MP High Court Ends 72-Year-Old Shree Ram Mandir Dispute, Holds Shree Ram Absolute Owner, State As Manager

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has partly allowed a decades-old dispute concerning the management of Shree Ram Mandir at Khachrod in Ujjain district, holding that the deity is the absolute owner of the temple and its attached properties, while recognising Ratandas as a duly appointed priest.

Justice Vinay Saraf passed the judgment on August 25, 2026, in First Appeal No. 59 of 1968, which had remained pending for several decades. The appeal was filed by Ratandas, through his legal representatives, against the dismissal of his suit by the trial court in 1968.

The dispute centred on who had the right to manage the temple and whether Ratandas could continue as its priest. The plaintiff claimed that the temple was established by Baba Mayaramdas and that the office of Mahant and priest followed the customs of the Ramanand sect. The Maheshwari community, however, disputed this claim and asserted rights in the temple's management.

The High Court examined the historical record, oral evidence and documents concerning the temple and its management. It noted that Mahant Gopaldas had been the undisputed Mahant and enjoyed Shebait rights. After his death, his disciple Murlidas took over the seat. However, following disputes with members of the Maheshwari community, Murlidas himself approached the Auqaf Department seeking that the temple be brought under its supervision.

The Court found that the State had managed the temple since 1930 through the Auqaf Department, which was later merged into the Revenue Department. The judgment records that the Maheshwari community had also contributed substantially to the development of the temple campus and had gifted constructed rooms, a community hall and other structures to the deity.

A significant issue was Ratandas' appointment after Murlidas' death. The Court accepted evidence that ascetics of the Ramanand sect had nominated Ratandas as Mahant after performing the Bhekh ceremony. The Auqaf Committee subsequently recommended his appointment, and the department appointed him as priest in 1948. His charge was handed over to him on September 12, 1948, though it was later taken back following objections raised by the Maheshwari Panchas.

The Court also rejected the objection that Ratandas lost his right to serve as priest merely because he had married. It observed that the temple was not a Math and that the requirement of remaining a bachelor was not established as an absolute condition for serving as priest. The Court noted that the evidence showed that a married person could perform the duties of Mahant or priest at the temple.

On maintainability, the High Court held that Ratandas was seeking recognition of his right to perform priestly duties and Shebait functions, and was not claiming ownership of the temple. Since the deity was the owner and the State was managing the property, the Court held that there was no requirement for him to seek a separate relief of possession.

The Court ultimately held that the trial court had erred in dismissing the suit. It set aside the 1968 judgment and declared that the deity of Shriram is the absolute owner of Shree Ram Mandir, Ramolla, Khachrod and its movable and immovable properties.

It further declared that the temple is managed by the State through the Revenue Department and that the Auqaf Department had the authority to appoint the priest. The Court specifically held that Ratandas was duly appointed as Pujari and had the right to perform his duties.

However, the Court declined to grant a perpetual injunction against members of the Maheshwari Samaj, recognising them as devotees of the temple. The Court thus distinguished the community's status as devotees from legal control over the shrine and its administration. It therefore partly allowed the appeal and made no order as to costs.

Ratandas was represented by Advocate Rishiraj Trivedi. Government Advocate Anshul Rajpurohit appeared for the State, while Senior Advocate Veer Kumar Jain, assisted by Advocate Makbool Ahmad Mansoori, represented the legal representatives of private respondents.

Case Title: Ratandas S/o Murlidas (Decd.) LRs Maheshdas vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh through the Collector and others

Date of Judgment: August 25, 2026

Bench: Justice Vinay Saraf