Pujari only servant of deity, cannot claim possession over temple land: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has said that a pujari is merely a servant or appointee of a shebait and gains no independent rights.

A bench of Justice JC Doshi made this observation while refusing an appeal filed by a pujari in a suit filed against the illegal temple construction and encroachment made by a pujari.

The owner of a plot had filed the suit after having received invitation card for opening of intended construction of temple on the entrance by the pujari. When the owner went to the suit property, she was informed that construction of the temple was going on and inauguration was scheduled as per the invitation card. After the owner made hue and cry against the illegal construction and encroachment alleged to have been made by the pujari, the defendants did not listen to her plea to remove illegal construction.

Court was told since the Pujari was a disciple of Lord Ganesha and had been appointed as pujari by devotees and that he was performing puja of Lord Ganesh for more than 12 years, he had proprietary right over suit property as well as Ganesh temple.

High Court relied on Supreme Court's decision in State Of Madhya Pradesh Versus Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti, wherein it was observed that temple land owned by deity pujari is neither owner or occupier or can be treated as Bhumiswami.

"..the defendant Pujari has no right to file second appeal challenging order directing removal of the unauthorized construction in form of temple. This finding has also relevancy to the argument that the defendant pujari has matured the title on the principle of adverse possession. This Court noticed growing tendency of claiming title on the basis of adverse possession by the litigant to avoid dispossession. However, in order to claim adverse possession, the litigant requires to plead and prove classic requirement being nec vi, nec clan and nec precario....," Justice Doshi observed.

Court added that the defendant was just ‘pujari’, he had no proprietary right over the suit property, he was not holding any possession being notorious possession adverse to the title of the owner.

"He is not Bhumiswami, he is just servant of deity. A servant thus, has no right to claim that his possession over the suit property is on behalf of his master and matured into title on principle of adverse possession. Noticeable that on this issue, wherein the alleged trustee of the temple did not come forward to claim any proprietary title upon the land on which the temple is constructed. It is the defendant pujari, who is claiming that construction is legal and valid and the suit is barred by law of limitation or he has perfected title on principle of adverse possession..", the High Court added.

The bench found it to be It is unequivocally proved that the construction carried out in the form of temple is on public road approaching to the suit property is completely illegal and unauthorized. "The appellant fails to establish involvement of any question of law much less substantial question of law. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the concurrent findings arrived at by the learned Courts below. This Court normally in second appeal should not interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the learned Courts below except in cases where it is established that the learned Courts below have taken a view which is contrary to settled provisions of law or has totally misred the evidence or perused the judgment on case of no evidence", the judgment further noted.

Case Title: RAMESHBHAI UMAKANT SHARMA vs. ASHABEN KAMLESHKUMAR MODI & ORS.