SC settles dispute over pujari rights at Amoghasidda temple
The Supreme Court on Wednesday brought the curtains down in a century-old dispute over ancestral pujari rights at a temple in Karnataka, including the right to perform puja of the deity Amoghasidda and receive offerings from devotees.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K Vinod Chandran upheld the Karnataka High Court’s October 2012 verdict and junked the claim of the appellants who, it said, had rested their claim almost entirely on a 1901 decree whose effect was demonstrably undone by their predecessor by instituting the suit for possession in 1944.
A party in settled possession does not sue for possession, and the suit is a categorical admission that the possession was not with them at the relevant point in time, the bench said. “The present list 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.
It said the core controversy centred on who amongst the feuding families constitutes the hereditary ‘wahiwatdar’ pujari entitled to conduct religious ceremonies, receive the offerings from devotees, and hold annual Jatra celebrations at the temple.
The bench said the genesis of the dispute dates back to 1944, when predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, along with others, filed a suit for possession of the temple and other properties.
They had alleged that the other side had entered into possession of the temple property by force and had asserted the right to perform puja.Noting the history of the case, the bench said both the high court and the first appellate court had rendered concurrent findings on the aspect of pujari rights over the temple and held in favour of the respondents.
It noted the appellants had contended that the pujari rights of the temple lie with them as their predecessor had a decree in his favour in a 1901 suit.The bench said both the first appellate court and the high court, while dealing with this issue, had held that though the appellants claim that they have a decree in their favour, they seem conspicuously silent on the fact that they have filed a suit seeking possession and pujari rights in the 1944 suit.
“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.
It said a party setting up a competing claim to hereditary pujari rights is obligated to plead specifically as to when they came into possession of the suit temple, when they commenced performing puja, when and how the respondents began obstructing them, and what steps, if any, they took to vindicate their rights during the long intervening period.
“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.
It noted the respondents have established their claim throughout, through consistent documentary evidence, revenue records and others, that they have been performing puja at the temple as hereditary ‘wahiwatdar’ pujaris.
“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.Finding no perversity in the high court’s judgment, the bench dismissed the appeals.
