The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals in a century-old dispute over hereditary pujari rights at Karnataka’s Amoghasidda Temple. The Court upheld the Karnataka High Court ruling, saying reliance on a 1901 decree was insufficient when possession was not proven.
The Supreme Court of India has finally ended a more than 100-year-old legal battle over ancestral pujari rights at a temple in Karnataka. The dispute was about who has the hereditary right to perform puja of deity Amoghasidda and receive offerings from devotees at the temple located in Mamatti Gudda, Jalgeri, Arkeri in Karnataka.
A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K Vinod Chandran upheld the October 2012 judgment of the Karnataka High Court and dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants. The Court made it clear that the appellants’ claim was mainly based on a decree passed in 1901, but their own later actions weakened that claim.
While explaining the background of the case, the Bench observed,
“The present lis before us is a protracted dispute spanning over a century, wherein the respondents/plaintiffs and the appellants/ defendants lay competing claims to the ancestral pujari rights and the right to perform puja of the deity Amoghasidda – a saint who passed away 600 years ago and his Samadhi was built as a reverence at the temple situated in Mamatti Gudda, Jalgeri, Arkeri, Karnataka,”
the bench noted.
The Court said the main issue in the case was to decide which family is the real hereditary ‘wahiwatdar’ pujari of the temple. The hereditary pujari not only performs daily religious rituals but also receives offerings from devotees and conducts the annual Jatra festival at the temple.
The dispute goes back to 1944, when the predecessor of the present appellants filed a suit claiming possession of the temple and its properties. In that case, they had alleged that the respondents had forcefully taken possession of the temple and started performing puja.
However, both the trial court and the first appellate court, and later the Karnataka High Court, gave concurrent findings in favour of the respondents. The courts held that the respondents had successfully proved their continuous possession and performance of puja as hereditary pujaris.
The appellants argued before the Supreme Court that they had a valid decree in their favour from a 1901 suit which recognised their rights. But the Bench pointed out that their later conduct contradicted this claim.
“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 bench said.
The Court further explained that if someone claims hereditary pujari rights, they must clearly state when they came into possession, when they started performing puja, when obstruction began, and what legal steps they took to protect their rights.
“The written statement of the appellants/defendants is reticent on each of these material particulars. They contend themselves with a bare denial and a reference to the 1901 decree. This is wholly insufficient,”
the bench said.
On the other hand, the respondents were able to show consistent documentary proof, revenue records and other materials establishing that they had been performing puja and managing temple affairs as hereditary ‘wahiwatdar’ pujaris for decades.
“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,”
it said.
The Supreme Court found no error or perversity in the Karnataka High Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeals, thereby putting an end to this long-standing dispute over temple pujari rights in Karnataka. The ruling reinforces the principle that long, continuous possession supported by proper evidence carries more weight than relying only on an old decree without clear proof of actual possession and exercise of rights.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Pujari Rights Case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
