SHRI RAM MANDIR INDOREversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

                          [2019] 4 S.C.R. 899                            899


                  SHRI RAM MANDIR INDORE                                 A
                                  v.
         STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                   (Civil Appeal No. 5043 of 2009)
                       FEBRUARY 27, 2019                                 B
      [R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
       Trusts and Charities: Shri Ram Mandir, Indoukh – Nature of
– Mandir, a public temple or a private temple – Held: Shri Ram
Mandir, Indoukh is a public temple and that the said property is
                                                                         C
vested in the Deity and not the pujari – Ram Mandir is mentioned in
the directory containing names of all public temples in the district –
There was participation of the public for darshan – There is no
blood relationship between the successive pujaris –Pujaris were
never inamdars of the temple properties – Lands are inam lands of
Shri Ram Mandir – Mandir property has been taken on lease from           D
the government – Thus, temple properties are under management
and control of the government – Pujari is not Mahant-Manager of
the temple – His status is of pujari to perform pooja-archana.
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 The very cause title of the plaint is misleading.       E
The description of the appellant temple Shri Ram Mandir is
couched in such a manner as if Shri Ram Mandir is represented
by its Manager Ram Das. The onus of proving that the appellant-
Shri Ram Mandir falls within the description of private temple is
on the appellant who is asserting that the temple is a private           F
temple and that he is the Mahant of the temple. In the instant
case, plaint lacks pleadings regarding who constructed the temple
and how he raised the funds. The name of Gulab Das who allegedly
constructed the temple is not mentioned in the plaint. No
evidence was adduced by the appellant to show as to how Gopal
Das constructed the temple and whether personal funds were               G
used by Gopal Das to establish the temple or whether there was
contribution from the public. In his evidence, Bajrang Das PW-1
has stated that the temple was constructed by Sewa Das. On the
other hand, Bheru Lal PW-2 has stated that the temple was
                                                                         H
                                 899
900           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A     constructed by Sewa Das and Gulab Das. In the absence of
      pleadings and evidence that the temple was constructed by Gopal
      Das, the first appellate court rightly held that based on the
      evidence of Bajrang Das, PW-1, it cannot be held that Shri Ram
      Mandir is a private temple. [Para 11, 12] [908-E, F-H; 909-A-C]
B           1.2 In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a
      Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain
      updating till 31.12.2012. Shri Ram Mandir is mentioned therein
      in the List as Entry 135 which clearly shows that the temple has
      been recognized as a public temple. Though, this document –
      List of public temples is subsequent to the suit, the entry of Shri
C     Ram Mandir as the public temple in the register is a strong piece
      of evidence to hold that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple. BD
      and RD are only shown to be the pujaris. [Para 13] [909-D-E]
            1.3 The participation of the members of the public in the
      Darshan in the temple and in the daily acts of worship or in the
D     celebrations may be a very important factor to consider in
      determining the character of the temple. In the instant case, the
      appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that there is
      restricted participation of the public for darshan.
      [Para 14] [909-G-H]
E            1.4 In the same premises, apart from, Shri Ram Mandir,
      there is a Ganesh temple which has a different pujari and there is
      also a Maruthi Mandir. The pooja at Ganesh Mandir is performed
      by the brother of Bheru Lal PW-2. There are thus two different
      pujaris who perform pooja for two separate idols situated in the
F     same premises and they have been so performing pooja for
      generations. The submission that no outsider can come and
      perform pooja and archana in the premises of Shri Ram Mandir
      was rightly rejected by the first appellate court as the very
      premises has three Deities. [Para 15] [910-A-C]

G           1.5 There is no blood-relationship between the successive
      pujaris. No evidence has been adduced to show that the temple
      belonged to one family and that there was blood-relations between
      the successive pujaris. If the temple was a private temple, the
      succession would have been hereditary and would be governed
      by the principles of Hindu succession i.e. by blood, marriage and
H
          SHRI RAM MANDIR INDORE v. STATE OF                          901
                  MADHYA PRADESH

adoption. In the case in hand, succession is admittedly governed      A
by Guru-shishya relationship. Each pujari is not having blood
relation with his predecessor pujari. When the pujariship is not
hereditary, as rightly held by the High Court, Shri Ram Mandir
cannot be held to be a private temple. [Para 16] [910-C-E]
      1.6 PW-1 has admitted that the pujaris have been continuing     B
according to Guru-shishya tradition of Naga Babas and that the
temple is a seat of Nagas; but he is a married person and a
householder. The first appellate court rightly held that the temple
established by Naga Babas cannot be treated as a private temple
as there was no interest of a particular person in the temple.
[Para 17] [910-E-G]                                                   C

      1.7 Even the appointment of Bajrang Das PW-1 as pujari of
Shri Ram Mandir was done by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil
Mahidpur, on the application filed by Bajrang Das. The Sub-
Divisional Officer in the order made clear that the Collector is
the administrator in respect of lands entered in the name of Shri     D
Ram Mandir situated in villages Indokh, Mundla Sodhya, Pipaliya
Bhooma, Rajdhani and Bolkheda Dhar. The said order contains
the Khata numbers of the lands and the extent of the lands. The
Sub-Divisional Officer had passed further order dated 08.06.1999
mutating the name of Ram Das and entering the name of Bajrang         E
Das as pujari. The statements of Bajrang Das and Ram Das and
the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer clearly show that
Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple and that the Mandir and the
properties are under the control and administration of the State
through District Collector. Having been appointed the pujari of
the temple appointed by the Government, Bajrang Das and Ram           F
Das are estopped from contending that Shri Ram Mandir is a
private temple. Considering the evidence and the fact that Bajrang
Das himself has been appointed as pujari by the State, the first
appellate court and the High Court rightly held that Shri Ram
Mandir is a public temple. [Para 18] [910-G-H; 911-A-E]               G
       2.1 Bajrang Das PW-1 relies upon a document of the year
1797 through which the Government bestowed the land in favour
of the temple for Nevaidya etc. Referring to the said document,
the first appellate court held that the land was bestowed on the
                                                                      H
902            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A     temple for Nevaidaya etc. There is nothing to indicate that Gopal
      Das has established the temple from out of his personal funds
      and that he has become Inamdar of the property. [Para 19]
      [911-F; 912-A-B]
            2.2 Number of documents produced by the appellant clearly
B     show that the Inam rights have been conferred on Shri Ram
      Mandir and not on the pujaris. The first appellate court referred
      to various documents in particular pattas and held that all the
      lands have been given to Shri Ram Mandir Devsthan by way of
      Inam. The number of documents produced by the appellant clearly
      show that the lands are Inam lands of Shri Ram Mandir and that
C     the status of Bajrang Das and Ram Das were only pujaris. In
      number of other documents also, Shri Ram Mandir is recorded
      as “Bhumiswami” for the suit property and the names of specific
      individuals are recorded only as pujaris. In the light of various
      documents and the formidable entries made thereon, there is no
D     merit in the submission of the appellant that they have become
      Mahant of Shri Ram Mandir and that they are entitled to manage
      the affairs of the temple and the Mandir’s properties. [Para 20-
      21] [912-B, F-H]
            2.3 The Collector was recorded as Manager for the lands
E     of Shri Ram Mandir since the year 1975 and the same was not
      challenged. According to the respondent-State, the entry of the
      name of the District Collector as Manager of the temple
      properties dated 12.04.1974 has been done to curb the
      mismanagement of the temple properties at the hands of the
      pujaris. The said circular has been upheld by the High Court of
F     Madhya Pradesh in Sadashiv Giri case insofar as it applied to
      public temples. [Para 23] [913-E-F]
             2.4 The first appellate court referred to the order of the
      High Court in LPA, by which the High Court has directed to
      cancel the executive orders by which the names of the priests
G     were removed from revenue records. As pointed out by the first
      appellate court, pendency of such matters would not in any way
      affect the rights of Deity of Shri Ram Mandir in the suit properties
      as Shri Ram Mandir has been recorded as “Bhumiswami” for
      the suit properties. Ram Bali Das was continued to be recorded
H     only as pujari of Shri Ram Mandir. On the application filed by
          SHRI RAM MANDIR INDORE v. STATE OF                           903
                  MADHYA PRADESH

pujari Ram Das, Bajrang Das has been appointed as pujari by            A
SDO. [Para 24] [914-C-E]
      2.5 The fact that the appellant having taken the Mandir
lands on lease from the Government clearly shows that the
properties were never owned by the pujaris in their individual
capacity. Having taken the Mandir property on lease from the           B
Government, the appellant is estopped from denying that the
temple properties are under the management and control of the
Government. The suit lands have been given in the name of Shri
Ram Mandir and few other lands in the name of Ganesh Mandir
for the arrangement of pooja, archana, naivedya, etc. for the public
                                                                       C
temple and the pujari has no right to interfere in the management
of these lands as his status is only that of pujari.
[Para 25] [914-C-E]

       2.6 The finding of the first appellate court and the High
Court that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple and not a private        D
one is based upon the appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence. Bajrang Das-PW-1 himself has been appointed as pujari
by the Government and the appellant/plaintiff has not adduced
any evidence showing that the temple belonged to one particular
family. By oral and documentary evidence, it is clearly established
that the suit lands are recorded in the name of Shri Ram Mandir.       E
Having regard to the findings of the first appellate court, the High
Court rightly held that no substantial question of law arose in the
Second Appeal. Based upon oral and documentary evidence, the
first appellate court and the High Court recorded the concurrent
findings of fact that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple and not a     F
private temple and that the agricultural lands were given to the
Deity and not to the pujaris. The impugned judgment does not
suffer from any infirmity warranting interference.
[Para 26] [914-E-H]

      State of Uttarakhand and Another v. Mandir Sri Laxman            G
      Sidh Maharaj (2017) 9 SCC 579; Goswami Shri
      Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. Ranchhoddas Kalidas and Others
      (1969) 2 SCC 853 : [1970] 2 SCR 275; Tilkayat Shri
      Govindlalji Maharaj Etc. v. State of Rajasthan and
      Others [1964] 1 SCR 561 – referred to.
                                                                       H
904            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A                               Case Law Reference
            (2017) 9 SCC 579            referred to              Para 12
            [1970] 2 SCR 275            referred to              Para 14
            [1964] 1 SCR 561            referred to              Para 14
B
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5043
      of 2009.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2002 of the High Court
      of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Second Appeal No. 266 of
C
      2002.
            Puneet Jain, Ms. Christi Jain, Ms. Ankita Gupta, Abhinav Gupta,
      Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advs. for the Appellant.
            Vaibhav Srivastava, Dy. AG, Pradyuman Kaistha, Harsh Parashar,
D     Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment
      dated 06.08.2002 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore
      in and by which the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal No.266 of
E     2002 thereby affirming the findings of the First Appellate Court that Shri
      Ram Mandir, Indoukh is a public temple and that the suit property is
      vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris
      and not Mahant-Manager of the temple.
            2. Briefly stated case of the appellant is as follows:-
F
            Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple of which Mahant and Manager
      is Ram Das and that he has been continuing to perform pooja-archana
      and management of the temple since the time of his guru. Earlier to him,
      his Guru Shri Shiromani Das Ji and still earlier to him, his ancestor guru
      used to offer pooja-archana and has been in management of the temple.
G     Case of the appellant is that the temple is the private temple of which
      succession is by descendance according to the rules of Guru Parampara.
      The suit property/agricultural land has been allotted for Shri Ram Mandir
      in Inam and in its name and the land is in possession of Shri Ram Mandir.
      The temple is a private temple and government has no right in the temple
      and no aid was given by the Government in the construction, maintenance
H
            SHRI RAM MANDIR INDORE v. STATE OF                                    905
            MADHYA PRADESH [R, BANUMATHI, J.]

and repair of the temple. The respondents through an administrative               A
order recorded the name of respondent No.3-District Collector as
Manager of the temple without giving any notice to the appellant which
is in violation of principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions
of law. According to the plaintiff, Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple
and the government has no right to interfere in the administration of the
                                                                                  B
temple and the possession and management of the suit lands. On
15.07.1988, respondents No.3 and 4-officers of Madhya Pradesh
Government initiated proceedings for leasing out the disputed lands
(Revenue Case No.28B/121-87-88) and fixed 06.10.1988 as the date
for auction for leasing of the temple properties and the same is without
any right. The plaintiff has therefore filed the suit for a declaration           C
that:- (i) Shri Ram Mandir at Indoukh is a private mandir and the State
has no right to interfere in the management, pooja-archana and in the
possession of the agricultural land; (ii) for grant of permanent injunction
restraining the respondent-officials from interfering with the possession
of the suit property by the plaintiff.
                                                                                  D
       3. The respondent-State has filed the written statement contending
that Shri Ram Mandir is not a private temple but is a public temple and
that the status of the plaintiff is merely of a pujari. The Deity of the
temple is owner of agricultural land which has been given by the
government for the purpose of performance of pooja-archana etc.
and taking proper care and meeting the expenses of the temple. The                E
status of the pujari is like a servant of the temple appointed by the
government and he does not acquire any right in the property owned by
the Deity of the temple. District Collector, Ujjain was recorded as
Manager in the revenue records in 1975-76, in accordance with law.
That a “Bbu Adhikar and Rina Patrika” was issued to the appellant/                F
plaintiff. According to respondents since the management of the temple
was not being properly and rightfully done and the income from the land
was not being suitably utilised for the betterment of the temple, the State
Government decided to auction the land in question so as to have resources
and raise income for upkeep of the temple. The appellant himself got
this land in 1985-86 on lease for Rs.860/- from the government and in             G
this respect has also signed in the order sheet in Case No.93B/121-85-
86. An amount of Rs.600/- was deposited on 31.07.1986 in this account.
Thereafter, again in 1986-87 appellant got lease of said land for
Rs.860/- out of which he deposited Rs.460/- on 11.11.1987 with the
                                                                                  H
906             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A     government. The appellant has thus treated the suit property as the
      property of the temple which is under the control and management of
      the government. Having agreed to take the same on lease, the appellant/
      plaintiff cannot turn around and contend that he is in management of the
      suit property and challenge the control and management of the suit
      property by the government.
B
              4. On the above pleadings, relevant issues were framed by the
      trial court. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the
      trial court decreed the suit holding that Shri Ram Mandir is a private
      temple and not a public temple. The trial court held that the temple was
      constructed by predecessor of Guru Ram Das and the temple is a private
C     temple of the current Manager Bajrang Das who has succeeded as the
      Manager according to the Hindu Law. The trial court held that “entry
      of Collector as Manager in the revenue records was without notice
      to the Manager of the temple and the changes made in the revenue
      records for a private temple without hearing the Manager of the
D     temple, cannot be sustained.” The trial court further held that no
      evidence has been adduced by the State to establish their plea that the
      appointment of pujari was done by the State. On those findings, the
      trial court granted permanent injunction in favour of the appellant/plaintiff
      by holding that the State has no authority to auction the land vested in
      the appellant/plaintiff in his capacity as Mahant of the temple and the
E     same is without authority of law.
             5. Being aggrieved, the respondents preferred appeal before the
      appellate court. The first appellate court allowed the appeal holding that
      Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple and not a private temple. The
      appellate court held that all the lands are inam lands of Shri Ram Mandir
F     and that the title in the disputed lands vests in the Deity. The first appellate
      court further held that the Collector has been rightly recorded as Manager
      and the status of the pujari is only to perform pooja-archana and he
      has no further right in the temple. It was held that the possession of the
      land by the pujari is only on behalf of the Deity/temple and pujari has
G     no right over the suit lands. Upon consideration of oral and documentary
      evidence, the first appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial
      court and allowed the appeal by holding that the pujaris of Shri Ram
      Mandir have been continuing according to the Guru-Shishya tradition of
      Naga Babas who have no family of their own.

H
           SHRI RAM MANDIR INDORE v. STATE OF                                 907
           MADHYA PRADESH [R, BANUMATHI, J.]

        6. Assailing the correctness of the judgment of the first appellate   A
court, the appellant preferred the second appeal. The High Court affirmed
the findings of the first appellate court holding that the suit property is
recorded in the name of Deity and Ram Das and Bajrang Das were
recorded only as pujaris and the name of pujari kept on changing and
these pujaris do not belong to one family and there is no blood relation
                                                                              B
between those persons. The High Court held that the findings of the
first appellate court that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple is based on
the facts and evidence adduced by the parties and no substantial question
of law arose for consideration and accordingly, dismissed the second
appeal.
        7. Contention of the appellant is that Ram Mandir is a private        C
temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had
been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere
pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer
the temple and the suit properties. According to the appellant, the entry
recorded in the revenue records in the year 1975 inserting the name of        D
the Collector, Ujjain as Manager was without notice to the plaintiff and
hence, illegal. It was urged that mere recording of the name of the
Collector in the revenue records as Manager does not confer any right
upon the State. It was submitted that since temple was constructed by
late Shri Gulab Das, Guru Sewa Das ji and the appellant and their Gurus
are in administration of the temple and are in possession of the properties   E
of the temple, the respondents are not justified in interfering with the
possession of the suit properties and administration of Shri Ram Mandir.
       8. Refuting the abovesaid contention, the learned counsel for the
State submitted that Ram Mandir is a public temple and not a private
temple as contended by the appellant. It was contended that several           F
documents filed by the appellant/plaintiff indicates that the suit property
is recorded in the name of the Deity whereas the name of the person
was recorded as pujari and the rights were passed from one pujari to
another on the basis of Guru-Disciple relationship. It was urged that the
documents clearly show Inam rights of Ram Mandir and the status of            G
the appellant continued to be the pujari and his rights as pujari have
not been affected in any manner whatsoever by the appointment of the
Collector as the Manager. It was submitted that Shri Ram Mandir is a
public temple and not a private one and in fact even the appellant Bajrang

                                                                              H
908            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A     Das was appointed as pujari only by the Sub-Divisional Officer. It was
      submitted that the lease of the suit properties was auctioned and the
      appellant himself participated in such auction in 1985-1986 and 1986-87
      and the appellant deposited the lease amount with the authorities and
      therefore, the appellant cannot turn around and claim that he is in
      administration of the temple. It was submitted that the concurrent findings
B
      of the High Court and the first appellate court are based upon evidence
      adduced by the parties and the same warrant no interference.
            9. We have heard Mr. Puneet Jain, learned counsel for the
      appellant and Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and
      perused the impugned judgment and the judgment of the First Appellate
C     Court and the evidence and other materials on record.
            10. The question falling for consideration is whether Shri Ram
      Mandir is a public temple or a private temple as claimed by the appellant.
      Further question falling for consideration is whether the appellant is the
      Mahant of Shri Ram Mandir and whether he is in control and
D     administration of the temple and the suit properties as claimed by him.
              11. Even at the outset, it is to be pointed out that the very cause
      title of the plaint is misleading. The description of the appellant temple
      Shri Ram Mandir is couched in such a manner as if Shri Ram Mandir is
      represented by its Manager Ram Das. The respondent-State claims that
E     Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das
      are only pujaris performing pooja-archana in the temple. It is in this
      context and the auction conducted by the State for leasing the temple
      properties, the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration that
      Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple and permanent injunction restraining
F     the respondents/defendants from interfering with the appellant’s
      possession of the temple properties.
             12. Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple:- The onus of proving
      that the appellant-Shri Ram Mandir falls within the description of private
      temple is on the appellant who is asserting that the temple is a private
G     temple and that he is the Mahant of the temple. In State of Uttarakhand
      and another v. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj (2017) 9 SCC
      579, it was held that “the necessary material pleadings ought to have
      been made to show as to how and on what basis, the plaintiff claimed
      his ownership over such a famous heritage temple and the land
      surrounding the temple. Thus, in the absence of any pleadings in
H
            SHRI RAM MANDIR INDORE v. STATE OF                                 909
            MADHYA PRADESH [R, BANUMATHI, J.]

the plaint that the pujari built the temple, they cannot claim the             A
temple to be a private temple.” In the case in hand, plaint lacks pleadings
regarding who constructed the temple and how he raised the funds.
The name of Gulab Das who allegedly constructed the temple is not
mentioned in the plaint. No evidence was adduced by the appellant to
show as to how Gulab Das constructed the temple and whether personal
                                                                               B
funds were used by Gulab Das to establish the temple or whether there
was contribution from the public. In his evidence, Bajrang Das (PW-1)
has stated that the temple was constructed by Gulab Das. On the other
hand, Bheru Lal (PW-2) has stated that the temple was constructed by
Sewa Das and Gulab Das. In the absence of pleadings and evidence
that the temple was constructed by Gulab Das, the First Appellate Court        C
rightly held that based on the evidence of PW-1, it cannot be held that
Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple.
       13. According to the respondent-State, Shri Ram Mandir has
always been a part of the list of public temples. In 2013, Madhya Pradesh
Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples        D
in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012. Shri Ram Mandir is mentioned
therein in the List as Entry 135 which clearly shows that the temple has
been recognized as a public temple. Though, this document – List of
public temples is subsequent to the suit, the entry of Shri Ram Mandir as
the public temple in the register is a strong piece of evidence to hold that
Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple. Be it noted that Bajrang Das and           E
Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris.
       14. In Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. Ranchhoddas
Kalidas and others (1969) 2 SCC 853, the Supreme Court held that
“the origin of the temple, the manner in which its affairs are
managed, the nature and extent of gifts received by it, rights exercised       F
by the devotees in regard to worship therein, are relevant factors to
establish whether a temple is a public temple or a private temple.”
Likewise, as held in Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj Etc. v. State
of Rajasthan and others [1964] 1 SCR 561, the participation of the
members of the public in the Darshan in the temple and in the daily acts       G
of worship or in the celebrations may be a very important factor to
consider in determining the character of the temple. In the present case,
the appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that there is restricted
participation of the public for darshan.

                                                                               H
910            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A            15. It is to be pointed out that in the same premises, apart from,
      Shri Ram Mandir, there is a Ganesh temple which has a different pujari
      and there is also a Maruthi Mandir. In their evidence, Bheru Lal (PW-
      2) and Poor Singh (PW-3) have stated that the pooja at Ganesh Mandir
      is performed by Satyanarayan-brother of Bheru Lal (PW-2). There are
      thus two different pujaris who perform pooja for two separate idols
B
      situated in the same premises and they have been so performing pooja
      for generations. Contention of PW-1 that no outsider can come and
      perform pooja and archana in the premises of Shri Ram Mandir was
      rightly rejected by the first appellate court as the very premises has
      three Deities.
C             16. Another important aspect which indicates the public character
      of the temple is that there is no blood-relationship between the successive
      pujaris. In the present case, no evidence has been adduced to show
      that the temple belonged to one family and that there was blood-relations
      between the successive pujaris. If the temple was a private temple,
D     the succession would have been hereditary and would be governed by
      the principles of Hindu succession i.e. by blood, marriage and adoption.
      In the case in hand, succession is admittedly governed by Guru-shishya
      relationship. Each pujari is not having blood relation with his predecessor
      pujari. When the pujariship is not hereditary, as rightly held by the
      High Court, Shri Ram Mandir cannot be held to be a private temple.
E
             17. PW-1 has admitted that the pujaris have been continuing
      according to Guru-shishya tradition of Naga Babas. Admittedly, Naga
      Babas followed different tradition from family persons i.e. they followed
      the tradition that during the period of management of the temple, they
      did not have any grihashtha-household life. Admittedly, the tradition of
F     Naga Babas of not having a household life has been broken by Bajrang
      Das (PW-1). In his evidence, PW-1 admitted that the temple is a seat
      of Nagas; but he is a married person and a householder. The first
      appellate court has rightly held that the temple established by Naga Babas
      cannot be treated as a private temple as there was no interest of a
G     particular person in the temple.
             18. Even the appointment of Bajrang Das (PW-1) as pujari of
      Shri Ram Mandir was done by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil
      Mahidpur, on the application filed by Bajrang Das. In his application
      before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Mahidpur, Bajrang Das (PW-
H     1) stated that Guru Ram Das is aged about eighty years and suffering
           SHRI RAM MANDIR INDORE v. STATE OF                                 911
           MADHYA PRADESH [R, BANUMATHI, J.]

from paralysis and Bajrang Das has been performing the pooja since            A
last ten years and therefore, prayed for entering him as pujari of Shri
Ram Mandir. Ram Das had also given statement before the Sub-Divisional
Officer stating that he is suffering from the ailment of paralysis and that
he is not in a position to continue the work of pujari and that Bajrang
Das may be appointed as pujari. The said application was registered
                                                                              B
as 10/98-99 Pujari Nomination and after calling for objection from the
public, Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Mahidpur had passed a detailed
order on 01.06.1999 appointing Bajrang Das as the pujari of Shri Ram
Mandir. In the said order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 01.06.1999, it
is made clear that the Collector is the administrator in respect of lands
entered in the name of Shri Ram Mandir situated in villages Indokh,           C
Mundla Sodhya, Pipaliya Bhooma, Rajdhani and Bolkheda Dhar. The
said order contains the Khata numbers of the lands and the extent of the
lands. The Sub-Divisional Officer had passed further order dated
08.06.1999 mutating the name of Ram Das and entering the name of
Bajrang Das as pujari. Ex.-D4 and Ex.-D5 – statements of Bajrang
                                                                              D
Das and Ram Das and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer
clearly show that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple and that the Mandir
and the properties are under the control and administration of the State
through District Collector. Having been appointed the pujari of the temple
by the Government, Bajrang Das and Ram Das are estopped from
contending that Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple. Considering the          E
evidence and the fact that Bajrang Das himself has been appointed as
pujari by the State, the first appellate court and the High Court rightly
held that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple. We found no ground to
interfere with the said concurrent finding.
       19. Pujaris were never Inamdars of the temple properties:-             F
PW-1 relies upon Ex.-P20 – a document through which Raja Bagh
bestowed the land in favour of the temple for Nevaidya etc. Ex.-P20 is
of the year 1797 wherein it is mentioned that the land was bestowed by
the Government upon the temple for Nevaidya etc. of the temple. The
document reads as under:-
                                                                              G
      “Gulab Das Baba, Shir Setaram. You have been gifted village
      land by the government for the Nevaidya and oil for lamp (Deepak)
      etc. for the deity (… not readable) therefore, by accepting bhog
      etc…..(not readable).”

                                                                              H
912             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A           Referring to Ex.-P20, the first appellate court held that the land
      was bestowed on the temple for Nevaidya etc. There is nothing to indicate
      that Gulab Das has established the temple from out of his personal funds
      and that he has become Inamdar of the property.
             20. Number of documents produced by the appellant clearly show
B     that the Inam rights have been conferred on Shri Ram Mandir and not
      on the pujaris. According to Ex.-P29, 30 and 31, lands of village
      Rabdamiya, Mundala Sondhiya, Pipalya Dhuma are recorded as Inam
      lands of Devsthan. In respect of the land in village Mundala Sondhiya,
      Ex.-P24 mentions Inam land of Shri Ram Mandir. In Ex.-P23, settlement
      patta relates to the land of village Mundala Sondhiya and the name of
C     tenant is recorded as Shri Ram Mandir through Tulasi Das Guru Bhawa
      Das and the type of right “Inam Devsthan” has been written. As Per
      Ex.-P21, patta of village Rabdaniya which was issued by settlement
      holder state reveals that this land was given to tenant Shri Ram Mandir
      through the then pujari Tulasi Das and its right has been shown as “Shri
D     Ram Mandir Devsthan”. As per Ex.-P19, land of Mundala Sondhiya
      has been given to the pujari of Shri Ram Mandir Devsthan. As per
      Ex.-P18, the land of Pipalya Dhuma is the land of Inam Devsthan Shri
      Ram Mandir. As per Ex.-P17, the land of village Rabaniya has been
      given to Devsthan Shri Ram Mandir as Inam right. According to Ex.-
      P16, the land of Bolkheda has been given to Devsthan as Inam right. As
E     per Ex.-P15, the land of village Kankalkhdea has been given to Shri
      Ram Mandir Inam Devsthan. As per Ex.-P14, the land of Indoukh has
      been given to tenant Shri Ram Mandir Pujari Kanvsidas on the rights of
      Inam Shri Ram Mandir.
             21. The First Appellate Court referred to various documents in
F     particular pattas and held that all the lands have been given to Shri Ram
      Mandir Devsthan by way of Inam. The number of documents produced
      by the appellant clearly show that the lands are Inam lands of Shri Ram
      Mandir and that the status of Ram Das and Bajrang Das were only
      pujaris. In number of other documents also, Shri Ram Mandir is recorded
G     as “Bhumiswami” for the suit property and the names of specific
      individuals are recorded only as pujaris. In the light of various documents
      and the formidable entries made thereon, there is no merit in the contention
      of the appellant that they have become Mahant of Shri Ram Mandir and
      that they are entitled to manage the affairs of the temple and the Mandir’s
      properties.
H
           SHRI RAM MANDIR INDORE v. STATE OF                                913
           MADHYA PRADESH [R, BANUMATHI, J.]

       22. Ex.-P2 is the copy of Kishtbandi Khatauni of the year             A
1971-72 in which, rights of land of Indoukh are recorded as “Shri Ram
Mandir as Bhumiswami”. Pujari Ram Bali Das, Guru Ganga Das
Bairagi resident of Deh Bhumi Swami have been described only as
pujaris. Likewise, in Ex.-P4 relating to the land of village Bolkheda
Ghat, Shri Ram Mandir has been recorded as “Bhumiswami” and Ram
                                                                             B
Bali Das has been mentioned only as a priest. For the land of village
Pipalya Dhuna, Bhumiswami rights are recorded in favour of Shri Ram
Mandir and Ganpati Mandir of which Ram Bali Das has been recorded
as pujari. Likewise, as per Ex.-P7, Shri Ram Mandir, Indoukh has
been recorded as “Bhumiswami” for the land of village Mundala
Sondhiya. Though, the appellant got certified copies of these documents      C
on various dates viz. 12.08.1972, 16.09.1970 and 27.09.1970 and in spite
of knowledge of the entry “Ram Mandir as Bhumiswami”, it was not
challenged till the filing of suit. For the land of Pipalya Dhuma, Ganpati
Maruti Mandir has been recorded as “Bhumiswami” along with Shri
Ram Mandir and Collector, Ujjain has been recorded as Manager. The
                                                                             D
appellant did not challenge the rights of Ganpati Maruti Mandir which
was recorded as “Bhumiswami” for the lands of the village Pipalya
Dhuma. Be it noted that, Ganpati Maruti Mandir has not even been
impleaded as a party.
       23. The Collector was recorded as Manager for the lands of Shri
Ram Mandir since the year 1975 and the same was not challenged.              E
According to the respondent-State, the entry of the name of the District
Collector as Manager of the temple properties dated 12.04.1974 has
been done to curb the mismanagement of the temple properties at the
hands of the pujaris. The learned counsel appearing for the State
submitted that the circular dated 12.04.1974 was upheld by the High          F
Court of Madhya Pradesh in Sadashi v Giri and others v.
Commissioner, Ujjain and others 1985 RN 371 insofar as it applied to
public temples.
       24. The First Appellate Court has referred to the order of the
High Court in LPA No.36/94 (27.07.1995) in and by which the High
Court has directed to cancel the executive orders dated 18.11.1992 by        G
which the names of the priests were removed from revenue records.
As pointed out by the First Appellate Court, pendency of such matters
would not in any way affect the rights of Deity of Shri Ram Mandir in
the suit properties as Shri Ram Mandir has been recorded as
“Bhumiswami” for the suit properties. As discussed earlier, appellant        H
914                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A     Ram Bali Das was continued to be recorded only as pujari of Shri Ram
      Mandir. As discussed infra, on the application filed by pujari Ram Das,
      Bajrang Das has been appointed as pujari by SDO.
             25. Plaintiff Ram Das himself got the land in the year 1985-86 on
      lease for Rs.860/- from the Government and in this respect, he has signed
B     on the order sheet in case No.93B/121-85-86. An amount of Rs.600/-
      was deposited on 31.07.1986. Thereafter, in the year 1986-87, pujari
      Ram Das got the lease renewed for one year at Rs.860/- out of which
      he has deposited Rs.460/- on 11.11.1987 for which a receipt has been
      issued to pujari Ram Das. The fact that the appellant having taken the
      Mandir lands on lease from the Government clearly shows that the
C     properties were never owned by the pujaris in their individual capacity.
      Having taken the Mandir property on lease from the Government, the
      appellant is estopped from denying that the temple properties are under
      the management and control of the Government. The suit lands have
      been given in the name of Shri Ram Mandir and few other lands in the
D     name of Ganesh Mandir for the arrangement of pooja, archana,
      naivedya, etc. for the public temple and the pujari has no right to
      interfere in the management of these lands as his status is only that of
      pujari.
             26. The finding of the first appellate court and the High Court that
      Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple and not a private one is based upon
E     the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Bajrang Das
      (PW-1) himself has been appointed as pujari by the Government and
      the appellant/plaintiff has not adduced any evidence showing that the
      temple belonged to one particular family. By oral and documentary
      evidence, it is clearly established that the suit lands are recorded in the
F     name of Shri Ram Mandir. Having regard to the findings of the First
      Appellate Court, the High Court rightly held that no substantial question
      of law arose in the Second Appeal. Based upon oral and documentary
      evidence, the First Appellate Court and the High Court have recorded
      the concurrent findings of fact that Shri Ram Mandir is a public temple
      and not a private temple and that the agricultural lands were given to the
G     Deity and not to the pujaris. The impugned judgment does not suffer
      from any infirmity warranting interference and this appeal is liable to be
      dismissed.
              27. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

H     Nidhi Jain                                                  Appeal dismissed.