cannot claim the property as private. The court further clarified that the present case was not where the predecessors of the plaintiff constructed the temple with their own personal money. It was rather a case where the temple was constructed by Peshji Naro Chimnaji Subedar. Therefore, the temple cannot be said to be the private property of the plaintiff. Thus, the bench concluded, "the Courts below did not commit any mistake by holding that property as mentioned in Schedule-I of plaint is the property beloging to temple/Deity". However, the bench noted that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court committed an error by holding that the plaintiff had the right to offer prayers and manage the affairs of the temple on a succession basis, as the plaintiff neither pleaded such grounds nor proved the same. The bench, on the issue of management of the temple, noted that the plaintiff had not filed a single document showing the income derived from the land surrounding the temple or how much money was spent on renovation, mainteance and prasad of the temple. The bench noted that the plaintiff had misused the income of the temple by converting it for personal use. The bench therefore held, "Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that as the interest of Bhalchandra Rao and his successors are contrary to the interest of Deity, therefore, they cannot be allowed to manage the affairs of Temple or to act as Pujari. Furthermore, no license has been filed to show that predecessors of Bhalchandra Rao were even given any right to act as Pujari and Manager on succession basis."Thus, the bench, noting that the temple was vested in the Maufi Aukaf Department of the State Government, directed the collector to be the manager of the temple. The court thus allowed the State's appeal and set aside the impugned order. Case Title: State of MP v Mandir Shri Ganesh Ji For Appellant: Advocate Rajendra JainFor Respondent: Advocate Prashant SharmaClick here to read/download the Order

'Pujari Merely Servant Of Deity': MP High Court Rejects Pujari's Ownership Claim Over Property Of Temple

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags