The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore Bench has asserted that in a Hindu temple, the deity is the absolute owner (juristic person) of the temple and all properties attached to it, and the Shebait or Pujari is merely the human custodian and manager who acts as the legal guardian and earthly representative of the deity. The Court held that right of management of a temple taken over by the Auqaf Department (now Revenue Department) vests in the State, and only the Auqaf Department has the authority to appoint or remove the Pujari. At the same time, the Court clarified that the devotees of the temple, even if they have made substantial donations, do not acquire the right to manage the temple or appoint/remove the priest.
The High Court held that a temple which does not have a religious or spiritual institution attached to it cannot be treated as a Math, and therefore the requirement of the priest being a Nihang (bachelor) does not apply, and a married person can also perform the duties of a priest. Accordingly, a suit for declaration of Shebait right and right to perform duties as Pujari is maintainable without seeking the consequential relief of possession, because the property belongs to the deity and is managed by the State through the Collector.
The Shebait right is heritable and can be bequeathed by Will, but such Will must be duly proved as per Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act regarding thirty-year-old documents does not apply to proof of Wills, clarified the Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vinay Saraf observed that the Shree Ram Mandir, Khachrod is an ancient temple having deities of Lord Shree Ram, Jankiji, Laxmanji, Hanumanji, Laxminarayanji and Gopalji, and that the deity is the owner of the entire shrine and the properties attached to it. The Court noted that the plaintiff failed to produce credible documentary evidence to prove that the temple was established by Baba Mayaramdas in Samvat 1584, and the book produced by Narayandas was not a credible document.
The Court held that the Will executed by Mahant Gopaldasji on Dec 19, 1907 did not completely bequeath the Shebait rights to the Panchas of the Maheshwari Community, and that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the Will was obtained by fraud or undue influence. The Court also observed that the agreement dated Apr 28, 1919 executed by Mahant Murlidasji in favour of the Maheshwari Panchas acknowledged the authority of the Panchas, but neither Gopaldasji nor Murlidasji could transfer the Shebait right to the Panchas either by Will or by agreement.
The Court noted that the Auqaf Department had taken over the management of the temple upon the request of Murlidasji himself, and the temple was registered as a government temple. The Court observed that the plaintiff had proved his status as Pujari by oral and documentary evidence, including the Bhekh ceremony performed by the ascetics of the Ramanand Sect and his appointment by the Auqaf Department. Finally, the Court concluded that the suit was maintainable without seeking the relief of possession because the plaintiff was seeking only the Shebait right and not declaration of title. The Court further observed that the cause of action for the suit arose on Nov 27, 1953 when the State replied to the plaintiff’s notice advising him to approach the competent court, and the suit filed within three years therefrom was within limitation.
Briefly, the original plaintiff, Ratandas, filed a civil suit in Dec 1954 before the Court of District Judge, Ujjain seeking a decree of declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of the Shree Ram Mandir situated at Rammohalla, Khachrod, District Ujjain, along with its movable and immovable properties. The plaintiff claimed that the temple was established by his ancestor Baba Mayaramdas in Samvat 1584 and that, as per the lineage customs of the Ramanand Sect, the seat of Mahant descended from Mahant Gopaldasji to his disciple Mahant Murlidasji (the plaintiff’s father), and thereafter to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that Mahant Gopaldasji was induced by members of the Maheshwari Community to execute a will dated Dec 19, 1907 in favour of the Panchas of the Maheshwari Samaj, which was illegal and void.
After disputes arose between Mahant Murlidasji and the Maheshwari Panchas, Murlidasji applied to the Auqaf Department, the management and control of the temple and its properties were taken over by the Auqaf Department under the supervision of the State. After the death of Murlidasji in 1937, the plaintiff was appointed as Pujari by the Auqaf Department on Aug 30, 1948 and was handed over the charge on Sep 12, 1948. The plaintiff alleged interference by the Maheshwari Community members in the management of the temple and filed the suit seeking a declaration that he was entitled to manage the temple and its properties, that the Maheshwari Community had no right, title or interest, and that all orders issued after Sep 12, 1948 were illegal and not binding on him.
The State and the private defendants (representatives of the Maheshwari Community) contested the suit, contending that the temple belonged to the Maheshwari Community, that the plaintiff was merely a licensee/employee of the Auqaf Department, and that the Maheshwari Panchas had the right to appoint or remove the priest. The Trial Court however, dismissed the suit.
