Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

Justice C. Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court recently ruled that a Private Temple open to the public on certain festive occasions would not convert the temple into a Public Temple, allowing a temple worshipper to maintain a suit relating to titular rights in respect of the temple.

The Single-Judge Bench was hearing a plea filed by Rajesh Giri seeking restoration of Shri Radha Krishna Ji Maharaj’s idol and the conversion of a property in Delhi’s Chandni Chowk area into a temple.

Giri in his plea claimed to be a worshipper and moved the high court to overturn a lower court order dismissing his application for a decree of admission. He stated that the suit property was bequeathed in the name of God by Nikko Bibi, the holder of the titular rights by a registered Will dated November 19, 1930. It was also stated that Nikko Bibi had previously executed a Will dated April 3, 1916, in favor of Shri Shambhu Nath, which was canceled with the execution of the Will dated November 19, 1930.

The plea further stated that the suit property was bequeathed to two trustees, Shambhu Nath and Shankar Nath, in the canceled Will dated April 3, 1916. Based on the said bequest, Shambhu Nath mortgaged the suit property to Anaro Devi on July 28, 1954, and June 1, 1955. It further stated that the other trustee, Shankar Nath, challenged the mortgages in a civil suit, seeking a declaration that the mortgage was invalid because it was prohibited by the Will dated November 19, 1930.

Furthermore, it stated that the said litigation traveled to the High Court, with the Judgment of November 1972, the bench upheld the Will dated November 19, 1930, and held that “while the trustees were entitled to reside in the suit property under the Will, they were not permitted to alienate it.”

Giri alleged that the two respondents in collusion with each other executed a relinquishment deed dated February 17, 2004, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated August 26, 2004, based on which the suit property was transferred to two other Respondents (3 and 5) via Sale Deed in March 2005. The two respondents are said to have bought the property from the other two Respondents (3 and 5) and turned it into a commercial complex.

Giri argued that an application filed by one of the respondents in the case before the trial court stated that the temple was open to the public on certain festive occasions. He also stated that the private temple was open to the general public on the festival of Lord Krishna and Goddess Radha and that the priest was not to prevent anyone from praying on any day.

The Bench while agreeing with the Counsel opined, that a reading of the aforementioned passage reveals no admission that the temple was a public temple and ruled that, "that a private temple may be open to the public on special occasions. That would not convert the temple into a public temple, allowing a temple worshipper to maintain a suit based on titular rights to the temple”.

Court further added that in any case, these are all issues of whether the temple is private or open to the public that can only be resolved after a trial. “There is thus no admission on the part of the respondents, either regarding the petitioner's locus standi to maintain the suit or regarding the Will dated November 19, 1930, and Will dated April 3, 1916, as contended in the plaint,” the court stated.

Accordingly, while dismissing the plea, the court held, “I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ).”

Case Title: Rajesh Giri v. Subhash Mittal & Ors.