1

  NON­REPORTABLE   

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5041 OF 2009

Ramesh Das (Dead) Thr.Lrs.         .…Appellant(s)                   

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.               …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

A.S. Bopanna,J.

1.         The appellant herein is the plaintiff in Civil Suit

No.9­A of 1996.   The suit filed by the plaintiff was for the

relief of declaration  and  perpetual injunction.   The trial

court through its judgment dated 14th  October, 1996

decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.   The respondent

herein assailed the same before the lower appellate court in

C.A.No.88­A of 1999.  The lower appellate Court through its

judgment dated 18th May, 2001 set aside the judgment and

decree passed by the trial court.   The plaintiff,  therefore,

claiming to be aggrieved  was before the High Court of

2

Madhya  Pradesh  Bench  at Indore in the  Second  Appeal

filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.   The

same was registered as S.A. No.274 of 2001.   The learned

Judge of the High Court having taken note of the

contentions was of the opinion that the appeal  does not

involve any substantial question of law within the meaning

of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.   Accordingly,

the Second Appeal was dismissed.   Aggrieved the

plaintiff/appellant is before this Court in this appeal.

2.       The factual matrix leading to the suit is the claim of

the plaintiff that Shri Ram Mandir situate at Dedla Village,

Dhar Tehsil is a private temple which belonged to the

forefathers of the plaintiff,  the temple was built out of their

own funds and the idol was installed by them.   It is

contended that the  family of the plaintiff  was performing

the pooja for generations.   It was pleaded in the suit that

the  said  Dedla  Village  was a  Jagir  Village  of the former

Jagirdar.  Since he was the devotee of Shri Ram Mandir the

Jagirdar   gifted 25 bighas of land from his jagir village of

which the land in question bears Survey No.442.   Prior to

3

1974 the name of Shri Ram  Mandir and the name of

Laxmandas, Pujari of Shri Ram Mandir had been continued

in  the Government  records.  The plaintiff  on tracing  the

family tree  has  contended  that  he  has succeeded to the

said temple and the land.   Being the son of the said

Laxmandas  he claims  that  having thus  succeeded  he is

performing the pooja in the temple, he is in possession of

the land and is cultivating the same.   The grievance that

prompted the filing of the suit is that according to the

plaintiff the Sub­Divisional Officer who had no manner of

right over the property, on 29th April, 1992 issued a notice

to auction the land in question for one year.   The revision

filed  by  the  plaintiff  was rejected by  the  Collector  on 1st

September, 1992.   In that view the plaintiff filed the suit

seeking declaration of his title and ownership over the land

and to hold that the defendants cannot auction or

dispossess the plaintiff.

3.      The defendant having appeared in the suit filed a

detailed written statement disputing the claim put forth by

the plaintiff.  The contention of the plaintiff that the temple

4

belongs to the family and the   plaintiff had succeeded as

the pujari was also disputed.   It was contended that the

pujari of the temple is appointed by the Government and

the father of the plaintiff though had performed pooja  in

that regard the plaintiff is not the pujari of the temple as he

has not been appointed nor he has any right and title to the

disputed land.  The manner of claim as put forth in respect

of the  property  was  disputed  and the  Revenue  entry  as

stated by the plaintiff  was explained that such entry was in

the name of the temple and the name of the father of the

plaintiff  Late Laxmandas was only  in the capacity of the

Manager of the temple. The name of the District Collector

has been recorded as Manager in the year 1974 as per the

directions of the State Government.   According to the

respondent, Laxmandas did not make any objection during

his life time on deletion of his name.  When Laxmandas did

not object for such deletion, Ramesh Das has no right to

raise objection.   The auction held on 29th April, 1992 was

sought to be justified as the plaintiff had no right.   It was

further  contended  that the procedure  for  appointment  of

pujari was known to the plaintiff and he had also made an

5

application but since no pujari was appointed for the

temple and the land was not being utilised, the auction was

ordered  for the  benefit  of the temple.   In that  view, the

defendants had sought for dismissal of the suit.

4.       Taking note of the rival contentions, the trial court

framed four issues for its consideration.   The plaintiff

examined himself as PW­1 and relied upon the documents

at Exhibits P­1 to P­13.  He examined one Shri Hari Singh

as PW.2.  The defendants examined the witnesses DW­1

and DW­2 and also relied upon the documents at Exhibit

D. Series.   The trial court on analysing the evidence

accepted the claim put forth by the plaintiff and on relying

upon the revenue documents which were marked by the

plaintiff, decreed the suit by holding that Ram Mandir as

private temple.  The  lower  appellate  court in the  appeal

filed under Section 96 of the Civil  Procedure Code while

reappreciating the evidence  had considered the evidence

and has set aside the judgment of the trial court by holding

that plaintiff  has not adduced any evidence that the suit

temple is a private temple.    The High Court in the appeal

6

filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has

accepted the finding rendered by the lower appellate court

that the plaintiff  failed to prove that the suit temple is a

private temple.

5.      In that  background what  arises for consideration

herein is  as to  whether the  assessment of the evidence

made by the lower appellate court, which was accepted by

the High Court in the Second Appeal is based upon

evidence or as to whether the consideration made by the

trial court is appropriate.   In that regard, though the

plaintiff as PW.1 has claimed that the land and the temple

constructed thereon belongs to their family and in that light

has not only claimed to be the owner of the property and

also contends that  he is the  pujari of the temple,   the

fallacy of such claim is evident in the very pleading as put

forth inasmuch as the claim at the outset is to the effect

that Shri Ram Mandir Temple was built by the forefathers

out of their own  pocket on the land in question.   The

further averment is that the Jagirdar being the devotee of

the Ram Mandir gifted 25 bighas of land from his jagir.  If

7

that be the pleading, as to how the temple was built before

the land as claimed was gifted would not stand answered.

Be that as it may, as rightly observed by the lower appellate

court and the High Court, no document of title to acquire

right and title over the land has been relied upon by the

plaintiff.   The evidence of Shri Hari Singh PW.2 is also to

the said effect and has sought to assert that the people of

the village go  to  the temple  for  darshan and offer  pooja.

That by itself does not prove the status of the land nor the

ownership as claimed by the plaintiff.   Bandobasti Khasra

(Ex.D­1) has been produced by the respondent­defendant

as per which the disputed land had been shown as “Inam

Devasthan”, being of the ownership of the temple and the

pujari has been shown as the Manager.

6.       Though the plaintiff had relied upon the Revenue

entries  which were  marked  in Exhibit  P.Series,  since  we

have already taken note that there is no document of title

relied upon by the plaintiff, the Revenue entries are of no

assistance since as per the well­established position of law

the revenue documents do not create title.  Even otherwise

8

as  stated in the evidence of the  defendants, the entries

initially were in the name of temple and none of the entries

contained the name of the plaintiff.  Though initially the

name of the pujari in that background was indicated, the

Revenue entries were changed to that of the District

Collector in view  of the  Administrative  Order  dated  12th

April, 1974.   According to the respondent­State, the entry

of the name of District Collector as Manager of the temple

properties dated 12.04.1974 has been done pursuant to an

order of the State Government in order to curb the

mismanagement of the temple properties at the hands of

the  pujaris.  When the  name  of the  Collector  has  been

recorded as Manager in the year 1974, Laxmandas did not

make any objection during his life time on deletion of his

name. Despite the plaintiff  claiming right to the property

based on the Revenue entries no grievance had been raised

at any given time earlier to the filing of the present suit.

Even in the suit presently filed  the grievance made is with

regard to the auction dated 29th April, 1992 and the suit

itself was instituted in 1996.

9

7.       As against the contentions put forth by the learned

senior counsel for the plaintiff­appellant contending right of

the plaintiff over the property, the learned counsel for the

respondent, in addition to pointing out the   conclusion

reached  by the lower appellate court as also the  High

Court has relied upon the judgment dated 27th  February,

2019 (2019) 4 SCALE 302  Shri Ram Mandir Indore vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh & Others.   This Court in the

said appeal  was considering a similar claim put  forth  in

respect of the property and had negatived the contention

put forth therein and dismissed the appeal.   What is

necessary to be taken note at the outset is that in the said

case the Shri Ram Mandir Indore was before this Court and

the documents relied upon also referred to the status of the

land and the right claimed by the Mandir.   However, the

claim as made to claim as a private temple was negatived.

In fact, in the instant case as rightly observed by the lower

appellate court the claim is not even by the temple or the

deity but the individual has made claim over the property

as if it is privately owned.   In that background, the High

Court has also taken  note that no document  has been

10

relied  upon by the  plaintiff to  claim ownership  over the

property.

8.         The learned senior counsel on being confronted

with the above aspects has contended that even if in the

absence of  documents of  title,  when the Revenue entries

were to be changed to the name of the District Collector the

same could not have been made based on Administrative

Order dated 12th April, 1974 without giving opportunity to

the person whose name is entered in the Revenue

Registers.   In that regard, the learned senior counsel has

placed reliance  on the judgment  of this  Court  dated  6th

October, 2016 passed in  C.A.No.8554 of 2015 titled as

State Government of Madhya Pradesh. & Ors. vs.

Narsingh Mandir Chikhalda and Ors.    It is  no  doubt

seen in the said judgment that this Court had adverted to

the provision as contained in Section 115 of the M.P. Land

Revenue Code, 1959 and keeping in view the provision had

arrived at the conclusion that any change in the Revenue

entry even to  make correction of a  wrong entry in the

Khasra and any other land records, it can only be done by

11

providing opportunity to the  person in  whose  name the

Revenue entry subsists and is sought to be corrected.  

9.      Notwithstanding the legal  position in that regard

cannot be disputed, the said judgment cannot be applied in

abstract.  We say so for the reason that in the instant case,

as already  noticed  from the evidence as appreciated by the

courts below including the High Court it is evident that no

document of title was relied upon by the plaintiff herein to

establish his claim.   Even the Revenue entry was not

individually in the name of the plaintiff but  was being

claimed based on the entry of his father’s name with that of

the temple.  On the other  hand, in the cited case, the

temple itself was the plaintiff and was claiming the entries

in their name for which the document relied upon was a

registered gift deed dated 20th  June, 1963.   In that

background, it could be assumed that the Revenue entries,

if any, contained in the said case was in the background of

reliance placed on the gift deed and it is in that backdrop

the second substantial question of law relating to the

compliance of issuing notice under Section 115 of the M.P.

12

Land Revenue Code, 1959 had arisen for consideration. The

same was further in the background of the first substantial

question of law that was raised therein relating to the

status of the temple.  In the instant case no substantial

question in the contest of ownership has arisen.  If that be

the position the cited decision would not be of assistance to

the appellant herein.

10.        Referring to Bandobasti Khasra (Ex­D1), the First

Appellate Court held that Ex.­D1 is an important document

in which the disputed land has been shown as “Inam

Devsthan” and being of ownership of the temple and pujari

has been shown as the Manager and later, the name of the

District  Collector,  Dhar  has  been recorded  and the said

position has been continuing.   Based upon the evidence,

the First Appellate Court rightly held that mere statement

of the plaintiff and  Hari Singh­PW­2, cannot prove the

disputed temple  as  a  private temple, the  First  Appellate

Court held that in the Revenue record, the ancestors of the

plaintiff has been shown only as Manager and this position

has been shown in Ex.D­1 also. In that circumstance, in

13

our considered view that as rightly observed by the High

Court in S.A.No.274 of 2001, no substantial question of law

as  contemplated  under  Section  100 of the  Code  of  Civil

Procedure had arisen for consideration.   If that be the

position  no issue  arises for consideration in the instant

appeal as well.

11. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit

stands dismissed with no order as to costs.  

         ……………………….J.                                                   (R. BANUMATHI)

……………………….J.                                               (A.S. BOPANNA)

New Delhi, July 22, 2019